NationStates Jolt Archive

This article makes a lot of sense. Bush's Holy War against Iraq is fuelling islamic extemists, giving them more reason to hate the US. Just what Al-Qaida needs - new recruits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1242561,00.html

No, the war in Iraq is playing into our hands. As the new recruits come, the full might of the US military awaits, cutting them like pines in the Yukon. It'll disrupt the base of operations for al-Qaeda, and hopefully, serve as a reminder that if one enlists in al-Qaeda, they are in for a very, very, very hard life.

Er, what "full might" is that? You mean there's more we haven't thrown at them, other than nukes and death rays? So far, a year after hostilities officially ended in Iraq, we are still losing both Iraqi civilians and Coalition forces. Shouldn't we be doing something about that? Also, nearly three years after the beginning of the War on Terror, terrorist actions rose to an all time high last year. When does this "full might" of the US military swing into action? After another 9/11 that's even worse? It's a nice idea to think that this is "playing into our hands", but every shred of evidence out there says differently.

Er, what "full might" is that? You mean there's more we haven't thrown at them, other than nukes and death rays? So far, a year after hostilities officially ended in Iraq, we are still losing both Iraqi civilians and Coalition forces. Shouldn't we be doing something about that? Also, nearly three years after the beginning of the War on Terror, terrorist actions rose to an all time high last year. When does this "full might" of the US military swing into action? After another 9/11 that's even worse? It's a nice idea to think that this is "playing into our hands", but every shred of evidence out there says differently.
We can't kill anyone unless they try to attack us. Terrorists may have been pouring into the country, but they are met by far superior US and Iraqi forces. Even though our casualties are lamentable, they are very few compared with the casualties suffered by insurgents, most of which are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Also, with the exception of the US's woeful preformance in Fallujah, the terrorists have never really gained ground. Except in Fallujah, no US troop position has been overrun by al-Qaeda.

We can't kill anyone unless they try to attack us. Terrorists may have been pouring into the country, but they are met by far superior US and Iraqi forces. Even though our casualties are lamentable, they are very few compared with the casualties suffered by insurgents, most of which are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Also, with the exception of the US's woeful preformance in Fallujah, the terrorists have never really gained ground. Except in Fallujah, no US troop position has been overrun by al-Qaeda.[/quote]

Head out your ass for a miute son, what about the british? havent we contributed in the slightest? Hell, we only went to war cos icle bushy wanted oil for daddy, and dragged our very own 'chairman' blair into it. and this is the thanks we get?

But see, that's just it, Euclid. They terrorist groups don't have to "overrun" a physical military position. That's not how they're fighting. They don't "pacify" territory, they fight in the mind and can strike anywhere at any time. It's the mindset that matters, not the physical location. For all of our superior military force, the green zone in Baghadad has come under viscious and frequent fire. The interim government is being mown down one by one. Contractors in Saudi Arabia and in the whole of the Middle East can be snatched at any time, and have been. And even here in the US, 9/11 happened.

Terrorisim isn't about land grabs in the traditional sense and it can't be fought that way. Like I've said before, swatting the mosquito of terrorisim with the Buick of the US military force isn't practicle and does more harm than good.

But see, that's just it, Euclid. They terrorist groups don't have to "overrun" a physical military position. That's not how they're fighting. They don't "pacify" territory, they fight in the mind and can strike anywhere at any time. It's the mindset that matters, not the physical location. For all of our superior military force, the green zone in Baghadad has come under viscious and frequent fire. The interim government is being mown down one by one. Contractors in Saudi Arabia and in the whole of the Middle East can be snatched at any time, and have been. And even here in the US, 9/11 happened.

Terrorisim isn't about land grabs in the traditional sense and it can't be fought that way. Like I've said before, swatting the mosquito of terrorisim with the Buick of the US military force isn't practicle and does more harm than good.
What do these terrorists currently in Iraq want? They want the US to leave. To further that goal, they need to make it seem like the US is losing--bigtime. They've done a good job at scaring even the army there out of their minds, but what else have they accomplished? Even most Iraqis don't support this insurrgency, in any form. It can never gain traction unless it has support. Muqtada al-Sadr was the closest, but a.) he never had the full support of the Iraqis, b.) he's backing down, and c.) he's not al-Qaeda, and as long as he's peaceful, he shoulld be of no real concern to the US.
Winning hearts and minds, I'm sure you'll agree, is the best way to defeat this menace. But that'll take a long, long time of US stabilization, and giving Iraq a more representative economy. I hope in the next decade or so, it'll spread throughout the Middle East, and give terrorists fewer and fewer reasons to try recruiting. However, as I've said, it'll take a while. In the mean time, we need to address short term goals of the War on Terror: look tough, and defeat the terrorist structure wherever it may pop up.

We can't kill anyone unless they try to attack us. Terrorists may have been pouring into the country, but they are met by far superior US and Iraqi forces. Even though our casualties are lamentable, they are very few compared with the casualties suffered by insurgents, most of which are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Also, with the exception of the US's woeful preformance in Fallujah, the terrorists have never really gained ground. Except in Fallujah, no US troop position has been overrun by al-Qaeda.

Head out your ass for a miute son, what about the british? havent we contributed in the slightest? Hell, we only went to war cos icle bushy wanted oil for daddy, and dragged our very own 'chairman' blair into it. and this is the thanks we get?[/quote]
The British have contributed a lot. And so have most coalition partners, especially Italy. However, I've avoided the term coalition because Ukraine has preformed rather poorly. Kut was lost to the Mehdi army thanks to Ukranian forces.

We can't kill anyone unless they try to attack us. Terrorists may have been pouring into the country, but they are met by far superior US and Iraqi forces. Even though our casualties are lamentable, they are very few compared with the casualties suffered by insurgents, most of which are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Also, with the exception of the US's woeful preformance in Fallujah, the terrorists have never really gained ground. Except in Fallujah, no US troop position has been overrun by al-Qaeda.

Head out your ass for a miute son, what about the british? havent we contributed in the slightest? Hell, we only went to war cos icle bushy wanted oil for daddy, and dragged our very own 'chairman' blair into it. and this is the thanks we get?[/quote]
The British have contributed a lot. And so have most coalition partners, especially Italy. However, I've avoided the term coalition because Ukraine has preformed rather poorly. Kut was lost to the Mehdi army thanks to Ukranian forces.

Bush has inflamed the entire arab world and threatens to destablize the entire region in the process--hes resurrected the crusades

What do these terrorists currently in Iraq want? They want the US to leave. To further that goal, they need to make it seem like the US is losing--bigtime. They've done a good job at scaring even the army there out of their minds, but what else have they accomplished?

What else do they need to accomplish? They've shown that, in face of the might of the US military, they are still able to inflict heavy losses on both the physical and the mental components and they've showed themselves to be a hydra. We may cut off a head here or there, but we never manage to kill the beast. I assert that this is because we are not fighting the war correctly. Superior force means something when you are dealing with a situation of clearly opposing forces. But when you are targeting the much more insideous cancer of terrorisim, you must change your tactics or risk throwing more fuel onto your own pyre.


Even most Iraqis don't support this insurrgency, in any form. It can never gain traction unless it has support. Muqtada al-Sadr was the closest, but a.) he never had the full support of the Iraqis, b.) he's backing down, and c.) he's not al-Qaeda, and as long as he's peaceful, he shoulld be of no real concern to the US.

But now you're talking about different things. al-Sadr wasn't a terrorist like Bin Laden or al-Qaeda. He was fighting a conventional war with physical location being the prize. We could see him, we knew where he was and we knew which side people were on. Terrorisim doesn't work like that.

Of course most Iraqi's didn't support al-Sadr. They also don't support the continued presence of US military forces over there because they feel like it makes them targets in an invisible war that they can't take any precautions against.


Winning hearts and minds, I'm sure you'll agree, is the best way to defeat this menace. But that'll take a long, long time of US stabilization, and giving Iraq a more representative economy.

But in that "long, long time" we are not "winning hearts and minds." We are occupying and no country on the face of the planet or in the annals of history has ever enjoyed being "occupied" and welcomed the occupiers with open arms and hearts. This occupation is exactly what is causing the surge in terrorist recruitment. The disenfranchised see themselves as powerless in the face of the superior US military. al-Sadr's defeat confirms this. They can't face us in a conventional way, but they can't abide under our occupation. This sense of powerlessness and disenfranchisement is fertile grounds for terrorist recruitment because they have impressive and ghastly examples of how it works. Iraqi's want us out (except for the interim government) and they don't see us leaving and they know they can't force us out so they strike a blow in the only way they feel they have left, through terrorisim.


I hope in the next decade or so, it'll spread throughout the Middle East, and give terrorists fewer and fewer reasons to try recruiting. However, as I've said, it'll take a while.

It also takes better PR than we're doing. The average Iraqi on the street doesn't see us as liberators anymore, if they ever did. They see us as invaders and they will react to us as they have always reacted to invaders in their land, by trying to expell us through any means necessary. It's all good and well to sit here in the states with electricity that works and the knowledge that we have food for our next meals and probably won't be blown up by a car bomb when we go to the movies, but Iraqi's don't have those assurances. They don't have the time to wait.


In the mean time, we need to address short term goals of the War on Terror: look tough, and defeat the terrorist structure wherever it may pop up.

We can look tough all we want, but even Achillies had his heel and terrorisim is ours.

Well, first thing first, I've always had contempt for those who stand up for thier beliefs ,and more often take shots at others, anonomymously. For that reason, I find the source of those comments and the article highly suspect.

Secondly, I think the article, and most people, take(s) too narrow of a view of what is needed to combat and prevent terrorism. People wothout political rights and without the freedom to even express thier opinions have little alternative besides resorting to terrorism to express thier views and try to acomplish thier political goals. Freeing the people in the Middle East is the only way to curb Islamic terrorism, in the long run.

What do these terrorists currently in Iraq want? They want the US to leave. To further that goal, they need to make it seem like the US is losing--bigtime. They've done a good job at scaring even the army there out of their minds, but what else have they accomplished?

What else do they need to accomplish? They've shown that, in face of the might of the US military, they are still able to inflict heavy losses on both the physical and the mental components and they've showed themselves to be a hydra. We may cut off a head here or there, but we never manage to kill the beast. I assert that this is because we are not fighting the war correctly. Superior force means something when you are dealing with a situation of clearly opposing forces. But when you are targeting the much more insideous cancer of terrorisim, you must change your tactics or risk throwing more fuel onto your own pyre.


Even most Iraqis don't support this insurrgency, in any form. It can never gain traction unless it has support. Muqtada al-Sadr was the closest, but a.) he never had the full support of the Iraqis, b.) he's backing down, and c.) he's not al-Qaeda, and as long as he's peaceful, he shoulld be of no real concern to the US.

But now you're talking about different things. al-Sadr wasn't a terrorist like Bin Laden or al-Qaeda. He was fighting a conventional war with physical location being the prize. We could see him, we knew where he was and we knew which side people were on. Terrorisim doesn't work like that.

Of course most Iraqi's didn't support al-Sadr. They also don't support the continued presence of US military forces over there because they feel like it makes them targets in an invisible war that they can't take any precautions against.


Winning hearts and minds, I'm sure you'll agree, is the best way to defeat this menace. But that'll take a long, long time of US stabilization, and giving Iraq a more representative economy.

But in that "long, long time" we are not "winning hearts and minds." We are occupying and no country on the face of the planet or in the annals of history has ever enjoyed being "occupied" and welcomed the occupiers with open arms and hearts. This occupation is exactly what is causing the surge in terrorist recruitment. The disenfranchised see themselves as powerless in the face of the superior US military. al-Sadr's defeat confirms this. They can't face us in a conventional way, but they can't abide under our occupation. This sense of powerlessness and disenfranchisement is fertile grounds for terrorist recruitment because they have impressive and ghastly examples of how it works. Iraqi's want us out (except for the interim government) and they don't see us leaving and they know they can't force us out so they strike a blow in the only way they feel they have left, through terrorisim.


I hope in the next decade or so, it'll spread throughout the Middle East, and give terrorists fewer and fewer reasons to try recruiting. However, as I've said, it'll take a while.

It also takes better PR than we're doing. The average Iraqi on the street doesn't see us as liberators anymore, if they ever did. They see us as invaders and they will react to us as they have always reacted to invaders in their land, by trying to expell us through any means necessary. It's all good and well to sit here in the states with electricity that works and the knowledge that we have food for our next meals and probably won't be blown up by a car bomb when we go to the movies, but Iraqi's don't have those assurances. They don't have the time to wait.


In the mean time, we need to address short term goals of the War on Terror: look tough, and defeat the terrorist structure wherever it may pop up.

We can look tough all we want, but even Achillies had his heel and terrorisim is ours.
First off, what else does al-Qaeda need to do in order to win? A lot. Perhaps our generals are fond of retreating, but our soldiers are not. I know plenty of soldiers back from Iraq that can back me up.
Second, addressing the hearts and minds issue, this occupation is neccessary to support the government. Until a pernament government can be established by January of 2006, it'll be rocky for all of us, and the situation may, unfortunatly, degenarate. However, after that, US troops will be huddled only in a few small bases across the country, Iraq should be free and prospering, and the occupation should seem like a distant memory for most Iraqis. Then, a lot of changes in the Middle East should happen, but even if they turn up as hostile to the US, they still won't have any reason to physically attack us. The terrorists will be nonexistent.

What do these terrorists currently in Iraq want? They want the US to leave. To further that goal, they need to make it seem like the US is losing--bigtime. They've done a good job at scaring even the army there out of their minds, but what else have they accomplished?

What else do they need to accomplish? They've shown that, in face of the might of the US military, they are still able to inflict heavy losses on both the physical and the mental components and they've showed themselves to be a hydra. We may cut off a head here or there, but we never manage to kill the beast. I assert that this is because we are not fighting the war correctly. Superior force means something when you are dealing with a situation of clearly opposing forces. But when you are targeting the much more insideous cancer of terrorisim, you must change your tactics or risk throwing more fuel onto your own pyre.


Even most Iraqis don't support this insurrgency, in any form. It can never gain traction unless it has support. Muqtada al-Sadr was the closest, but a.) he never had the full support of the Iraqis, b.) he's backing down, and c.) he's not al-Qaeda, and as long as he's peaceful, he shoulld be of no real concern to the US.

But now you're talking about different things. al-Sadr wasn't a terrorist like Bin Laden or al-Qaeda. He was fighting a conventional war with physical location being the prize. We could see him, we knew where he was and we knew which side people were on. Terrorisim doesn't work like that.

Of course most Iraqi's didn't support al-Sadr. They also don't support the continued presence of US military forces over there because they feel like it makes them targets in an invisible war that they can't take any precautions against.


Winning hearts and minds, I'm sure you'll agree, is the best way to defeat this menace. But that'll take a long, long time of US stabilization, and giving Iraq a more representative economy.

But in that "long, long time" we are not "winning hearts and minds." We are occupying and no country on the face of the planet or in the annals of history has ever enjoyed being "occupied" and welcomed the occupiers with open arms and hearts. This occupation is exactly what is causing the surge in terrorist recruitment. The disenfranchised see themselves as powerless in the face of the superior US military. al-Sadr's defeat confirms this. They can't face us in a conventional way, but they can't abide under our occupation. This sense of powerlessness and disenfranchisement is fertile grounds for terrorist recruitment because they have impressive and ghastly examples of how it works. Iraqi's want us out (except for the interim government) and they don't see us leaving and they know they can't force us out so they strike a blow in the only way they feel they have left, through terrorisim.


I hope in the next decade or so, it'll spread throughout the Middle East, and give terrorists fewer and fewer reasons to try recruiting. However, as I've said, it'll take a while.

It also takes better PR than we're doing. The average Iraqi on the street doesn't see us as liberators anymore, if they ever did. They see us as invaders and they will react to us as they have always reacted to invaders in their land, by trying to expell us through any means necessary. It's all good and well to sit here in the states with electricity that works and the knowledge that we have food for our next meals and probably won't be blown up by a car bomb when we go to the movies, but Iraqi's don't have those assurances. They don't have the time to wait.


In the mean time, we need to address short term goals of the War on Terror: look tough, and defeat the terrorist structure wherever it may pop up.

We can look tough all we want, but even Achillies had his heel and terrorisim is ours.
First off, what else does al-Qaeda need to do in order to win? A lot. Perhaps our generals are fond of retreating, but our soldiers are not. I know plenty of soldiers back from Iraq that can back me up.
Second, addressing the hearts and minds issue, this occupation is neccessary to support the government. Until a pernament government can be established by January of 2006, it'll be rocky for all of us, and the situation may, unfortunatly, degenarate. However, after that, US troops will be huddled only in a few small bases across the country, Iraq should be free and prospering, and the occupation should seem like a distant memory for most Iraqis. Then, a lot of changes in the Middle East should happen, but even if they turn up as hostile to the US, they still won't have any reason to physically attack us. The terrorists will be nonexistent.

Completely ignoring arguements in here for or against the war in Iraq (because I'm not so sure where to stand, and want to see for my self), I believe we have not even lost a single % of troops in Iraq, maybe just over or under 1%.

That said, from a military stand point we are doing good. It is media hype from everywhere, I feel anways, that is causing us to have 'lost' the war. And this war is easy to justify, yet I'm not sure if we should meddle in Mid Eastern affairs. I believe that sarin shell in Baghdad (or where ever in Iraq) could be the WMD we said Saddam had. Even if it isn't, clearly Saddam was not the nicest of people. Look at the torture chambers and mass graves we have found. That said, the prisoner abuse scandal was not good either; I would have put harsh penalties on the MPs that did that (among them was a woman, proof women can be just as evil as men for the uber-feminists out there..).

But after Iraq and Afghanistan are finally secured, I say we just not invade anyone in the Mid-easy anytime soon. If anyone, North Korea and China are the more pressing issues. The drain on US manpower in the Far East has our ass in that region exposed. If China wants Taiwan, they got an oportunity, as does North Korea for the South.

This has been a rant, please point out any glaring mistakes for me.

First off, what else does al-Qaeda need to do in order to win? A lot. Perhaps our generals are fond of retreating, but our soldiers are not. I know plenty of soldiers back from Iraq that can back me up.

Like I said, though, we're doing a sort of Sysiphus here, endlessly pushing a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down as squash us. I'm not calling the courage or bravery of our troops into question. If anything I have said can be construed that way, I apologize because that was never my intent. I'm suggesting that they are being asked to fight and die in a war that is "unwinable" using traditional tactics. I have no doubt in my mind that if the US forces and the Al Qaeda aligned forces were set apart from one another on a battlefield and told to charge, the US forces would win. The problem is this battle doesn't have that. It never truly did. The US forces can walk down a street in Baghdad, armed to the teeth, but never know where the pipe bomb or gun shot may come from. Every face represents a potential enemy, every person on the street may be harboring some dark secret. In reality, a vanishingly small number of them are, but it only takes one. And while that US force person is walking down the street, all the Iraqis see is a foriegner who has brought yet more war and destablization to their country and now refuses to leave.


Second, addressing the hearts and minds issue, this occupation is neccessary to support the government. Until a pernament government can be established by January of 2006, it'll be rocky for all of us, and the situation may, unfortunatly, degenarate. However, after that, US troops will be huddled only in a few small bases across the country, Iraq should be free and prospering, and the occupation should seem like a distant memory for most Iraqis. Then, a lot of changes in the Middle East should happen, but even if they turn up as hostile to the US, they still won't have any reason to physically attack us. The terrorists will be nonexistent.

I sincerely hope that happens. I really do. Perhaps it will. Let's hope that the Iraqis can last that long without harboring deep seated resentment at the US. Let's hope that as soon as a government is established (which it should be with the elections in 2005, not 2006), all desire to oust US citizens and armed forces and any venom Iraqi's and Middle Easterners in general have towards the US will magically wash away.

History has told us this isn't true, however. Perhaps this time will be different.

First off, what else does al-Qaeda need to do in order to win? A lot. Perhaps our generals are fond of retreating, but our soldiers are not. I know plenty of soldiers back from Iraq that can back me up.

Like I said, though, we're doing a sort of Sysiphus here, endlessly pushing a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down as squash us. I'm not calling the courage or bravery of our troops into question. If anything I have said can be construed that way, I apologize because that was never my intent. I'm suggesting that they are being asked to fight and die in a war that is "unwinable" using traditional tactics. I have no doubt in my mind that if the US forces and the Al Qaeda aligned forces were set apart from one another on a battlefield and told to charge, the US forces would win. The problem is this battle doesn't have that. It never truly did. The US forces can walk down a street in Baghdad, armed to the teeth, but never know where the pipe bomb or gun shot may come from. Every face represents a potential enemy, every person on the street may be harboring some dark secret. In reality, a vanishingly small number of them are, but it only takes one. And while that US force person is walking down the street, all the Iraqis see is a foriegner who has brought yet more war and destablization to their country and now refuses to leave.


Second, addressing the hearts and minds issue, this occupation is neccessary to support the government. Until a pernament government can be established by January of 2006, it'll be rocky for all of us, and the situation may, unfortunatly, degenarate. However, after that, US troops will be huddled only in a few small bases across the country, Iraq should be free and prospering, and the occupation should seem like a distant memory for most Iraqis. Then, a lot of changes in the Middle East should happen, but even if they turn up as hostile to the US, they still won't have any reason to physically attack us. The terrorists will be nonexistent.

I sincerely hope that happens. I really do. Perhaps it will. Let's hope that the Iraqis can last that long without harboring deep seated resentment at the US. Let's hope that as soon as a government is established (which it should be with the elections in 2005, not 2006), all desire to oust US citizens and armed forces and any venom Iraqi's and Middle Easterners in general have towards the US will magically wash away.

History has told us this isn't true, however. Perhaps this time will be different.
I was just saying 2006 because the Iraqis need a little bit of time to simmer down. I don't blame them. I think that the current situation is certainly something any sane man would get anxious about, even though, right now, it isn't a life or death situation for the bulk of Iraqis.
Anyhow, come December of 2005, when a pernament government should take over, the Iraqis should be more prosperous, and see a marked improvement in their lives. It'll give less reason for the terroristis to operate in that country, and they know it. However, as that date approaches, they get more desparate, and they'll start attacking more. Abu Musab al-Zaqari himself wrote to bin Laden that there's little chance of sucess by June 30, but they sure as hell will try to make Iraq a state of total anarchy.
And that, I think, is the crux of your post: how do we keep the terrorists at bay? Militarily, I'm a traditionalist, and I favor traditional tactics. Most importantly is border security and facilty defense. Those pipelines that are sabotaged may be even more vital to Iraq's future than electricity, and they need to be better protected. Power and sewage plants should also be protected, as well as government offices. However, police stations and local government offices should be guarded by Iraqi security forces, as we can't hold their hands forever. Occasional patrols into areas that are known to harbor terrorists wouldn't be a bad idea. Even if a few troops are killed, the terrorists would never dare engage large groups of soldiers. Our soldiers, however, would be more effective if they could call in support in the form of helicopter gunships. These tactics have been time tested on guerilla war, and they aren't as deadly as the British during the Boer Wars. I feel that even if it doesn't stop terrorists, it'll stop their constant campaign of psychological warfare.

yeah, i think Iraq has most benefitted terrorists and extremist, far more than it has helped the Iraqis or Americans or anybody else. it's weakened America and our reputations, it's outraged and divided our citizens, it's shredded the Constitution, and our fear (or "terror," if you will) is at an all-time high.

yeah, i think Iraq has most benefitted terrorists and extremist, far more than it has helped the Iraqis or Americans or anybody else. it's weakened America and our reputations, it's outraged and divided our citizens, it's shredded the Constitution, and our fear (or "terror," if you will) is at an all-time high.

The war has brough the terrorists to us and we are killing them. It hasn't shredded the Constitution. Condress did authorize it incase you forgot!

Al Qaeda should be rooting for Kerry. He is their biggest supporter. If Kerry wins, our military will be able to do crap without a paper from the UN saying we can attack so and so!

Think i'm kidding? i'm not!

yeah, i think Iraq has most benefitted terrorists and extremist, far more than it has helped the Iraqis or Americans or anybody else. it's weakened America and our reputations, it's outraged and divided our citizens, it's shredded the Constitution, and our fear (or "terror," if you will) is at an all-time high.

The war has brough the terrorists to us and we are killing them. It hasn't shredded the Constitution. Condress did authorize it incase you forgot!

Al Qaeda should be rooting for Kerry. He is their biggest supporter. If Kerry wins, our military will be able to do crap without a paper from the UN saying we can attack so and so!

Think i'm kidding? i'm not!

No, I don't think you're kidding, which is what is sad.

yeah, i think Iraq has most benefitted terrorists and extremist, far more than it has helped the Iraqis or Americans or anybody else. it's weakened America and our reputations, it's outraged and divided our citizens, it's shredded the Constitution, and our fear (or "terror," if you will) is at an all-time high.

The war has brough the terrorists to us and we are killing them. It hasn't shredded the Constitution. Condress did authorize it incase you forgot!

Al Qaeda should be rooting for Kerry. He is their biggest supporter. If Kerry wins, our military will be able to do crap without a paper from the UN saying we can attack so and so!

Think i'm kidding? i'm not!

No, I don't think you're kidding, which is what is sad.

right with you, Berk. i honestly wish that i could blame America's misadventures on this administration, but the sad fact is that the country is full of people who are eager to believe and follow the hype.

No, I don't think you're kidding, which is what is sad.

right with you, Berk. i honestly wish that i could blame America's misadventures on this administration, but the sad fact is that the country is full of people who are eager to believe and follow the hype.[/quote]

This is sadly true, although I think the tide is changing. Like Jefferson said, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." People are getting more information now and becoming less and less convinced that what the Bush administration is doing is the best course for this country. At least, I hope this is true.

No, I don't think you're kidding, which is what is sad.

right with you, Berk. i honestly wish that i could blame America's misadventures on this administration, but the sad fact is that the country is full of people who are eager to believe and follow the hype.

This is sadly true, although I think the tide is changing. Like Jefferson said, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." People are getting more information now and becoming less and less convinced that what the Bush administration is doing is the best course for this country. At least, I hope this is true.[/quote]
Well, these people haven't convinced me yet, and I'm pretty sure they can't do it in the near future.

Fair enough, Euclid, but at least you can give rational, well thought out and researched reasons for why you believe as you do. That means we can at least have a dialog and possibly reach a compromise. Posts like Formal Dances, however, lack all of that and make me question Jefferson's approval of the common man.

Fair enough, Euclid, but at least you can give rational, well thought out and researched reasons for why you believe as you do. That means we can at least have a dialog and possibly reach a compromise. Posts like Formal Dances, however, lack all of that and make me question Jefferson's approval of the common man.

What was wrong with my post? It did get down to the heart of the matter.

Fair enough, Euclid, but at least you can give rational, well thought out and researched reasons for why you believe as you do. That means we can at least have a dialog and possibly reach a compromise. Posts like Formal Dances, however, lack all of that and make me question Jefferson's approval of the common man.

What was wrong with my post? It did get down to the heart of the matter.

No it didn't. You made some weird assertion that the War on Terror was approved by Congress (which you misspelled quite amusingly like you were combining Condi Rice and Congress into "Condress"). Then you went into some sort of tirade about Al-Qaeda supporting Kerry or something.

Not once did you offer a fact, a piece of evidence or any sort of rational argument designed to sway the views of those around you.

So that, in short, was what was wrong with your post. Thank you for playing NationStates.

Fair enough, Euclid, but at least you can give rational, well thought out and researched reasons for why you believe as you do. That means we can at least have a dialog and possibly reach a compromise. Posts like Formal Dances, however, lack all of that and make me question Jefferson's approval of the common man.

What was wrong with my post? It did get down to the heart of the matter.

No it didn't. You made some weird assertion that the War on Terror was approved by Congress (which you misspelled quite amusingly like you were combining Condi Rice and Congress into "Condress"). Then you went into some sort of tirade about Al-Qaeda supporting Kerry or something.

Not once did you offer a fact, a piece of evidence or any sort of rational argument designed to sway the views of those around you.

So that, in short, was what was wrong with your post. Thank you for playing NationStates.

Ok so my fingers are roaming. sue me it is 1046 at night!

Al Qaeda isn't supporting Kerry, they are rooting for him because he is a UN loving person. He won't do nothing unless he has international Support. That means the UN! Bush has international Support. Yes some where on the sidelines, but the mere fact that he had support from such nations is proof that he had internation support in Iraq to begin with. Just no SECOND UN RESOLUTION. He got the first but France Balk so we pulled. (Stocks went up 300 points too but that is beside the point! Again thanks mom for getting me into business :D)

If we have to rely on the UN for every attack into another country, either with their government support or to kick them out of power, nothing will get done and we'll be back to square one all over again. Bush is doing something about it all. Bush is taking the fight to the enemy and the Enemy is lashing out like a wounded animal that it is. Yes they may have got new recruits, that is inevitable. We'll deal with them as they come out of their holes and attack us.

Fair enough, Euclid, but at least you can give rational, well thought out and researched reasons for why you believe as you do. That means we can at least have a dialog and possibly reach a compromise. Posts like Formal Dances, however, lack all of that and make me question Jefferson's approval of the common man.
Well, at least he has passion.

Fair enough, Euclid, but at least you can give rational, well thought out and researched reasons for why you believe as you do. That means we can at least have a dialog and possibly reach a compromise. Posts like Formal Dances, however, lack all of that and make me question Jefferson's approval of the common man.
Well, at least he has passion.

Yes, but too bad he lacks facts or coherent arguments.

Fair enough, Euclid, but at least you can give rational, well thought out and researched reasons for why you believe as you do. That means we can at least have a dialog and possibly reach a compromise. Posts like Formal Dances, however, lack all of that and make me question Jefferson's approval of the common man.
Well, at least he has passion.

Yes, but too bad he lacks facts or coherent arguments.

If your talking about me, I'm a she not a he (giggles) I'll try to explain myself better in the future but I think I tried to clarify it up in my previous post.

This article makes a lot of sense. Bush's Holy War against Iraq is fuelling islamic extemists, giving them more reason to hate the US. Just what Al-Qaida needs - new recruits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1242561,00.html

Inflamed the Arabs? Please...quit being so partisan or ignorant!

Who and what inflamed the "terrorists" to attack us on September 11th? Who provoked them? There was no Iraq war, there was no war in Afghanistan, in fact all there was, was a complete acceptance for whatever the terrorists brought upon us back then. Did you already forget about the First WTC bombing? Have you forgotten the US embassy bombings? Have you forgotten the attack on the USS Cole? We did not provoke the terrorists back then, there was virtually no response from our government. Yet the terrorists attacked us all the same; killing thousands of our innocent citizens, and crippling our economy for years.

When will you finally decide to do something about the terrorists (whoever they may be?) Do we have to wait for another attack like 9/11 or worse? Who will you blame then? Maybe you'll just sit back and think that you can be safe by not doing anything. This policy didn't work under Clinton's watch. Case in point, look at the problems in Saudi Arabia these days. They were not in on the war in Iraq...we had to launch our attacks out of Qatar. Yet guess what? This nation, Saudi Arabia, who appeased the terrorists for so many decades is now being attacked as well.

Fair enough, Euclid, but at least you can give rational, well thought out and researched reasons for why you believe as you do. That means we can at least have a dialog and possibly reach a compromise. Posts like Formal Dances, however, lack all of that and make me question Jefferson's approval of the common man.
Well, at least he has passion.

Yes, but too bad he lacks facts or coherent arguments.

If your talking about me, I'm a she not a he (giggles) I'll try to explain myself better in the future but I think I tried to clarify it up in my previous post.
Sorry about that. I'll bear that in mind.

Ok so my fingers are roaming. sue me it is 1046 at night!

Then spend the time doing some research and getting informed instead of posting pure supposition.


Al Qaeda isn't supporting Kerry, they are rooting for him because he is a UN loving person. He won't do nothing unless he has international Support. That means the UN! Bush has international Support. Yes some where on the sidelines, but the mere fact that he had support from such nations is proof that he had internation support in Iraq to begin with. Just no SECOND UN RESOLUTION. He got the first but France Balk so we pulled. (Stocks went up 300 points too but that is beside the point! Again thanks mom for getting me into business :D)

Um, what? Since when was getting international consensus a bad thing when talking about invading another country on trumped up and now provenly-false charges? Are you saying it would be okay if, oh, I don't know, Russia were to invade the US claiming that our democracy was being usurped by an unjust election?

The UN serves is our best hope of peacfully and rationally settling differences without having to shed the blood of innocents so that a few ivory tower politicians can have a dick measuring contest. Is it flawed? Of course it is, but seeking cooperation over conflict is still a noble goal and one to be respected. As for what Kerry would have done in the same situation, that's complete rhetoric and supposition. He might very well have done the same damn thing. It is to be hoped that Gore might have managed to use the long forgotten art of diplomacy to bring nations into accord on an action for Iraq, but even that is simply guess work because the fact is that Bush not only acted without UN approval to supposedly defend it's own resolution, but he then proceeded to piss off every other country on the planet because they would lock step with him. That's the reality of today and the legacy Bush has left the US with. Severely diminished credibility and a tarnished reputation.


If we have to rely on the UN for every attack into another country, either with their government support or to kick them out of power, nothing will get done and we'll be back to square one all over again.

So we should just invade whoever we like for whatever reasons we have at the time and not expect the rest of the world to get a little upset by that?


Bush is doing something about it all.

Yeah, getting American soldiers killed, as well as Iraqi civilians, while increasing terrorist activity around the globe (as the recent CIA report so graphically has shown). Excellent plan, that.


Bush is taking the fight to the enemy and the Enemy is lashing out like a wounded animal that it is.

The trouble is Bush is picking on the wrong enemy. Going into Afghanistan in pursuit of Bin Laden and removing a terrorist supporting Taliban was one thing. Forcing regime change on Iraq using false charges of WMD possession and terrorist links in something else entirely.


Yes they may have got new recruits, that is inevitable. We'll deal with them as they come out of their holes and attack us.

How about we deal with them before they attack us? How about we develop policies and programs that don't make people want to attack us in the first place? How about we repair the damage done to the US image so people don't see us as the enemy and instead see us as a land of opportunity and freedom? How about we choose our conflicts in accordance with common sense and not some yahoo-warmongering policy that was being cooked up before 9/11 even occured?

Frankly, over 3000 lives lost on 9/11 are enough for me. I don't think successful policy relies on waiting for the terrorists to kill more innocent people just so we can cut off these few hydra heads while doing nothing to strike at the body. Not through invasion or occupation, but through understanding and tension reducing. It may be harder in the short term to focus on stemming the tide of terrorist creation through peaceful means, but in the long term it is far more profitable than waiting for an endless supply of new terrorisim threats to emerge in violent displays of death just so we can kill them.

Ok so my fingers are roaming. sue me it is 1046 at night!

Then spend the time doing some research and getting informed instead of posting pure supposition.


Al Qaeda isn't supporting Kerry, they are rooting for him because he is a UN loving person. He won't do nothing unless he has international Support. That means the UN! Bush has international Support. Yes some where on the sidelines, but the mere fact that he had support from such nations is proof that he had internation support in Iraq to begin with. Just no SECOND UN RESOLUTION. He got the first but France Balk so we pulled. (Stocks went up 300 points too but that is beside the point! Again thanks mom for getting me into business :D)

Um, what? Since when was getting international consensus a bad thing when talking about invading another country on trumped up and now provenly-false charges? Are you saying it would be okay if, oh, I don't know, Russia were to invade the US claiming that our democracy was being usurped by an unjust election?

The UN serves is our best hope of peacfully and rationally settling differences without having to shed the blood of innocents so that a few ivory tower politicians can have a dick measuring contest. Is it flawed? Of course it is, but seeking cooperation over conflict is still a noble goal and one to be respected. As for what Kerry would have done in the same situation, that's complete rhetoric and supposition. He might very well have done the same damn thing. It is to be hoped that Gore might have managed to use the long forgotten art of diplomacy to bring nations into accord on an action for Iraq, but even that is simply guess work because the fact is that Bush not only acted without UN approval to supposedly defend it's own resolution, but he then proceeded to piss off every other country on the planet because they would lock step with him. That's the reality of today and the legacy Bush has left the US with. Severely diminished credibility and a tarnished reputation.


If we have to rely on the UN for every attack into another country, either with their government support or to kick them out of power, nothing will get done and we'll be back to square one all over again.

So we should just invade whoever we like for whatever reasons we have at the time and not expect the rest of the world to get a little upset by that?


Bush is doing something about it all.

Yeah, getting American soldiers killed, as well as Iraqi civilians, while increasing terrorist activity around the globe (as the recent CIA report so graphically has shown). Excellent plan, that.


Bush is taking the fight to the enemy and the Enemy is lashing out like a wounded animal that it is.

The trouble is Bush is picking on the wrong enemy. Going into Afghanistan in pursuit of Bin Laden and removing a terrorist supporting Taliban was one thing. Forcing regime change on Iraq using false charges of WMD possession and terrorist links in something else entirely.


Yes they may have got new recruits, that is inevitable. We'll deal with them as they come out of their holes and attack us.

How about we deal with them before they attack us? How about we develop policies and programs that don't make people want to attack us in the first place? How about we repair the damage done to the US image so people don't see us as the enemy and instead see us as a land of opportunity and freedom? How about we choose our conflicts in accordance with common sense and not some yahoo-warmongering policy that was being cooked up before 9/11 even occured?

Frankly, over 3000 lives lost on 9/11 are enough for me. I don't think successful policy relies on waiting for the terrorists to kill more innocent people just so we can cut off these few hydra heads while doing nothing to strike at the body. Not through invasion or occupation, but through understanding and tension reducing. It may be harder in the short term to focus on stemming the tide of terrorist creation through peaceful means, but in the long term it is far more profitable than waiting for an endless supply of new terrorisim threats to emerge in violent displays of death just so we can kill them.

Well we all have our opinions on the matter. I respect you for your opinion. Thank you forgiving it. Sorry imy arguements seem round about. I am only 15yo.

Al Qaeda isn't supporting Kerry, they are rooting for him because he is a UN loving person.

What evidence do you have for Al Qaeda's support of Kerry? Several other people - including a senior intelligence agent - have pointed out that Bush is playing into Al Qaeda's hands, and is well on their way to granting two of their major goals. (First US troops out of Saudi, now more expensive gas.)

He won't do nothing unless he has international Support. That means the UN!

This is completely incorrect. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/)

I say the following and I say it very clearly, I will never cede the security of the United States to any institution and I will never cede our security to any other country. No country will have a veto over what we need to do to protect ourselves. But, that said, I will be a president who understands, as every president of the last century did, Tim, that multilaterism is not weakness, it is strength, and we need a president who understands how to reach out to other countries, build alliances. His father did a brilliant job of it. We
need to do the kind of alliance-building that we have done traditionally.


You have built your entire argument's foundation upon the sand of right-wing lies. Those of us who remember Bush I's very impressive coalition-building know full well the difference between that coalition and the united might of MIcronesia and El Salvador.

He got the first but France Balk so we pulled. (Stocks went up 300 points too but that is beside the point! Again thanks mom for getting me into business :D)

France balked because they wanted to give inspectors more time to find WMD so that Iraq could be disarmed for a cost of millions of dollars and without spending lives. You do remember WMD, right? Can you imagine any reason why the Bush administration wasn't willing to wait past the summer to let inspections work?

I'm also pleased to see that you consider the loss of almost a thousand American lives, over ten thousand Iraqi lives, and the medical evacuation of over ten thousand American troops to be worth some stock market gains.

Inflamed the Arabs? Please...quit being so partisan or ignorant!

Who and what inflamed the "terrorists" to attack us on September 11th?

1. US troops in Saudi Arabia (several years past our welcome wearing out), home to Islam's two holiest sites.
2. The West running itself on oil at what they felt was unreasonably cheap prices
3. Support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians
4. Western support for brutal dictatorships in the middle east, not excluding the Shah but including Saddam Hussein.

Also, some people might be upset that we abandoned Afghanistan to a bunch of violent rapist hicks (later called the Northern Alliance), leading to a power vacuum filled by violent ignorant hicks (a/k/a the Taliban).

It's all in the public record, whether or not you agree with them. History didn't start on 9/11.

Inflamed the Arabs? Please...quit being so partisan or ignorant!

Who and what inflamed the "terrorists" to attack us on September 11th?

1. US troops in Saudi Arabia (several years past our welcome wearing out), home to Islam's two holiest sites.
2. The West running itself on oil at what they felt was unreasonably cheap prices
3. Support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians
4. Western support for brutal dictatorships in the middle east, not excluding the Shah but including Saddam Hussein.

Also, some people might be upset that we abandoned Afghanistan to a bunch of violent rapist hicks (later called the Northern Alliance), leading to a power vacuum filled by violent ignorant hicks (a/k/a the Taliban).

It's all in the public record, whether or not you agree with them. History didn't start on 9/11. Besides support for Israel, all of those are fairly recent. What brought on the Abar contempt and hatred before those?

Besides support for Israel, all of those are fairly recent. What brought on the Abar contempt and hatred before those?

It depends on what you mean by 'recent'. If you mean since the 40's or so, colonialism. Remember that the US was directly involved in overthrowing a democratic Iranian govenrment and replacing him with the Shah, and other colonial powers had been throwing their weight around since WWI. Thanks to the Ottoman Empire, the whole region missed the Renaissance. (Same thing is true for the Balkans, too.)

You are right that the US deployment of troops in Saudi is pretty recent. You'll also note that it predates the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, and 9/11. Almost as if things got worse...

There's also a severe demographic imbalance going on, with a lot of young men with no jobs and no future all over the middle east. (Saudi Arabia has massive unemployment as well as massive numbers of foreign workers, mostly from India and Pakistan.)

I am, however, a bit curious about which earlier examples of Abar contempt and hatred you're talking about.

[edit - fixed parenthetical comment]

The United States is a soveriegn nation. As such, it has the right and duty to go to war if ever there is reason to believe it's threatened; just like every other country. If Russia had evidence that another country was a threat, it has the perfect right to attack that other nation with or without the support of the UN.
And, there was every reason to believe Saddam was a threat.
Al Queda attacked on 9/11. And so the Taliban, who supported and backed the terrorists was eliminated. After the battles of Afghanistan, an Al Queda leader named Zarqawi fled to Iraq and receieved medical treatment in a hospital run by one Saddam's sons. In Northern Iraq there was an Al Queda training camp. Closer to Baghdad was a grounded 737 that was used to train hijackers. Saddam has given funding, training, and personnel to Al Queda in the past. There are plenty of connections between the terrorists and Saddam.
Leading up to the invasion every intelligence network in the world was claiming Saddam had WMDs. Even the United States' major opponents believed it was so. How do I know this? Look at the reasons they gave to try to block military action. Did they ever claim that Saddam had destroyed his supply of bio/chem weapons? No. They only asked for more time to inspect the California sized nation for these weapons.
And was Iraq cooperating during the EIGHT MONTH build up to war??? No. They were still hiding information and documents. They were even rebuilding missiles that inspectors discovered and dismantled. Saddam and his cronies acted nothing less than guilty.
And while this was happening, what does President Bush hear from Putin? Putin warns him that Saddam might be planning terrorist acts inside US borders.
There was plenty of evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US. Not only that, he had connections to the terrorist group that attacked on 9/11. Bush had every reason to invade and eliminate that threat. To not do so would have been criminal.

Besides support for Israel, all of those are fairly recent. What brought on the Abar contempt and hatred before those?

It depends on what you mean by 'recent'. If you mean since the 40's or so, colonialism. Remember that the US was directly involved in overthrowing a democratic Iranian govenrment and replacing him with the Shah, and other colonial powers had been throwing their weight around since WWI. Thanks to the Ottoman Empire, the whole region missed the Renaissance. (Same thing is true for the Balkans, too.)

You are right that the US deployment of troops in Saudi is pretty recent. You'll also note that it predates the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, and 9/11. Almost as if things got worse...

There's also a severe demographic imbalance going on, with a lot of young men with no jobs and no future all over the middle east. (Saudi Arabia has massive unemployment as well as massive numbers of foreign workers, mostly from India and Pakistan.)

I am, however, a bit curious about which earlier examples of Abar contempt and hatred you're talking about.

[edit - fixed parenthetical comment]Every radical Islamist terrorist attack that predates 1990.

The United States is a soveriegn nation. As such, it has the right and duty to go to war if ever there is reason to believe it's threatened; just like every other country. If Russia had evidence that another country was a threat, it has the perfect right to attack that other nation with or without the support of the UN.
And, there was every reason to believe Saddam was a threat.
Al Queda attacked on 9/11. And so the Taliban, who supported and backed the terrorists was eliminated. After the battles of Afghanistan, an Al Queda leader named Zarqawi fled to Iraq and receieved medical treatment in a hospital run by one Saddam's sons. In Northern Iraq there was an Al Queda training camp. Closer to Baghdad was a grounded 737 that was used to train hijackers. Saddam has given funding, training, and personnel to Al Queda in the past. There are plenty of connections between the terrorists and Saddam.
Leading up to the invasion every intelligence network in the world was claiming Saddam had WMDs. Even the United States' major opponents believed it was so. How do I know this? Look at the reasons they gave to try to block military action. Did they ever claim that Saddam had destroyed his supply of bio/chem weapons? No. They only asked for more time to inspect the California sized nation for these weapons.
And was Iraq cooperating during the EIGHT MONTH build up to war??? No. They were still hiding information and documents. They were even rebuilding missiles that inspectors discovered and dismantled. Saddam and his cronies acted nothing less than guilty.
And while this was happening, what does President Bush hear from Putin? Putin warns him that Saddam might be planning terrorist acts inside US borders.
There was plenty of evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US. Not only that, he had connections to the terrorist group that attacked on 9/11. Bush had every reason to invade and eliminate that threat. To not do so would have been criminal. so under your line of reasoning then Saddam had a perfect right to invade Kuwait for slam drilling its oils wells did he not?

so under your line of reasoning then Saddam had a perfect right to invade Kuwait for slam drilling its oils wells did he not?

Seems to me MKULTRA has no idea how Gulf War I got started. I may have only been 3 (well 2 and a couple of months giggles) but my dad and mother explained it to me when I was older.

I could explain it here but sadly, MKULTRA won't have a clue as to what I'll be talking about.

Hurry home daddy, love you!

I could explain it here but sadly, MKULTRA won't have a clue as to what I'll be talking about.

Considering your track record of accuracy, you should probably err on the side of explaining things. Hint: your discussion of the start of Gulf War I should include the name "April Glaspie".

As such, it has the right and duty to go to war if ever there is reason to believe it's threatened;

Which of course begs the question, where was the threat? You might note, there are few, if any that truly object to the invasion of Afghanistan. Why do you think this is? Could it be because we all know that Al Qaeda worked there, that they had to be driven out and defeated, and that the Taliban wouldn't let us? Yet, why would we all, who were all so sweet and reasonable about Afghanistan suddenly start balking at Iraq? I mean, what's one more third world country toppled in the name of safety and security? Could it be because a lot of us have realized that Iraq was a red herring. If there were proof that Saddam were training terrorists, I could see myself rethinking my position on the war, but truth is, we haven't found squat since we invaded, from WMD to Terrorist training camps, because you know, as soon as we found something, even the tiniest reason to invade, the Administration would have trumpeted it across the country as loud and as often as they could. Just like those two artillery shells that were found a few months ago.

an Al Queda leader named Zarqawi fled to Iraq and receieved medical treatment in a hospital run by one Saddam's sons

Where are you getting your information? I've never heard anything even remotely resembling this. In fact, the 9/11 commission seems to have come to the exact opposite conclusion you have, and stated that Iraq and Al Qaeda didn't cooperate until after we invaded Iraq and destroyed the means to control Iraq's borders. Then a lot of foreign fighters and Al Qaeda operatives filtered in.

In Northern Iraq there was an Al Queda training camp. Closer to Baghdad was a grounded 737 that was used to train hijackers

Why hasn't this been found yet? Or if it was found, why hasn't Bush announced to the world that Saddam's terror training camp was found and dismantled? He's desperate to validate this war, and this would help, so why do the American people not know of it?

Did they ever claim that Saddam had destroyed his supply of bio/chem weapons?

They said they didn't know, to let the inspections continue. In the end, who would that have hurt? We invaded and we still can't find them, so maybe if we'd been more patient, we could have let Blix tell us that there were no WMDs and we wouldn't have had to lose so many American lives.

And while this was happening, what does President Bush hear from Putin? Putin warns him that Saddam might be planning terrorist acts inside US borders

I don't know what Putin's up to, but I find this less than credible. Again, if Russia had warned the US that Saddam was training terrorists to attack us, the Administration would have trumpeted it across the country, especially combined with their WMD argument, they would have made a much more convincing argument, even to the UN. But they failed to do that. Why? Barring any reasonable alternative, I have to assume for whatever reason that Putin is lying to prop up the ailing Bush regime for whatever reason.

In Northern Iraq there was an Al Queda training camp. Closer to Baghdad was a grounded 737 that was used to train hijackers

Why hasn't this been found yet? Or if it was found, why hasn't Bush announced to the world that Saddam's terror training camp was found and dismantled? He's desperate to validate this war, and this would help, so why do the American people not know of it?

The 'training camp' was in Northern Iraq indeed - Kurdish controlled territory. He's talking about Ansar al-Islam, which may actually be a rival of Al Qaeda rather than an ally. Ansar al-Islam was so important to the case for war that the Bush administration intentionally passed up chances to kill Zarqawi before the war (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/=), even though he was out of Saddam's control. (The story of Zarqawi's appearing and disappearing leg is something worth looking up.)

The story of the grounded 737 has been debunked: (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/5min/8091287.htm?1c)

raqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued. The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.

The other 'evidence' he cites is about the same level of quality. (Face it - you've been lied to, Mr. Moon.) I'll leave the difference between nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (and the relative threats thereof) as an exercise for the student, as well as the shelf-life of materials.

They said they didn't know, to let the inspections continue. In the end, who would that have hurt? We invaded and we still can't find them, so maybe if we'd been more patient, we could have let Blix tell us that there were no WMDs and we wouldn't have had to lose so many American lives.
The problem with waiting is time.

If Saddam had complied fully instead of doing what appeared to be another game of hide and seek with the inspectors that he had been playing for the past twelve years, then we should have waited. Unfortunately, he did stuff like produce thousand-page dossiers and still manage to have information missing - that information was, coincidentally, on the WMD we still thought he had. Since he obviously wasn't planning on complying fully as it was said with the statement, we didn't have to wait, and we had a choice. We didn't know what the future would hold, however, if we waited we wouldn't be able to invade for a while if we found WMDs because of the weather conditions in Iraq at the time. Sandstorms and 100 degree temperatures in Spring are bad enough.

On the Border, I'm afraid it's you that's misrepresenting the 9/11 Commission's report. They found that Saddam had no direct connection to the 9/11 attack, but they've had plenty of dealings with Al Qaeda. The treatment and harboring of Zarqawi is one of the connections they discuss.

MKULTRA, if the Kuwaiti government had been stealing oil from Iraq back in the early 90's, than Saddam would have had a perfect right to invade. But like most everything Saddam says, that was a lie. Kuwait was not stealing Iraqi oil. Saddam made it up to make it look like he had the moral high ground when he invaded to take their oil.

The problem with waiting is time

The problem with invading is we remove all safe guards that might have existed over such fictional WMDs in the first place, allowing them to fall into the hands of terrorists. You do remember all the havoc and mayhem that occurred after Saddam fell, don't you? So invading actually appears to have been much more dangerous than simply waiting, because by invading, we opened several gaping holes for Al Qaeda to slip in and smuggle any (non)existing WMDs out.

Moreover, if we had waited for more time, we could have spent that time developing plans on how to secure Iraq, how to handle the post war era, instead of bungling it as badly as we did. If we'd spent more time planning and building coalitions, we might not be losing American lives daily, and we might not be confronted with the spectre of WMDs, if they existed, having been captured and smuggled out by Al Qaeda. I still fail to see why we couldn't wait. So who cares if we'd have to wait for another few months? Our planes could surely have bombed the heck out of any weapons lab once found, and pinned down the area long enough for special forces to come in and eliminate it. The truth is, no matter what Saddam did, he couldn't have satisfied the Bush Administration. If he had opened the gates to his nation wide, invited everyone to muck about in all his top secret papers, track mud all over his palaces, Bush and company would still have accused him of holding out and attacked him anyways.

The 'training camp' was in Northern Iraq indeed - Kurdish controlled territory. He's talking about Ansar al-Islam, which may actually be a rival of Al Qaeda rather than an ally

Thanks for the info Upright Monkey. I see now why a big deal wasn't made of this training camp. It is kind of silly too that it was in Kurdish territory.

Are you going to honestly tell me that Saddam had absolutely no power in northern Iraq? If he hadn't wanted that camp within his borders, he would have massacred it just like he massacred hundreds of thousands of other Iraqis.

On the Border, I'm afraid it's you that's misrepresenting the 9/11 Commission's report. They found that Saddam had no direct connection to the 9/11 attack, but they've had plenty of dealings with Al Qaeda. The treatment and harboring of Zarqawi is one of the connections they discuss.

Either you're making stuff up or you're listening to people who are. It never ceases to amaze me how people with Internet connections can be so pig-ignorant about easily discoverable information. (I will, however, grant that among the people making things up are senior members of the Bush administration.) The 9/11 comission did not discuss Zarqawi:

The commission's report did not specifically address that distinction [between cooperation and contacts] or Mr. Zarqawi's role. It found that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, but that Iraq never responded to Mr. bin Laden's subsequent request for space to set up training camps and help in buying weapons. It said there were reports of later contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

If you'd like to refute that, please quote from the part of the 9/11 Comission report that covers Zarqawi.

The whole concept involves repeating some amazingly cynical spin from the Bush administration. There were "contacts" between Iraq and Al Qaeda - but there were "contacts" between the US and the Soviet Union during the cold war. Plenty of them. For a while, OBL was supporting anti-Saddam insurgents. Just because two groups had met - years ago - does not mean that they were collaborating or that there were any plans to collaborate.

Are you going to honestly tell me that Saddam had absolutely no power in northern Iraq? If he hadn't wanted that camp within his borders, he would have massacred it just like he massacred hundreds of thousands of other Iraqis.

I didn't say he had absolutely no power, I said he didn't control it. (Straw man; Saddam probably had at least some power anywhere he had spies.)

It wasn't within his borders after GW I (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/daily/graphics/kurd_033103.html); that's the whole point. Yes, he did have a lot of things in Northern Iraq he didn't want within his borders, like the Patriotic Union of Kudistan. Considering it was part of the northern no-fly zone, it would have been very difficult for him to resist a US air strike against the camp. Do you have an answer as to why the Bush administration told the military not to strike at Zarqawi before the war?

MKULTRA, if the Kuwaiti government had been stealing oil from Iraq back in the early 90's, than Saddam would have had a perfect right to invade.

My god, I would hate to be your brain cells (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/Slant-drilling.htm) when you realize it's actually true Kuwait was slant drilling (http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/Wilson/wilson-con3.html). (To be fair, there were a lot of other reasons for the war, and I don't think that he was right to invade. I guess some people really are pro-Saddam...)

(edit - sentence fragment.)

Moreover, if we had waited for more time, we could have spent that time developing plans on how to secure Iraq, how to handle the post war era, instead of bungling it as badly as we did.

I feel compelled to point out that there was an eight-month planning effort by the State Department on how to handle postwar Iraq (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Future_of_Iraq_Project), which included many Iraqi exiles. For ideological reasons, the report was ignored by the neoconservatives (http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq12_20030712.htm) and Jay Garner (remember him?) was forbidden from hiring one of the primary architects of the report. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1019-07.htm)

The problem with invading is we remove all safe guards that might have existed over such fictional WMDs in the first place, allowing them to fall into the hands of terrorists. You do remember all the havoc and mayhem that occurred after Saddam fell, don't you? So invading actually appears to have been much more dangerous than simply waiting, because by invading, we opened several gaping holes for Al Qaeda to slip in and smuggle any (non)existing WMDs out.
Well, according to most people you listen to, Saddam and Al Qaeda were enemies. So, they would have no idea where the hidden WMD were. Some of the first things US soldiers did were look in the locations we suspected were filled with WMD to make sure that we secured them and that Al-Qaeda didn't use them. There was always a risk that, if we invaded, we would get WMD used against us and we knew that. For some (unexplained) reason, some Iraqi troops also carried vaccines to certain agents commonly used by Saddam. Luckily with our advanced medical equipment it probably wouldn't have been too much of a problem if Saddam used WMD.

The problem with waiting a few more months is that, if WMD were found in the period of time in which it would have been extremely difficult to invade in, Saddam would know he's a lame duck and would have tons of time to build up quality fortifications as well as start mass producing WMD the things that he (would have) had.

Here is some thing to think about....

As we approach November, Bin Laden and his associates will increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks to ensure that George W Bush Wins. Al Qaeda will be determined to make security a bigger issue than economy

Most recently we have seen two examples of Al Qaeda’s political acumen. Their attack in Spain was so well timed that it swung the elections in favour of the anti-war socialist party.

The second instance of Al Qaeda’s political smarts is the recent incessant attacks against soft targets in Iraq and on American troops to underscore the absence of security and stability in Iraq. It probably prevented President George W Bush from having another ‘top gun’ electoral campaign moment on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

These attacks have sent the message to the world that America’s invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism not decreased it. Instead of making the world a safer place, America has now endangered its allies as the attacks on Spain and Turkey suggest.

Al Qaeda not only seems to understand the nature of politics and media in democratic societies but also knows how to work the system to gain strategic advantages.

It would be naïve to assume that Al Qaeda will not vote in the coming American elections in November 2004. The issue that we must ponder is how it’s going to cast its ballot? To understand how Al Qaeda will vote, we must try to figure out whom it will prefer in the White House, Bush or Kerry?

If John Kerry wins in November he will probably make the following changes in American foreign policy:

1. He will roll back American unilateralism and seek more international cooperation from Europe, South Asia, Middle East and the UN. Instead of a coalition of the coerced, Kerry will seek a truly international coalition. Coalitions built through a multilateral process will present fewer fissures in the anti-terror campaign for Al Qaeda to exploit.

2. Most probably John Kerry will be interested in reducing rather than expanding the scope and objectives of counter-terrorism. Neocon goals such as reshaping the Middle East, reforming Islam, reconstituting the United States defence doctrines and redefining old Europe, will be abandoned and under Kerry the US will concentrate more on eliminating Al Qaeda and associates than anything else.

3. Much of soft anti-Americanism worldwide is a result of anti-Bushism. Regardless of what Americans think, most of the world finds President Bush uncouth, obnoxious, arrogant, crude and a bully. His defeat itself will reduce anti-Americanism globally and will increase American prospects for victory in this war on terror.

Will Al Qaeda be happy with these developments? I doubt it. Anti-Bushism has helped them divide the world and the growing anger in the Muslim world as a result of George Bush’s policies has helped them gain recruits, clones and support. If Bush loses in November they will lose an important asset. Al Qaeda will become the sole target of US energies and surely that must be a disturbing thought to even those who relish the idea of dying while fighting America.

If George W Bush wins in spite of a terrible economy and millions of job losses:

1. He might interpret the victory as an endorsement of his anti-terror strategy and probably continue to expand the scope and objectives of his war on terror. Perhaps regime changes in Iran, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia may be back on the ‘to do’ list. It is possible that Spain may also figure on the list of regime changes.

2. It is also possible that many European and Middle Eastern states may stop cooperating with the US. Already many nations resent President Bush’s policies and style, they may begin to actively oppose his global agenda. The easiest way to do so is to withdraw from the coalition and call for more UN participation. We might see more and more nations following Spain’s example and disengaging from the American bandwagon.

All of the above will help Al Qaeda pursue its strategic goals: undermine the West, hurt Americans and American interests, destabilise politics and economies in South Asia and the Middle East and cement the growing cleavages between the US and Europe and the US and the Muslim World.

It is in Al Qaeda’s interest that President Bush stays in the White House. Thus at the moment they are anti-American but Pro-Bush. Come November they will vote for Bush. How you may ask?

Fear is the key. If the American voters feel reasonably secure on the terrorism issue then they will focus on economy, unemployment and on cultural issues such as the gay marriage controversy.

If at the time of the elections the priorities of American voters are:

(1) Economy, (2) Culture, and then (3) Security, or

(1)Economy, (2) Security and (3) Culture, John Kerry will probably win.



However if by November the voter is either thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Culture and then (3) Economy, Bush will win with a landslide and if the voter is thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Economy and (3) Culture, Bush may win narrowly.



Al Qaeda can make security a more pressing issue than economy by increasing their activities and even by targeting America again. Karl Rove, the president’s political guru will probably work to ensure that culture continues to figure in the American voter’s mind.

But if Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri are both arrested/killed soon, then security will be out of the reckoning and Kerry will win unless new jobs are created in hurry.

As we approach November, Bin Laden and his associates will increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks to ensure that George W Bush Wins. Al Qaeda will be determined to make security a bigger issue than economy so the worse the economy gets the worse terrorism we are likely to see.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is a Non-resident fellow at Brookings Institution. He is also the Chair, Political Science, at Adrian College in Michigan. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002)

I could explain it here but sadly, MKULTRA won't have a clue as to what I'll be talking about.

Considering your track record of accuracy, you should probably err on the side of explaining things. Hint: your discussion of the start of Gulf War I should include the name "April Glaspie".

My accuracy is about as good as yours. I could give you the whole damn history of Gulf War I from Iraq's Invasion in august to his surrender! However, that'll take up more time than I actually have at the moment.

Kuwait is rich in oil. They don't need to slant drill. Hussein was mad at them because Kuwait wanted to have the money owed by Saddam to them for the Iran Iraq War, which Kuwait supported Iraq. Hussein invaded. We got called in to liberate Kuwait from the mad man which we did. A One Sided War. Iraq never had a prayer.

There is a terror link between Saddam and Bin Laden in that Zarqawi person. Just because we never harped on the camp, that was one of the first targets taken out when the ground assualt started. (somehow missed by some people here)

As for the Commission, its a known fact that if you want to get to the bottom of something, you don't hold public hearings or have someone from the previous administration on the board.

You guys may not like the fact that we were right in going in there, I really don't care what you think personally. What I do care about is turning the Iraqi government loose on June 30th and let them handle it. They will handle it and they will succeed. They are glad to be rid of Saddam. Glad to be rid of his sons. Glad to be rid of this torture chambers. Glad to be free. They may not like us in their country, but they do know that what we are doing is stablizing it. They know that we are going to hand over the keys to the nation and when we do, they'll be on their own.

I bet you also missed that the Iraqi government that is taking over has invitied other soldiers from other nations to help with security. They know they won't be able to handle it entirely on there own. They don't want the days of Saddam back. They will do what is necessary for democracy to succeed.

Some of the first things US soldiers did were look in the locations we suspected were filled with WMD to make sure that we secured them and that Al-Qaeda didn't use them.

Not every site was checked; as a result massive amounts of uranium were looted (http://www.sundayherald.com/35736). It's a good thing the UN was there to track it down (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-20-un-iraq_x.htm). Anyway, if the US knew where the WMD was, the UN inspectors could have found it. (The UN checked out a lot of the US tips, and found garbage - exactly what the INC was feeding us. Just think what would have happened if the US had admitted Chalabi was lying before the war...)

There was always a risk that, if we invaded, we would get WMD used against us and we knew that. For some (unexplained) reason, some Iraqi troops also carried vaccines to certain agents commonly used by Saddam. Luckily with our advanced medical equipment it probably wouldn't have been too much of a problem if Saddam used WMD.

I don't believe that any of the vaccine and antidote stories have panned out. The chemical suits were purchased well before GW I, and would no longer have been effective.

The problem with waiting a few more months is that, if WMD were found in the period of time in which it would have been extremely difficult to invade in, Saddam would know he's a lame duck and would have tons of time to build up quality fortifications as well as start mass producing WMD the things that he (would have) had.

What fortifications, exactly, is he going to build in three months that he didn't build in the previous twenty years?

And are you seriously claming that the Bush administration was against inspections because they thought they might find WMD? Is there no limit to rationalization?

Here is some thing to think about....

As we approach November, Bin Laden and his associates will increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks to ensure that George W Bush Wins. Al Qaeda will be determined to make security a bigger issue than economy

Most recently we have seen two examples of Al Qaeda’s political acumen. Their attack in Spain was so well timed that it swung the elections in favour of the anti-war socialist party.

The second instance of Al Qaeda’s political smarts is the recent incessant attacks against soft targets in Iraq and on American troops to underscore the absence of security and stability in Iraq. It probably prevented President George W Bush from having another ‘top gun’ electoral campaign moment on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

These attacks have sent the message to the world that America’s invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism not decreased it. Instead of making the world a safer place, America has now endangered its allies as the attacks on Spain and Turkey suggest.

Al Qaeda not only seems to understand the nature of politics and media in democratic societies but also knows how to work the system to gain strategic advantages.

It would be naïve to assume that Al Qaeda will not vote in the coming American elections in November 2004. The issue that we must ponder is how it’s going to cast its ballot? To understand how Al Qaeda will vote, we must try to figure out whom it will prefer in the White House, Bush or Kerry?

If John Kerry wins in November he will probably make the following changes in American foreign policy:

1. He will roll back American unilateralism and seek more international cooperation from Europe, South Asia, Middle East and the UN. Instead of a coalition of the coerced, Kerry will seek a truly international coalition. Coalitions built through a multilateral process will present fewer fissures in the anti-terror campaign for Al Qaeda to exploit.

2. Most probably John Kerry will be interested in reducing rather than expanding the scope and objectives of counter-terrorism. Neocon goals such as reshaping the Middle East, reforming Islam, reconstituting the United States defence doctrines and redefining old Europe, will be abandoned and under Kerry the US will concentrate more on eliminating Al Qaeda and associates than anything else.

3. Much of soft anti-Americanism worldwide is a result of anti-Bushism. Regardless of what Americans think, most of the world finds President Bush uncouth, obnoxious, arrogant, crude and a bully. His defeat itself will reduce anti-Americanism globally and will increase American prospects for victory in this war on terror.

Will Al Qaeda be happy with these developments? I doubt it. Anti-Bushism has helped them divide the world and the growing anger in the Muslim world as a result of George Bush’s policies has helped them gain recruits, clones and support. If Bush loses in November they will lose an important asset. Al Qaeda will become the sole target of US energies and surely that must be a disturbing thought to even those who relish the idea of dying while fighting America.

If George W Bush wins in spite of a terrible economy and millions of job losses:

1. He might interpret the victory as an endorsement of his anti-terror strategy and probably continue to expand the scope and objectives of his war on terror. Perhaps regime changes in Iran, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia may be back on the ‘to do’ list. It is possible that Spain may also figure on the list of regime changes.

2. It is also possible that many European and Middle Eastern states may stop cooperating with the US. Already many nations resent President Bush’s policies and style, they may begin to actively oppose his global agenda. The easiest way to do so is to withdraw from the coalition and call for more UN participation. We might see more and more nations following Spain’s example and disengaging from the American bandwagon.

All of the above will help Al Qaeda pursue its strategic goals: undermine the West, hurt Americans and American interests, destabilise politics and economies in South Asia and the Middle East and cement the growing cleavages between the US and Europe and the US and the Muslim World.

It is in Al Qaeda’s interest that President Bush stays in the White House. Thus at the moment they are anti-American but Pro-Bush. Come November they will vote for Bush. How you may ask?

Fear is the key. If the American voters feel reasonably secure on the terrorism issue then they will focus on economy, unemployment and on cultural issues such as the gay marriage controversy.

If at the time of the elections the priorities of American voters are:

(1) Economy, (2) Culture, and then (3) Security, or

(1)Economy, (2) Security and (3) Culture, John Kerry will probably win.



However if by November the voter is either thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Culture and then (3) Economy, Bush will win with a landslide and if the voter is thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Economy and (3) Culture, Bush may win narrowly.



Al Qaeda can make security a more pressing issue than economy by increasing their activities and even by targeting America again. Karl Rove, the president’s political guru will probably work to ensure that culture continues to figure in the American voter’s mind.

But if Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri are both arrested/killed soon, then security will be out of the reckoning and Kerry will win unless new jobs are created in hurry.

As we approach November, Bin Laden and his associates will increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks to ensure that George W Bush Wins. Al Qaeda will be determined to make security a bigger issue than economy so the worse the economy gets the worse terrorism we are likely to see.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is a Non-resident fellow at Brookings Institution. He is also the Chair, Political Science, at Adrian College in Michigan. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002)

Funny stephistan, I like to know what terrible US Economy. Our economy is REBOUNDING at a FASTER RATE than anyone has SEEN in TWENTY YEARS!

Jobs have been created in a hurry. ONE MILLION IN THREE MONTHS!!! just another fact you've missed (not surprising since you are a liberal and liberals hate job creation)

If nations start to follow Spains bandwagon, then Terror will win because they know that any attack within their borders will change how a government acts. It worked in spain by kicking out the, what was it, conservative party with a SOCIALIST PARTY! Socialism sucks and I fear for Spain. Besides, we have new allies that will follow us because they know who helped them to achieve their freedoms. They believe in the Ideals of freedom and they will fight for the ideals of freedom. They don't want more tyranny and that is exactly what will happen if the Terrorists win.

Counter-terrorism is the only thing that has prevented more terror attacks in the US. If we reduce their ability to act, then we will suffer. Something Liberals don't seem to understand. With regards to Spain and Turkey, please read above for Spain. As for Turkey, Turkey is still an ally of the USA (Spain is too not saying they're not) who is active in the fight against Terror. Turkey isn't being intimadated by terror to change they're ways whereas Spain did. Spanish withdrawal was seen by many as a defeat for Spain in the war on terror since a Terror Attack drove the government from power, installed a new one and that one withdrew troops. The Iraqis weren't happy that Spain withdrew.

Terror and Iraq are linked. You can't deny that they're not. Attacks are happening against the Iraqi Civilians and the New Iraqi Government. The Government of Iraq have vowed to stop it and I believe they will. When the keys are handed over (can't wait till i'm 16 and get my permit), they will do what is necessary to stop it. I would rather face American Troops then the Iraqi ones.

My accuracy is about as good as yours. I could give you the whole damn history of Gulf War I from Iraq's Invasion in august to his surrender! However, that'll take up more time than I actually have at the moment.

You've posted several incorrect things, but haven't produced a single reference to contradict me. If you don't have time to go through the whole gulf war, why not just discuss April Glaspie's role?

Kuwait is rich in oil. They don't need to slant drill.

There is an important life lesson here: wanting something to be true does not make it true. Thinking that something should be true does not make it true. Just because something makes sense to you, it does not make it true. Yes, the Kuwaitis were slant drilling. No, it did not justify the invasion. Yes, you are absolutely right that part of the friction was Iran/Iraq war debt.

Whether or not slant drilling was the primary reason - or even a real reason - doesn't change the fact that it happened.

There is a terror link between Saddam and Bin Laden in that Zarqawi person. Just because we never harped on the camp, that was one of the first targets taken out when the ground assualt started. (somehow missed by some people here)

There is no link. The link is garbage. Also, this is why I question your credibility; Zarqawi was one of the primary justifications for invasion (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/zarqawi_030224.html). Western journalists visited the camp before the war and found that the theoretical weapons labs didn't have electricity or running water - which are really helpful for any WMD factory. (Ricin, by the way, has to be one of the most bogus WMDs ever.)

As for the Commission, its a known fact that if you want to get to the bottom of something, you don't hold public hearings or have someone from the previous administration on the board.

I am simply astonished that you don't feel that public hearings in a democracy are the right way to find out what's going on. How can you explain the amount of information shaken loose by the 9/11 comission? I'll also point that Bush appointed the commission - every member.

What I do care about is turning the Iraqi government loose on June 30th and let them handle it. They will handle it and they will succeed.

Um, yeah. It's so loose we're still going to be in the Republican Palace, controlling the Green Zone. The Iraqi government doesn't have the authority to change any of the laws we've put into place, and we're making sure to allocate all the oil money before the changeover. Oh, and the new government is still the IGC, with some new faces on old factions. If you look into it, the handover is a bad joke. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2004/0513usgrip.htm)

They know that we are going to hand over the keys to the nation and when we do, they'll be on their own.

And when exactly is that going to happen? The US took more than ten years to pull its troops out of Saudi Arabia, and we still have troops in Japan and Germany.

I bet you also missed that the Iraqi government that is taking over has invitied other soldiers from other nations to help with security.
I bet you missed that the person who did that is a former CIA informant, who is also personally responsible for the UK's claim that Saddam could deploy WMDs in 45 minutes. Allawi will say whatever it takes to gain power and keep it. (Much like Chalabi with his "pipeline to Haifa' song and dance.)

so under your line of reasoning then Saddam had a perfect right to invade Kuwait for slam drilling its oils wells did he not?

Seems to me MKULTRA has no idea how Gulf War I got started. I may have only been 3 (well 2 and a couple of months giggles) but my dad and mother explained it to me when I was older.

I could explain it here but sadly, MKULTRA won't have a clue as to what I'll be talking about.

Hurry home daddy, love you!Kuwait was slam drilling Iraqi oil wells and Saddam Asked Poppa Bush is he could invade Kuwait and Poppa said he didnt care then Saddam invaded and Poppa Bush stabbed Saddam in the back by acting like he did something bad

Jobs have been created in a hurry. ONE MILLION IN THREE MONTHS!!! just another fact you've missed (not surprising since you are a liberal and liberals hate job creation)

What would possibly lead you to think that liberals hate job creation? What conceiveable thought process would bring you there? Clinton presided over incredible job expansion (http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000012.html), after raising taxes - which Newt Gingrich said would destroy the economy.

Bush II is on target to be the first president since Hoover to have a net fall in jobs during his administration. The problem is worse because new jobs are required every month just to handle the new people entering the economy; a few belated jobs (after spending hundreds of billions on wasted stimulus) does not a good economy make (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news/economy/jobs/?cnn=yes).

Terror and Iraq are linked. You can't deny that they're not. Attacks are happening against the Iraqi Civilians and the New Iraqi Government.

Nobody's denying they're linked now - oh, wait, the State Department is. You see, in the annual list of terrorist incident, Afghanistani and Iraqi terrorist incidents tend to get dropped out.

Anyway, nobody outside the Bush Administration is denying they're linked now. The question is whether they were linked before the invasion; foreign fighter BS aside, most of the attackers are Iraqis who would not have attacked the US without the invasion.

The Government of Iraq have vowed to stop it and I believe they will.
Yeah, the people who make up that government have a great track record for accuracy. But they may indeed stop it; they're talking about bringing back Saddam Hussein's martial laws to crack down on Iraqis. That'll show them!

(You would rather face American troops, but less than half of Iraqi troops actually fought the last time they were deployed. About 10% of them actually joined the resistance. The US admitted it; this information comes from Centcom (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4766616/).)

Here is some thing to think about....

As we approach November, Bin Laden and his associates will increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks to ensure that George W Bush Wins. Al Qaeda will be determined to make security a bigger issue than economy

Most recently we have seen two examples of Al Qaeda’s political acumen. Their attack in Spain was so well timed that it swung the elections in favour of the anti-war socialist party.

The second instance of Al Qaeda’s political smarts is the recent incessant attacks against soft targets in Iraq and on American troops to underscore the absence of security and stability in Iraq. It probably prevented President George W Bush from having another ‘top gun’ electoral campaign moment on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

These attacks have sent the message to the world that America’s invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism not decreased it. Instead of making the world a safer place, America has now endangered its allies as the attacks on Spain and Turkey suggest.

Al Qaeda not only seems to understand the nature of politics and media in democratic societies but also knows how to work the system to gain strategic advantages.

It would be naïve to assume that Al Qaeda will not vote in the coming American elections in November 2004. The issue that we must ponder is how it’s going to cast its ballot? To understand how Al Qaeda will vote, we must try to figure out whom it will prefer in the White House, Bush or Kerry?

If John Kerry wins in November he will probably make the following changes in American foreign policy:

1. He will roll back American unilateralism and seek more international cooperation from Europe, South Asia, Middle East and the UN. Instead of a coalition of the coerced, Kerry will seek a truly international coalition. Coalitions built through a multilateral process will present fewer fissures in the anti-terror campaign for Al Qaeda to exploit.

2. Most probably John Kerry will be interested in reducing rather than expanding the scope and objectives of counter-terrorism. Neocon goals such as reshaping the Middle East, reforming Islam, reconstituting the United States defence doctrines and redefining old Europe, will be abandoned and under Kerry the US will concentrate more on eliminating Al Qaeda and associates than anything else.

3. Much of soft anti-Americanism worldwide is a result of anti-Bushism. Regardless of what Americans think, most of the world finds President Bush uncouth, obnoxious, arrogant, crude and a bully. His defeat itself will reduce anti-Americanism globally and will increase American prospects for victory in this war on terror.

Will Al Qaeda be happy with these developments? I doubt it. Anti-Bushism has helped them divide the world and the growing anger in the Muslim world as a result of George Bush’s policies has helped them gain recruits, clones and support. If Bush loses in November they will lose an important asset. Al Qaeda will become the sole target of US energies and surely that must be a disturbing thought to even those who relish the idea of dying while fighting America.

If George W Bush wins in spite of a terrible economy and millions of job losses:

1. He might interpret the victory as an endorsement of his anti-terror strategy and probably continue to expand the scope and objectives of his war on terror. Perhaps regime changes in Iran, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia may be back on the ‘to do’ list. It is possible that Spain may also figure on the list of regime changes.

2. It is also possible that many European and Middle Eastern states may stop cooperating with the US. Already many nations resent President Bush’s policies and style, they may begin to actively oppose his global agenda. The easiest way to do so is to withdraw from the coalition and call for more UN participation. We might see more and more nations following Spain’s example and disengaging from the American bandwagon.

All of the above will help Al Qaeda pursue its strategic goals: undermine the West, hurt Americans and American interests, destabilise politics and economies in South Asia and the Middle East and cement the growing cleavages between the US and Europe and the US and the Muslim World.

It is in Al Qaeda’s interest that President Bush stays in the White House. Thus at the moment they are anti-American but Pro-Bush. Come November they will vote for Bush. How you may ask?

Fear is the key. If the American voters feel reasonably secure on the terrorism issue then they will focus on economy, unemployment and on cultural issues such as the gay marriage controversy.

If at the time of the elections the priorities of American voters are:

(1) Economy, (2) Culture, and then (3) Security, or

(1)Economy, (2) Security and (3) Culture, John Kerry will probably win.



However if by November the voter is either thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Culture and then (3) Economy, Bush will win with a landslide and if the voter is thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Economy and (3) Culture, Bush may win narrowly.



Al Qaeda can make security a more pressing issue than economy by increasing their activities and even by targeting America again. Karl Rove, the president’s political guru will probably work to ensure that culture continues to figure in the American voter’s mind.

But if Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri are both arrested/killed soon, then security will be out of the reckoning and Kerry will win unless new jobs are created in hurry.

As we approach November, Bin Laden and his associates will increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks to ensure that George W Bush Wins. Al Qaeda will be determined to make security a bigger issue than economy so the worse the economy gets the worse terrorism we are likely to see.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is a Non-resident fellow at Brookings Institution. He is also the Chair, Political Science, at Adrian College in Michigan. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002)

Funny stephistan, I like to know what terrible US Economy. Our economy is REBOUNDING at a FASTER RATE than anyone has SEEN in TWENTY YEARS!

Jobs have been created in a hurry. ONE MILLION IN THREE MONTHS!!! just another fact you've missed (not surprising since you are a liberal and liberals hate job creation)

If nations start to follow Spains bandwagon, then Terror will win because they know that any attack within their borders will change how a government acts. It worked in spain by kicking out the, what was it, conservative party with a SOCIALIST PARTY! Socialism sucks and I fear for Spain. Besides, we have new allies that will follow us because they know who helped them to achieve their freedoms. They believe in the Ideals of freedom and they will fight for the ideals of freedom. They don't want more tyranny and that is exactly what will happen if the Terrorists win.

Counter-terrorism is the only thing that has prevented more terror attacks in the US. If we reduce their ability to act, then we will suffer. Something Liberals don't seem to understand. With regards to Spain and Turkey, please read above for Spain. As for Turkey, Turkey is still an ally of the USA (Spain is too not saying they're not) who is active in the fight against Terror. Turkey isn't being intimadated by terror to change they're ways whereas Spain did. Spanish withdrawal was seen by many as a defeat for Spain in the war on terror since a Terror Attack drove the government from power, installed a new one and that one withdrew troops. The Iraqis weren't happy that Spain withdrew.

Terror and Iraq are linked. You can't deny that they're not. Attacks are happening against the Iraqi Civilians and the New Iraqi Government. The Government of Iraq have vowed to stop it and I believe they will. When the keys are handed over (can't wait till i'm 16 and get my permit), they will do what is necessary to stop it. I would rather face American Troops then the Iraqi ones.the only jobs Bush created are the kinda jobs republicans like where they pay workers minimum wages with no benefits--only republicans who hate the american workers would consider this to be some kind of good thing

I would send in references hun, but you never gave me a reason too. There are alot of books out on the Gulf war and everyone says the same thing about why Iraq invaded. READ THEM!!!

What I wrote is true. You just don't like it. Did I mention anything about WMDs in this post? NO! I don't care if he had them or not to be honest. We should've just went with Crimes against humanities charge only but what do you expect from politicians.

As for slant Drilling, prove that they were! I saw no reference to slant drilling in your post. I've read books and they don't mention slant drilling either. If their was, it was so minuscule as to not to be mentioned. It came down to money and, yes oil. Iraq wanted Kuwaits oil and they took them. Took them then when pushed out, burned them.

The link is there. We have the link but you just don't want to see it because you don't want to have your pretty little cocoon of containment ruined. (As for Ricin, tel that to the brits)

As for the COmmission. I denounce it. The reason I denounce it is because it was a witch hunt. Yes I can see why it was a witch hunt but a PUBLIC HEARING wasn't needed. It should've been a closed hearing. Instead, they had cheerleaders. You notice when something bad about Clinton was mentioned, the crowd gasp and when Bush was hammered most of the crowd cheered? So much for it being Bi Partisan.

On June 30, 2004 they wil have that power. They will RUN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, HENCE LAWS! I also want you to prove your charge about allocating the oil money. I've seen no proof. Prove it befor making that charge. As for it being a bad joke, guess your info is better then what is being said. The Iraqis will be incharge and will defend themselves. It isn't a bad joke, it'll be good for the country.

As for Saudi Arabia, THEY INVITED US IN THERE! We will probably be moving out of Germany soon towards other places, don't know where yet but I do know that a move is in the works. (And no, don't ask for proof, because they don't know where yet.) Japan is still a toss up. Besides most of our forces is in Okinawa aka Naha. that is where the BULK is for Japan.

I'm not believing what you stated. The Iraqis believe in him. We wanted someone else but he decided he didn't want it so Allawi got it. I bet you that 'll he'll be good for the country. We have to give the government time. They will do it and they will succeed with democracy.

Well, this is my opinion about all of this "War on Terror" BS.
I'm not going to read through all of the posts, just post my opinion. There is a lot of trash in there, a lot of inaccuracies, and a lot of people who think they know more than they really do. Reading it all would just frustrate me. Now, for my opinion:
The war on terror should not start in the Middle East. The war on terror should start at our borders. Illegal immigrants caused 9-11. No matter what we do, people are going to hate our nation. We can't go to the middle east and kill off every America-hater and then come home and live peacefully. Heck, even if we did, there'd still be Asia, South America, Europe, Africa, and Russia (which isn't really part of any continent when you think about it), oh yea, and Oceania. So, that's not really realistic, is it? Aside from that, you can't demolition a terrorist organizations "base of operations" and even if you could, it wouldn't be very productive. Terrorist organizations are highly organized and have highly mobile "bases of operations." What do you think those "terrorist cells" they talk about on CNN are? 9-11 was planned way before it actually happened, and the guys who did it hadn't talk to each other nor any other part of the terrorist organization for a few years. And aside from all that, do you really think that if Washington DC and Pentagon City were completely leveled, left in smouldered coals, that the United States would discontinue to be a threat to the entire world? I don't believe that. Why? We're highly organized. We have a chain of command, and we know what to do in that situation. Terrorists have a similiar command structure, but they take theirs much more seriously. The disturbing part to me is the fact that like 16 of the 19 terrorists on 9-11 were in the country illegally. What does this mean? It means that there should have only been 3 of those terrorists in our country on 9-11. And what does that mean? Best case scenario, they'd all have been on different planes, and when they tried hijacking it alone, they'd be easily overtaken, and we could still take fingernail clippers on airplanes. Worst-case scenario, all three would have been on one plane. But even then, what if all three were on the plane that landed in Pennsylvania? No one would have thought anything at all about it. It just would have been an attempted hijacking. If we improved our immigration laws and the enforcement of them, we'd have much less to worry about as far as domestic terrorism is concerned in my opinion. Now, if you think that Saddam supported Al-Qaida, you are wrong, and I suggest you think about checking out CNN. The Iraqi people Saddam was killing wasn't just anyone. It was the Muslims of the opposite sect of him; the Kurds in the north, the people of the same branch of Islam as bin Laden. You really think Saddam would support them? Aside from that, the most damage that Saddam could have done to US interests would have been invading Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or launching missiles at Israel. Well, Israel is a nation with nuclear capabilities, and Saddam isn't that retarded. Israel is actually one of the worlds leading arms producers. You really just don't want to piss of the Israeli army that bad. Ever wonder why Islamic governments in that area just kind of don't actively try pushing out Israel? Now you know. Also, Turkey, being a NATO nation, would have had all of Europe at its call. Germany and France would not be able to deny assistance to Turkey is Saddam actually moved troops into Turkey. Saudi Arabia could fend for itself until US reinforcements got there, and besides, if Saddam actually invaded any where, European assistance would have been much more popular. And in Kuwait, well, Saddam already failed there once, why would he try that again? And no matter what you think about Iraqi weaponry, Israel is about the farthest they could launch any thing.
Concerning Afghanistan, the United States had no right to invade there. The United States did write and sign the United Nations doctrine, which prohibits invading national sovereignty, which is what the US did in Afghanistan. We invaded because they would not turn over bin Laden. And you can say that the government in Afghanistan was oppressive, like Saddam, but same story applies there. It is really just a disagreement of religion, and all middle east countries are ruled by religion. And whether or not you think that is right makes no difference. It is not any one's place to tell another country how to rule itself. In fact, after the Taliban was removed, half of the women in Afghanistan still wore the Burkahs (or whatever those head masks were called). CNN made it out to be that they were afraid of the Taliban still, but in actuality, it's part of their religion. Laws in the middle East are based of Islam just like western nations base their laws of Christianity. Thou shalt not steal, etc. And if China invaded the US, overthrew our government, and made theivery legal, half of the population would not steal. Not because they are afraid that US cops are still around, but because it is part of their religion, part of their morals. And any one who argues that Islam has stupid rules or morals is extremely bigoted and deserves to choke and die. All religions in my opinion are pretty superstitious, but I do not think less of any one for believe whatever religion they believe.

Wow, that was long. Most of you won't read it. Please at least give it a cursory review.

Wow, that was long. Most of you won't read it. Please at least give it a cursory review.I started to read it but then gave up

What fortifications, exactly, is he going to build in three months that he didn't build in the previous twenty years?
As long as Saddam was playing innocent, then he wasn't going to build, repair, or man his fortifcations. Many had fallen into disrepair, but if he wanted to, he could have restored them.

And are you seriously claming that the Bush administration was against inspections because they thought they might find WMD? Is there no limit to rationalization?
Sort of. If Saddam had complied, it would have been different. Saddam didn't comply, though.

There are alot of books out on the Gulf war and everyone says the same thing about why Iraq invaded. READ THEM!!!

I took a college class after the Gulf War on US Military Policy, and we covered the middle east (Not a liberal class; at a state school where easily half of my classmates were ROTC.) I got an A.

As for slant Drilling, prove that they were! I saw no reference to slant drilling in your post.

It was in an earlier post in this thread; you can find it if you look. The senior US diplomat in Iraq during the invasion of Kuwait mentions the slant drilling.

Most of what you posted falls into the "nuh-uh!" scool of debate, but I will point out one thing:

As for Saudi Arabia, THEY INVITED US IN THERE!

The Saudis only invited us in after they were told satellite pictures showed Saddam preparing to invade Saudi. (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/077.html) Russian satellite info from about that same time, later shown to the media, showed no such troop buildup. The US has not produced any substantiation for these claims, which were also used domestically to justify US troop deployment (remember "Desert Shield")?

Er, what "full might" is that? You mean there's more we haven't thrown at them, other than nukes and death rays? So far, a year after hostilities officially ended in Iraq, we are still losing both Iraqi civilians and Coalition forces. Shouldn't we be doing something about that? Also, nearly three years after the beginning of the War on Terror, terrorist actions rose to an all time high last year. When does this "full might" of the US military swing into action? After another 9/11 that's even worse? It's a nice idea to think that this is "playing into our hands", but every shred of evidence out there says differently.
I dont know if any of u are U.S citizens but its hard on us. This war is a constant reminder of wat happened. Plus we cant just go over and kill all of the iraqs. there are innosent ppl. Plus it would give other countries to hate us even more. we dont need that.

By the way did you guys(and girls) hear about the american beheaded. I dont think we should back out of the war now. it will show that they got to us...

By the way did you guys(and girls) hear about the american beheaded. I dont think we should back out of the war now. it will show that they got to us...I agree---its just a shame that Bush got us stuck in the quagmire of ever escalating violence--Bush is a total failure as a Leader

As long as Saddam was playing innocent, then he wasn't going to build, repair, or man his fortifcations. Many had fallen into disrepair, but if he wanted to, he could have restored them.

Even assuming that Saddam did have the resources to fortify his positions to such an extent as provide a substantial impediment for US forces, again I ask you, why couldn't the air campaign bomb any such fortification construction to rubble? Historically speaking, no one in the last few conflicts has been able to substantially shield themselves from our air force, our bunker piercing bombs. So again, the question, why was it so important to jump into the boiling cauldron without finding out if WMDs were even present or not?

I would send in references hun, but you never gave me a reason too

Um, anytime someone questions your sources, that's usually a good reason to produce them for inspection. Unless of course you have no sources to cite or don't want to spend time finding someone or something to corroborate your story. Either way, if you want to debate, you have to expect that eventually someone's going to ask you to verify where you get your information. And who knows, by finding sources, you can sometimes discover new and interesting facts that you didn't know before.

We should've just went with Crimes against humanities charge

Well, the problem with that is, we'd then have to go off after Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Israel, aw heck, let's just say the entire Mid East, as well as...um, well ourselves lately. And so on. No, not unless we want to be complete and utter hypocrites can we say "Crimes against Humanity" when our administration has officials enjoining others to torture terrorist suspects.

witch hunt but a PUBLIC HEARING wasn't needed. It should've been a closed hearing

It's long been held that for justice to be truly served, it must take place under the full light of day, under the scrutiny of the land's citizens. Failure to do this ultimately leads to corruption. This is the impetus behind many such acts, like Sunshine meeting laws and the like, that attempt to bring the business of the government into the light of day, so that we as citizens may hold our politicians accountable.

You notice when something bad about Clinton was mentioned, the crowd gasp and when Bush was hammered most of the crowd cheered? So much for it being Bi Partisan.

No one ever claimed that the audience was bipartisan. But the committee is bipartisan, made up of democrats and republicans alike. Feel free to look it up yourself, I'm sure you'll be somewhat surprised. As for the cheer leading, it could be a sign that Clinton is turning out to be a much more popular president than is Bush.

On June 30, 2004 they wil have that power.

They won't have the power though. What happens say if an Iraqi wants to pass a bill banning any American from ever entering the Green Zone, but the US Armed Forces refuses to leave the Green Zone. Now, who do you think is going to get their way, the Iraqi government that doesn't have a military worth the title, or the armed might of the US of A? Hence, no matter how many laws they can write in the books, the Iraqis are still going to be at the beck and call of the US. Until that changes, Iraq will not have true sovereignty.

I'm not believing what you stated. The Iraqis believe in him

There were some Iraqis that believed in Chalabi too, does that necessarily validate his position or his intelligence? There are some Iraqis that believed in Al Sadr, does that validate his policies or his stance? If you choose not to believe someone, that's fine, but at least in a factual debate, feel free to point out factual reasons why you choose not to believe in someone else's assertions.

Now then, chances that this post will actually go through...slim...

By the way did you guys(and girls) hear about the american beheaded. I dont think we should back out of the war now. it will show that they got to us...I agree---its just a shame that Bush got us stuck in the quagmire of ever escalating violence--Bush is a total failure as a Leader

Here we go with the quagmire thing again. WE ARE NOT IN A QUAGMIRE MKULTRA.

The violance is now most directed at the IRAQIS not us. We are attacked elsewhere. The Terrorists know what is at stake as we do with Iraq. They are doing all they can to destabilize the new government and they will fail to do so.

We will not back out of this war now. If we did, then we will be considered cowards. The spanish are already considered cowards. Americans aren't Cowards. We will finish what we started regardless of what world opinion is. Screw the world. The only opinion that counts is the American People. They are behind this. Granted it isn't a full majority and the people against it have nearly tied those for it but the fact remains, that the simple majority is still behind Iraq. They know what is at stack as well.

By the way did you guys(and girls) hear about the american beheaded. I dont think we should back out of the war now. it will show that they got to us...I agree---its just a shame that Bush got us stuck in the quagmire of ever escalating violence--Bush is a total failure as a Leader

Here we go with the quagmire thing again. WE ARE NOT IN A QUAGMIRE MKULTRA.

The violance is now most directed at the IRAQIS not us. We are attacked elsewhere. The Terrorists know what is at stake as we do with Iraq. They are doing all they can to destabilize the new government and they will fail to do so.

We will not back out of this war now. If we did, then we will be considered cowards. The spanish are already considered cowards. Americans aren't Cowards. We will finish what we started regardless of what world opinion is. Screw the world. The only opinion that counts is the American People. They are behind this. Granted it isn't a full majority and the people against it have nearly tied those for it but the fact remains, that the simple majority is still behind Iraq. They know what is at stack as well.Im not saying we should back out now--Im saying that America should demanding the heads of Bush and Cheney and that we have Leaders replace them that the people can UNITE behind in this long never ending war that Bush/Cheney got us trapped into because of their halliburton greed

Even assuming that Saddam did have the resources to fortify his positions to such an extent as provide a substantial impediment for US forces, again I ask you, why couldn't the air campaign bomb any such fortification construction to rubble? Historically speaking, no one in the last few conflicts has been able to substantially shield themselves from our air force, our bunker piercing bombs.
Well, for every small-scale or limited war like Gulf War I or Kosovo, there's a Vietnam or WWII - much bigger - or even Afghanistan with the Russians where all the bombing in the world made things worse (like in Monte Cassino). Gulf War II was thought to be more on the scale of a bigger war than a smaller one.

Well, for every small-scale or limited war like Gulf War I or Kosovo, there's a Vietnam or WWII - much bigger - or even Afghanistan with the Russians where all the bombing in the world made things worse (like in Monte Cassino). Gulf War II was thought to be more on the scale of a bigger war than a smaller one.

The size of the conflict won't determine whether or not a decaying regime could build enough fortifications in a few months' time to withstand a concentrated bombing campaign. Moreover, the size of the campaign in Vietnam had little to do with the failure of the air campaign, but rather also had large determining factors in the Viet Cong's increasingly sophisticated anti-air technology, the fact that Vietnam was a jungle, providing unlimited numbers of hiding holes for Viet Cong rebels to hide from air attacks, and ultimately remember as well that on a level of sheer attrition, the US won the Vietnam War, a few times over. We were broken because we were the least dedicated to winning, unlike the Viet Cong, who were wholly committed to winning, no matter the cost.

In Iraq we might be facing a similar situation, where the will of the American people are going to be tested again. It certainly doesn't help that the American people were misled into this war in the first place. Still, that's neither here nor there.

Here we go with the quagmire thing again. WE ARE NOT IN A QUAGMIRE MKULTRA.

The violance is now most directed at the IRAQIS not us. We are attacked elsewhere. The Terrorists know what is at stake as we do with Iraq. They are doing all they can to destabilize the new government and they will fail to do so.

Couple of things. First, what is your definition of a "quagmire?" For me, I would have to say it would be putting our troops in a situation with no exit plan, no concrete strategy, no timeline on how long we'll be there and no idea of how much it'll ultimately cost us. All of these things are true of Iraq. Second, how is the violence being directed towards Iraqis and not us a better thing and what is your basis for this? American troops as well as civilian contractors are still dying over there and our installations are still coming under fire.


We will not back out of this war now. If we did, then we will be considered cowards. The spanish are already considered cowards. Americans aren't Cowards. We will finish what we started regardless of what world opinion is. Screw the world.

"Screw the world?" Nice. I'm sure you felt that way when the 9/11 terrorists rammed those airplanes into the World Trade Center. After all, that was just them saying, "Screw the US." And what the hell does "coward" have to do with anything? International politics should not be about pissing contests and who's got the bigger johnson. Grow up. It's great to not be cowardly, but part of bravery is being able to acknowledge when you've made a mistake and work twice as hard to correct it and never make it again. Blindly pushing forward on a bad decision is not courage. At best it's stupidity and at worst it's outright insanity.


The only opinion that counts is the American People.

Er, no, but if you truly feel this way, visit http://www.jingoist.net/.


They are behind this. Granted it isn't a full majority and the people against it have nearly tied those for it but the fact remains, that the simple majority is still behind Iraq. They know what is at stack as well.

Er, no, see, you're misunderstanding the idea of majority and minority here as they relate to American politics. Just because there's a majority doesn't mean you can discount the opinions of the minority. The United States Constitution and the founding fathers were very clear on the protections of the minority. For example, the majority of voters put Gore in office in 2000, yet Bush is still there now. And as we continue this Iraq debacle, more and more American voters are starting to question the validity of the war, the credibility of the administration and the purpose of the conflict when we have more than enough problems at home that are getting short shrift.

Im not saying we should back out now--Im saying that America should demanding the heads of Bush and Cheney and that we have Leaders replace them that the people can UNITE behind in this long never ending war that Bush/Cheney got us trapped into because of their halliburton greed

MKULTRA, not everyone is going to be united so that arguement is now out the window. Leave Halliburton out of this. Not they're fault that they are the only ones that can handle what needs to be done. They are used to this sort of thing. No one else has the technology to do what they are doing making that a useless arguement too.

Wow, that was long. Most of you won't read it. Please at least give it a cursory review.
Hi....when posting long articles like that, people are more likely to read it if it is at least broken down into easier to read paragraphs.

Hope you don't mind the hint? 8)

The only opinion that counts is the American People. They are behind this. Granted it isn't a full majority and the people against it have nearly tied those for it but the fact remains, that the simple majority is still behind Iraq. They know what is at stack as well.

Be careful about tying yourself to polls - they may not say what you want (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm). A majority of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling the war in Iraq - which, if the only opinion that counts is theirs, means that Bush should change how he's running things, right?

Myrth, thank-you for posting this after I saw that gosh awful thread about Kerry...