NationStates Jolt Archive

Invading Iraq was the worst thing the U.S. could've done to fight the War on Terror and now there is proof.
Friends: Iraq War Spurred Bombers
Friday, July 15, 2005

LEEDS, England — Shahzad Tanweer (search), the 22-year-old son of a Pakistani-born affluent businessman, turned to Islam, the religion of his birth, a few years ago.

The transformation was gradual, but then his relentless reading of the Koran and daily prayers became almost an obsession, his friends told The Associated Press. He became withdrawn and increasingly angry over the war in Iraq, according to those who knew him best.

The U.S.-led war was what likely drove him to blow himself up on a subway train last week, said his friends...
OH MY GOD!!! Bush's War in Iraq really is bad for the "war on terror"? Where did I get such propaganda? PBS? New York Times? Democrats.org? How about FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162603,00.html)!

Further proof, if any were needed, of FOX News' liberal bias.

Further proof, if any were needed, of FOX News' liberal bias.

LMAO!!!

Funniest thing I've seen all day.

Oh really? o_O

And since they were his *friends* what were they supposed to say, "Don't worry about it. He was a nogood psychopath who'd've flipped out and become a mass murderer anyway!"? :rolleyes:

Hate to break it to you but that's not the way friends talk of friends even when they go bad. :P

Oh really? o_O

And since they were his *friends* what were they supposed to say, "Don't worry about it. He was a nogood psychopath who'd've flipped out and become a mass murderer anyway!"? :rolleyes:

Hate to break it to you but that's not the way friends talk of friends even when they go bad. :P


Nope, my friend went nuts and ended up shooting himself. He was a psycopath that I was sure one day would kill someone and I'm not afraid to say it, but he was still my friend.

personal opinion is proof? well shit....

A week ago the friends and families were shocked that their loved ones did this, now they know the reasons for it.....mmkay.... :rolleyes:

Interesting, my father's opinion is that the Iraq war is good for the war on terror. I guess he's right too then if people's opinions are right?

Further proof, if any were needed, of FOX News' liberal bias.

This is sarcastic right?

Is the war on terrorism working or not? Hmm..........

Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says (http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=87320&sid=9a0cad4b991602ba43248c9792653120)

Not bad The Holy Womble. How accurate is it? I don't know. If it is true then it is very promising indeed.

Not bad The Holy Womble. How accurate is it? I don't know. If it is true then it is very promising indeed.
let's hope it's true for the sake of all of us!

let's hope it's true for the sake of all of us!

agreed and if it is true, goes to show that taking the war to the enemy is a good thing.

agreed and if it is true, goes to show that taking the war to the enemy is a good thing.
well, it's more due to other Muslims condeming terror attacks, as seen after 7/7, but evidently that was spurred by the invasion of Iraq, so let's hope that kicking over that hornet's nest backfiers on the terrorists.

Is the war on terrorism working or not? Hmm..........

Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says (http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=87320&sid=9a0cad4b991602ba43248c9792653120)

Sure, the vocal support for both is down. This is a poll, after all, not a listing of terror events. Now, the question is: Has the incidence of terror attacks worldwide gone up or down since the Iraq War?

Funny how the right only listens to a poll when it supports their own agenda.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~mgb/penguin.jpg

OMG!!! Undeniable proof that penguins are evil.

Absurd huh? Yes it is, as absurd as the point trying to be made with this thread.

well, it's more due to other Muslims condeming terror attacks, as seen after 7/7, but evidently that was spurred by the invasion of Iraq, so let's hope that kicking over that hornet's nest backfiers on the terrorists.

NEVER call it 7/7.

Sorry, I do get het up over this but it's making too much of it. It's too easy to just call it 7/7 and let it turn into a stupid line for politicians to roll out like 9/11. Call it what it is.

The War in Iraq bad for War on Terrorism? Oh wow... this is really fresh news ain't it? :rolleyes:


I could've told you that on Setember 12 2001.

The War in Iraq bad for War on Terrorism? Oh wow... this is really fresh news ain't it? :rolleyes:


I could've told you that on Setember 12 2001.

Oh wow. You have your dates mixed up. Not surprising really.

Fact: October 7, 2001 the bombs started to fall on Afghanistan
Fact: March 2003 was when we invaded Iraq

SO how does September 12, 2001 equate to the Iraq War bad for the war on terror?

Propaganda. Many Americans stirred up to fight Japan after Pearl Harbor, but keep in mind that the American government and media was essentially calling Japan "evil". Likewise, the Iraq war certainly has convinced some people to kill themselves, but this is only augmented by an apparent pacifist bias in almost every media outlet on the planet; oh, and extreme Muslim clerics that have always called America "evil" and made this war the final straw.

SO how does September 12, 2001 equate to the Iraq War bad for the war on terror?
If you had asked him, or me for that matter, on 12.9.2001 something like "Should we go to Iraq now to crush Saddam?" the answer would probably have been "Why? No!"...

Oh wow. You have your dates mixed up. Not surprising really.

Fact: October 7, 2001 the bombs started to fall on Afghanistan
Fact: March 2003 was when we invaded Iraq

SO how does September 12, 2001 equate to the Iraq War bad for the war on terror?
Richard Clarke has stated that on Setember 12th that authorities where pressured to come up with a scapegoat for the attack that would incriminate Saddam.

But nevermind that. The War on Terror as we know it would have never happened had it not been for 9/11. Al-Qaeda are the culprits yet they have been ignored since Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was horribly ill timed and has not helped the situation at all.

Oh wow. You have your dates mixed up. Not surprising really.

Fact: October 7, 2001 the bombs started to fall on Afghanistan
Fact: March 2003 was when we invaded Iraq

SO how does September 12, 2001 equate to the Iraq War bad for the war on terror?

Bush announces War On Terror. We think OK, what's this all? We realise it means invading people with ties to terror. we know Iraq doesn't have many.

Bad idea to attack Iraq. Simple enough for ya?

Richard Clarke has stated that on Setember 12th that authorities where pressured to come up with a scapegoat for the attack that would incriminate Saddam.

And I don't trust richard Clarke. And we didn't pin it on him. We knew who was responsible and we went after them at the start of this mess. That person being Osama Bin Laden. Last known whereabout? Afghanistan. Current whereabouts? Afghanistan.

But nevermind that. The War on Terror as we know it would have never happened had it not been for 9/11. Al-Qaeda are the culprits yet they have been ignored since Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was horribly ill timed and has not helped the situation at all.

No they havne't dude. I love it when people say we are forgetting about Bin Laden. Its not true my friend. We're trying to lay low so we can flush him. Make people think we're forgetting about him so he has to stick his head up to say "Hey I'm still here" When he does, he's ours. Its a great military strategy actualy. Glad someone thought it up.

Bush announces War On Terror. We think OK, what's this all? We realise it means invading people with ties to terror. we know Iraq doesn't have many.

So you admit that Saddam Had ties to terror? That settles it. Saddam had ties to terror. Good thing we got rid of him then.

Bad idea to attack Iraq. Simple enough for ya?

Good idea to attack Iraq. Simple enough for ya?

And I don't trust Richard Clarke. -snip-

Let me ask you a question. Is there anyone who has brought up evidence/criticism of the Bush Administration that you do trust, or do you just immediately distrust anyone who doesn't support the exact policy line?

I love it when people say we are forgetting about Bin Laden. Its not true my friend. We're trying to lay low so we can flush him. Make people think we're forgetting about him so he has to stick his head up to say "Hey I'm still here" When he does, he's ours. Its a great military strategy actualy. Glad someone thought it up.Exactly how does he stick his head up every once in a while? Are you refering to the bombings in Madrid and London?

I consider anything short of an allied force of a million + troops in Afghanistan, is a strategy that is ignoring the problem.

So you admit that Saddam Had ties to terror? That settles it. Saddam had ties to terror. Good thing we got rid of him then.



Good idea to attack Iraq. Simple enough for ya?

Who should you attack. The tyrant with a few small ties to terror who thumbed his nose and the prez's dad or the insanely rich oil barons who actively foster terrorism.

We all know what actually happened.

Stop grasping the straws Corny.

Let me ask you a question. Is there anyone who has brought up evidence/criticism of the Bush Administration that you do trust, or do you just immediately distrust anyone who doesn't support the exact policy line?

I wouldn't know. Those doing most of the tv criticising has come from the Liberal left or those that have grudges with the President. Until someone that isn't part of the liberal left or who doesn't have a grudge against the president starts to criticize him, then I'll be able to answer your question.

BTW: I've nailed Bush in regards to Border Security and immigration policy. He's not doing enough to secure our borders.

Who should you attack. The tyrant with a few small ties to terror who thumbed his nose and the prez's dad or the insanely rich oil barons who actively foster terrorism.

We attacked the nation that was harboring Bin Laden first. Try to remember that. I know its easy to forget that fighting is still going on in Afghanistan but it is. We struck at them there first. Then we moved on to Iraq who has been violating international law for decades.

We all know what actually happened.

Apparently not

Stop grasping the straws Corny.

Don't forget your history.

I wouldn't know. Those doing most of the tv criticising has come from the Liberal left or those that have grudges with the President. Until someone that isn't part of the liberal left or who doesn't have a grudge against the president starts to criticize him, then I'll be able to answer your question.

BTW: I've nailed Bush in regards to Border Security and immigration policy. He's not doing enough to secure our borders.

So, being a part of "the liberal left" automatically causes one's information to be invalid? No matter what the preponderance of fact may be, if it comes from "the liberal left," then it is, by definition, untrustworthy?

So, how do you define what is "liberal left" or not? What are your criteria? Is it the mere political opposition that makes them "liberal left" or is it specific stances and attitudes? Does being a member of the media automatically qualify one as a member of the "liberal left" unless said person makes an effort to identify with the right?

Who, if any, in the media do you define as most closely apprioximating impartiality? Do you define them that way because their beliefs most closely match your own, or because of the rigorous rational and journalistic processes they use?

Look, for those of you who haven't had the pleasure, I wouldn't waste my breath on trying to persuade Corneliu. For an avowed non-Bush apologist/cheerleader (the Prez is shutting down my Daddy's Armed Forces base! Oh noes!), you'll never find a bigger backer of Bush on NS.

Look, for those of you who haven't had the pleasure, I wouldn't waste my breath on trying to persuade Corneliu. For an avowed non-Bush apologist/cheerleader (the Prez is shutting down my Daddy's Armed Forces base! Oh noes!), you'll never find a bigger backer of Bush on NS.

I don't care if he's a Bush backer or not. I'm interested in the intellectual process that leads him to determine whether a source is valid or not.

For example, is the Theory of Relativity wrong because Einstein was a lefty pacifist commie?*

*exaggeration for effect.

half a second, the london muslim community took a far while to denounce the bombings, and only did so after the australian muslim community...

and the families had no idea about there sons?

..... think about it

(im not suggested the whole community was in on it but...)

Iraq... Do i believe the reason the americans went? no i dont...nor do i think it was about oil. I think it was a tactical move that had unexpected negative effects to the americans allies...

Iraq was invaded not because of Saddam per say, hes been a thorn in the americans side for years. The americans arnt stupid, they know the real terror nations---Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan(to a lesser extent then the others), but iraq was figured to be the easiest and killing of two birds with one stone so to say.

It is the old saying pick your battle...The americans planned for iraq to have the terrorists flood in..there is a reason why they arnt securing the borders...they want the terrorists in the bordering nations to come into Iraq...they want them to fight...Iraq is the sponge that is soaking up the terrorists from all around the region...sure they lash out now and then, but for the most part the are focused inward towards Iraq instead of outwards at the western world. And even better for the americans are that Iraqis are pissed off about being randomly caught in the middle are lining up in droves still to be police or army...even with all the killings and car bombs, they still line up to this day...not for the americans sake, but for the money as well as to kill these people that are randomly targeting anybody they can see.

In the short run it might not look good for the Americans, but it is a brillant move that im almost certain they expected negative exposer, not as much as they got i think, but they expected this, in the long term it is actually a very good move by the americans. Tacticly if you add Isreal, they have the Muslim world divided up as we speak. They have troops in the Phillappens(spelling i know), Afganistan, Iraq, Turkey, and Isreal.

The tactical advantage of terrorism is that it is stealthy, the americans are punching the bee hive from inside..that gets the bees agitated and forces them to attack because they have been provoked (of course this makes things more dangerous at first, knuckleheads, that is what happens when you delcare war in the first place). This makes them lose their best tactical advantage, they now strike without the advantage of choice, it forces them to show themselves.

I don't care if he's a Bush backer or not. I'm interested in the intellectual process that leads him to determine whether a source is valid or not.

For example, is the Theory of Relativity wrong because Einstein was a lefty pacifist commie?*

*exaggeration for effect.

That depends. He's a good one for making vague assertions of personal authority (Global Warming: "I once had a passing interest in meteorology when I was pre-pubescent", or words to that effect), but for the most part, if it ain't penned a right-wing pundit, he ain't listenin'.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~mgb/penguin.jpg

OMG!!! Undeniable proof that penguins are evil.

Absurd huh? Yes it is, as absurd as the point trying to be made with this thread.

:eek:

Oh Noes!!! And look at how stinking big those behemoths are! They could crush that large truck with just a flap of their flipper! We’re doomed once Osama releases them into a large city like… Hmmmm, Oslo in winter time?


:p

*snipped secret government strategy*


Hey buddy, loose lips sink ships you know. You have to keep that sort of stuff under your hat or else the bad guys will figure out what we're doing :D

Hey buddy, loose lips sink ships you know. You have to keep that sort of stuff under your hat or else the bad guys will figure out what we're doing :D

If only...

Look, for those of you who haven't had the pleasure, I wouldn't waste my breath on trying to persuade Corneliu. For an avowed non-Bush apologist/cheerleader (the Prez is shutting down my Daddy's Armed Forces base! Oh noes!), you'll never find a bigger backer of Bush on NS.

Actually its Rummy that wants to shut down the base and not the President. The President though isn't going to alter it but its all Rummy's plan. Alwell... Our base is going to stay open anyway.

Iraq... Do i believe the reason the americans went? no i dont...nor do i think it was about oil. I think it was a tactical move that had unexpected negative effects to the americans allies...

Iraq was invaded not because of Saddam per say, hes been a thorn in the americans side for years. The americans arnt stupid, they know the real terror nations---Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan(to a lesser extent then the others), but iraq was figured to be the easiest and killing of two birds with one stone so to say.

It is the old saying pick your battle...The americans planned for iraq to have the terrorists flood in..there is a reason why they arnt securing the borders...they want the terrorists in the bordering nations to come into Iraq...they want them to fight...Iraq is the sponge that is soaking up the terrorists from all around the region...sure they lash out now and then, but for the most part the are focused inward towards Iraq instead of outwards at the western world. And even better for the americans are that Iraqis are pissed off about being randomly caught in the middle are lining up in droves still to be police or army...even with all the killings and car bombs, they still line up to this day...not for the americans sake, but for the money as well as to kill these people that are randomly targeting anybody they can see.

In the short run it might not look good for the Americans, but it is a brillant move that im almost certain they expected negative exposer, not as much as they got i think, but they expected this, in the long term it is actually a very good move by the americans. Tacticly if you add Isreal, they have the Muslim world divided up as we speak. They have troops in the Phillappens(spelling i know), Afganistan, Iraq, Turkey, and Isreal.

The tactical advantage of terrorism is that it is stealthy, the americans are punching the bee hive from inside..that gets the bees agitated and forces them to attack because they have been provoked (of course this makes things more dangerous at first, knuckleheads, that is what happens when you delcare war in the first place). This makes them lose their best tactical advantage, they now strike without the advantage of choice, it forces them to show themselves.

Excellent post Gulf Republics.

Hey buddy, loose lips sink ships you know. You have to keep that sort of stuff under your hat or else the bad guys will figure out what we're doing :D

True, but it's not much of a secret if anyone taking a passing glance can figure it out. I'm not saying its as easy as adding two and two, but it isn't a Gordian knot either. Besides, terrorists probably don't take NS seriously anyway. :p

Iraq... Do i believe the reason the americans went? no i dont...nor do i think it was about oil. I think it was a tactical move that had unexpected negative effects to the americans allies...

Iraq was invaded not because of Saddam per say, hes been a thorn in the americans side for years. The americans arnt stupid, they know the real terror nations---Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan(to a lesser extent then the others), but iraq was figured to be the easiest and killing of two birds with one stone so to say.

It is the old saying pick your battle...The americans planned for iraq to have the terrorists flood in..there is a reason why they arnt securing the borders...they want the terrorists in the bordering nations to come into Iraq...they want them to fight...Iraq is the sponge that is soaking up the terrorists from all around the region...sure they lash out now and then, but for the most part the are focused inward towards Iraq instead of outwards at the western world. And even better for the americans are that Iraqis are pissed off about being randomly caught in the middle are lining up in droves still to be police or army...even with all the killings and car bombs, they still line up to this day...not for the americans sake, but for the money as well as to kill these people that are randomly targeting anybody they can see.

In the short run it might not look good for the Americans, but it is a brillant move that im almost certain they expected negative exposer, not as much as they got i think, but they expected this, in the long term it is actually a very good move by the americans. Tacticly if you add Isreal, they have the Muslim world divided up as we speak. They have troops in the Phillappens(spelling i know), Afganistan, Iraq, Turkey, and Isreal.

The tactical advantage of terrorism is that it is stealthy, the americans are punching the bee hive from inside..that gets the bees agitated and forces them to attack because they have been provoked (of course this makes things more dangerous at first, knuckleheads, that is what happens when you delcare war in the first place). This makes them lose their best tactical advantage, they now strike without the advantage of choice, it forces them to show themselves.If you honestly believe that the Bush administration had anything you just finished posting in mind, you are incredibly naive and much too eager to accept and not to doubt the honesty and motivations of your nation's leaders.

Iraq is hardly the inside of the bee-hive when it comes to terrorism. And the so called "tactic" of attacking Iraq in order to smoke out the terrorists is a retarded idea that a 12 year old would be likely to come up with. There is no use whatsoever in drawing more suicide bombers to or in, Iraq, while the real source of the problem remains at large and unchecked. We will not win the war on terror by fighting suicide bombers or volunteers with Kalashnikovs in the streets of middle eastern cities. We will only win this war by disrupting the terrorist high chain of command and hitting them where it hurts the most. Their pockets. Without Osama's vast funds they cannot survive. Unless the Whitehouse decides to fund his personal army once more. Just like they did in the early 80's when he was defending Afghanistan from Soviet invasion.

Iraq... Do i believe the reason the americans went? no i dont...nor do i think it was about oil. I think it was a tactical move that had unexpected negative effects to the americans allies...

Iraq was invaded not because of Saddam per say, hes been a thorn in the americans side for years. The americans arnt stupid, they know the real terror nations---Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan(to a lesser extent then the others), but iraq was figured to be the easiest and killing of two birds with one stone so to say.

It is the old saying pick your battle...The americans planned for iraq to have the terrorists flood in..there is a reason why they arnt securing the borders...they want the terrorists in the bordering nations to come into Iraq...they want them to fight...Iraq is the sponge that is soaking up the terrorists from all around the region...sure they lash out now and then, but for the most part the are focused inward towards Iraq instead of outwards at the western world. And even better for the americans are that Iraqis are pissed off about being randomly caught in the middle are lining up in droves still to be police or army...even with all the killings and car bombs, they still line up to this day...not for the americans sake, but for the money as well as to kill these people that are randomly targeting anybody they can see.

In the short run it might not look good for the Americans, but it is a brillant move that im almost certain they expected negative exposer, not as much as they got i think, but they expected this, in the long term it is actually a very good move by the americans. Tacticly if you add Isreal, they have the Muslim world divided up as we speak. They have troops in the Phillappens(spelling i know), Afganistan, Iraq, Turkey, and Isreal.

The tactical advantage of terrorism is that it is stealthy, the americans are punching the bee hive from inside..that gets the bees agitated and forces them to attack because they have been provoked (of course this makes things more dangerous at first, knuckleheads, that is what happens when you delcare war in the first place). This makes them lose their best tactical advantage, they now strike without the advantage of choice, it forces them to show themselves.basiclly you said that the idea of the war in Iraq is not do eliminate or decrease the terror but aim the terror to israel, turkey, afganistan, Iraq and the philipins. let other nations citizens die from terror attack so the fucking 1st world will be safe.
that nice theory make USA plans seen worse than the oil theories, only it even didn't work, as london,madrid, the troops in Iraq, and tourists in such countries already know.

If you honestly believe that the Bush administration had anything you just finished posting in mind, you are incredibly naive and much too eager to accept and not to doubt the honesty and motivations of your nation's leaders.

He's from the Region Canada6. He's got a better perspective on what is going on over there than we do being over here. You are the one being naive for not trying to listen.

Iraq is hardly the inside of the bee-hive when it comes to terrorism. And the so called "tactic" of attacking Iraq in order to smoke out the terrorists is a retarded idea that a 12 year old would be likely to come up with.

How is it retarded? Is retarded because its actually working? Is it retarded because the Administration is using their brains? Just how is it retarded?

There is no use whatsoever in drawing more suicide bombers to or in, Iraq, while the real source of the problem remains at large and unchecked.

If the suicide bombers are there, they are not here. Unless of course the suicide bombers are homeqrown but that's a different issue. Also, just what precisely is the real source of the problem?

We will not win the war on terror by fighting suicide bombers or volunteers with Kalashnikovs in the streets of middle eastern cities. We will only win this war by disrupting the terrorist high chain of command and hitting them where it hurts the most. Their pockets. Without Osama's vast funds they cannot survive.

I guess some one here doesn't realize that alot of wealthy Middle Easterners are also involved in funding terror and not just Osama Bin Laden. This here is very naive. If you really want to win the war on terror, you take it the support and you start down with the madrasses. Start changing the Ciriculum there from one of hate to one understanding. That is how we'll be able to win this war.

Unless the Whitehouse decides to fund his personal army once more. Just like they did in the early 80's when he was defending Afghanistan from Soviet invasion.

And according to the 9/11 commission report, we didn't do all that much funding to Osama anyway.

If the suicide bombers are there, they are not here. Unless of course the suicide bombers are homeqrown but that's a different issue.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Oh wow. You have your dates mixed up. Not surprising really.

Fact: October 7, 2001 the bombs started to fall on Afghanistan
Fact: March 2003 was when we invaded Iraq

SO how does September 12, 2001 equate to the Iraq War bad for the war on terror?
So why did we have to invade Iraq at all then?

He's from the Region Canada6. He's got a better perspective on what is going on over there than we do being over here. You are the one being naive for not trying to listen.Just becuase I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not listening... For someone to understand what is fully going on, one would have to be in Madrid, Bali, Tunisia, London, etc...


How is it retarded? Is retarded because its actually working? Is it retarded because the Administration is using their brains? Just how is it retarded? It is retarded because that is not the plan that has been layed out. Just some fantasy scenario that soemone wishes to be real. The proof that it is not working has been severely noticed in Madrid, Bali, Tunisia, London and Iraq for example.


If the suicide bombers are there, they are not here. Unless of course the suicide bombers are homeqrown but that's a different issue. Also, just what precisely is the real source of the problem?Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda's central brain of command.


I guess some one here doesn't realize that alot of wealthy Middle Easterners are also involved in funding terror and not just Osama Bin Laden. This here is very naive. If you really want to win the war on terror, you take it the support and you start down with the madrasses. Start changing the Ciriculum there from one of hate to one understanding. That is how we'll be able to win this war.And that is precisely why the Iraqi invasion does not help. It was unfounded as there are no ties to 9/11 (lookup the 9-11 comission) and It did not have the aproval of the UN. It has liberated a country from tyranny but as far as the war on terror is concerned it has not helped at all. It has only made the goal of achieving understanding practically impossible.

You, sir, are an idiot.

3 out of the 4 bombers in London where homegrown so how am I an idiot? By failing to explain yourself, you've shown your self to be an idiot.

So why did we have to invade Iraq at all then?Exactly my point. You owned him if I say so myself.

Further proof, if any were needed, of FOX News' liberal bias.

Hey, with non-liberals pushing for the removal of liberal bias everywhere, I must state "someone's got to say it". Might as well be fox news. Maybe they are liberal biased. Other channels might be more conservative. But your not going to know any true deelysquat unless you watch both, because being both equally biased means they are both somewhat untrustworthy, but at the same time both have an inkling of truth.

So why did we have to invade Iraq at all then?

Because they supported terror. First rule in any war is to take out the support the links by any means necessary. By invading Iraq, we have a cease-fire in Israel. Lebanon is having democracy now that Syria is out of there. Saudi Arabia is starting to smaren up some (women have a limited right to vote now). Kuwait, women have the full right to vote and now have their first ever female cabinet member. Libya is talking to us and have given up on their wmds. These are also by-products of the Iraqi invasion. Not to mention the leader of the Saudi Al Qaeda network (the cells in Saudi Arabia) was killed in a gun fight with Saudi Security Forces.

Because they supported terror.
The 9/11 comission states otherwise.

Because they supported terror. First rule in any war is to take out the support the links by any means necessary. By invading Iraq, we have a cease-fire in Israel. Lebanon is having democracy now that Syria is out of there. Saudi Arabia is starting to smaren up some (women have a limited right to vote now). Kuwait, women have the full right to vote and now have their first ever female cabinet member. Libya is talking to us and have given up on their wmds. These are also by-products of the Iraqi invasion. Not to mention the leader of the Saudi Al Qaeda network (the cells in Saudi Arabia) was killed in a gun fight with Saudi Security Forces.
Um... The cease fire in Israel has more to do with Arafat dying than with the Iraq war. Saudia Arabia is undergoing general reforms, not enough in my opinion, but not because of the war. Libya has been talking longer than the Iraq war. It's paid compensation for the bombing of a disco in Germany that targeted American soldiers. Women voting in Kuwait because of the Iraq war? That's pretty far off. The fights in Saudi Arabia are an aftermath of the war, but I don't consider instability in the world's largest oil exporter a very good thing at all.
The main question is though, what did all this have to do with September 11th? Where was the legitimacy of the invasion in the first place?

Just becuase I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not listening... For someone to understand what is fully going on, one would have to be in Madrid, Bali, Tunisia, London, etc...

No, you don't have to live in those cities to know what is going on. You can also be in the region and understand what is going on.

It is retarded because that is not the plan that has been layed out. Just some fantasy scenario that soemone wishes to be real. The proof that it is not working has been severely noticed in Madrid, Bali, Tunisia, London and Iraq for example.

You do understand military strategy I hope. I hope so because I'm only going to say this once. Not all plans are laid before the press Canada6! I hope you understand that. Madrid happened in 2004 and bali happened shortly after.....

AFGHANISTAN Can't blame Bali on Iraq. As for London....it was site as a cause and apparently, he didn't agree with the war so... that pretty much wipes that out. BTW 3 out of 4 were home grown bombers so again, you really can't blame outsiders for it.



Just because they get captured or killed means nothing. They'll be replaced and I'm sure there's already contigency plans by them in case that happens. You don't survive this long without being stupid.

[quote]And that is precisely why the Iraqi invasion does not help. It was unfounded as there are no ties to 9/11 (lookup the 9-11 comission) and It did not have the aproval of the UN.

They may not have ties to 9/11 but they did have ties to terrorism. As for the UN. We don't need UN authorization to go to war. Never have needed UN Authorization to wage war. You really need to look up national soveriegnty dude. No nation in their right mind would give up its soveriegn right to go to war. BTW: What would you have done if you had a nation that violated 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire? What would you do to someone, if you know you can't negotiate with that person? What would you do when you realize Diplomacy has failed?

It has liberated a country from tyranny but as far as the war on terror is concerned it has not helped at all. It has only made the goal of achieving understanding practically impossible.

oh a goal of understanding? Is that what you think we should be doing? Oh now that's just rich. Very Very rich and it just shows your ignorance.

The 9/11 comission states otherwise.

They Supported Hamas, Hezbullah, and other middle east terror networks. I wasn't talking about Al Qaeda. Nice Job. I guess you forgot that there is more than one Terror network working in the region?

*snip* Unless the Whitehouse decides to fund his personal army once more. Just like they did in the early 80's when he was defending Afghanistan from Soviet invasion.

You know, Osama was with the Mujahadeen, he was not their leader nor even that high in it, his was there and their ally and he brought money... Plus, at that time, the Mujahadeen 'asked' us for help and we were more than willing to help where we could, (Stinger missiles etc.,).

They betrayed their own ideals when they changed from the Mujahadeen and into the Taliban. We had nothing to do with that.

Because they supported terror. First rule in any war is to take out the support the links by any means necessary. By invading Iraq, we have a cease-fire in Israel. Lebanon is having democracy now that Syria is out of there. Saudi Arabia is starting to smaren up some (women have a limited right to vote now). Kuwait, women have the full right to vote and now have their first ever female cabinet member. Libya is talking to us and have given up on their wmds. These are also by-products of the Iraqi invasion. Not to mention the leader of the Saudi Al Qaeda network (the cells in Saudi Arabia) was killed in a gun fight with Saudi Security Forces.

All this, and no mention of Iran or N Korea, two countrys that actually come out and claimed that they have WMD's, and won't get rid of them regardless of what the US does.

Ooooohh......... you're big bad pResident won't try to smoke them out of a hole, will he?

And what about Afghanistan? We have troops there, how could you forget about them?

Do me a favor, please provide me a source for all of these feel good stories about how the middle east loves America. I just can't take your word for it, and i know you wont go too deep into an explanation. :sniper:

Um... The cease fire in Israel has more to do with Arafat dying than with the Iraq war. Saudia Arabia is undergoing general reforms, not enough in my opinion, but not because of the war. Libya has been talking longer than the Iraq war. It's paid compensation for the bombing of a disco in Germany that targeted American soldiers. Women voting in Kuwait because of the Iraq war? That's pretty far off. The fights in Saudi Arabia are an aftermath of the war, but I don't consider instability in the world's largest oil exporter a very good thing at all.

Why do I even bother.

1. Israel-Yes Arafat dying helped. I won't say otherwise. I'll give you that one.
2. Saudi Arabia-You have proof that it wasn't due to the War in Iraq? These reforms didn't start till the Afghan operation but more have occured since our invasion of Iraq. So again, do you have proof that these reforms aren't due to the Iraq War?
3. Libya-Yes they have been talking but have those talks gone anywhere? Nope they haven't. We've been talking to them for years. Then what happens? We invaded Iraq and shortly-there-after, they agree to give up its wmd. So Again, proof that it wasn't due to the Iraq War?
4. Instability? They've already been unstable. The Crown is running scared and they are having a tough fight because the security forces have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda sympathizers.

The main question is though, what did all this have to do with September 11th? Where was the legitimacy of the invasion in the first place?

Where's the legitimacy? Its in the Congressional Archives. I could pull the bill out if you really want me too that Congress passed to Authorize the Use of Force to oust Saddam Hussein from Power. (and that is also another bill that was passed under the Clinton's Administration)

oh a goal of understanding? Is that what you think we should be doing? Oh now that's just rich. Very Very rich and it just shows your ignorance.EXCUSE ME! You were the one who stated that we should be working for an understanding.... AND I QUOTE!...

If you really want to win the war on terror, you take it the support and you start down with the madrasses. Start changing the Ciriculum there from one of hate to one understanding. That is how we'll be able to win this war.

All this, and no mention of Iran or N Korea, two countrys that actually come out and claim that they have WMD's, and won't get rid of them regardless of what the US does.

I suggest you look that that history! Iran doesn't have them yet! And North Korea came out AFTER the Iraq war and stated we have nukes. Do they actually have Nukes though? Have we seen them? No? then I'm still skeptical.

Ooooohh......... you're big bad pResident won't try to smoke them out of a hole, will he?

This makes you look like a very young child. :rolleyes:

And what about Afghanistan? We have troops there, how could you forget about them?

I didn't! But we are talking about Iraq and NOT afghanistan. If you want to talk about Afghanistan, start a new thread on it.

Do me a favor, please provide me a source for all of these feel good stories about how the middle east loves America. I just can't take your word for it, and i know you wont go too deep into an explanation. :sniper:

*yawns*

Sorry but my information comes from the boots on the ground. In other words, our military soldiers fighting over there.

They may not have ties to 9/11 but they did have ties to terrorism. As for the UN. We don't need UN authorization to go to war. Never have needed UN Authorization to wage war. You really need to look up national soveriegnty dude. No nation in their right mind would give up its soveriegn right to go to war. BTW: What would you have done if you had a nation that violated 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire? What would you do to someone, if you know you can't negotiate with that person? What would you do when you realize Diplomacy has failed?
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Actually, you do need UN authorization to go to war legally.

EXCUSE ME! You were the one who stated that we should be working for an understanding.... AND I QUOTE!...

Nice out of context. I give you a cookie for it.

Actually, you do need UN authorization to go to war legally.

Actually, no we don't. Care to show me in those two sections of Article 2 that states we need UN Authorization?

Where's the legitimacy? Its in the Congressional Archives. I could pull the bill out if you really want me too that Congress passed to Authorize the Use of Force to oust Saddam Hussein from Power. (and that is also another bill that was passed under the Clinton's Administration

No, the legitimacy to invade and occupy a foreign nation. Not the political process done to approve of it. You can't be that stupid......

No, the legitimacy to invade and occupy a foreign nation. Not the political process done to approve of it. You can't be that stupid......

You can't be that stupid. We don't need an international body to legitimize a war. You really can't be that stupid to believe we do, are you?

I suggest you look that that history! Iran doesn't have them yet! And North Korea came out AFTER the Iraq war and stated we have nukes. Do they actually have Nukes though? Have we seen them? No? then I'm still skeptical.According the US government they do.

According the US government they do.

And according to the US Government, Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. What's your point?

Nice out of context. I give you a cookie for it.You're lucky I'm the only one who paid attention. I'm a nice guy and I won't hold your manifest self-own against you.

And according to the US Government, Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. What's your point?My point is that according to the US government there were as many reasons to invade North Korea as there were to invade Iraq. And yet...

*Considering the differences in the consequences of the phrases "Go to war legally," verses, "going to war illegally*






*Begins giggling* :p

My point is that according to the US government there were as many reasons to invade North Korea as there were to invade Iraq. And yet...

Dude, we could've invaded North Korea in all these past 50 years and we haven't done it yet. Why? Because they really weren't a threat. We invaded Iraq BEFORE, again BEFORE, they announced they had nukes. I'm still somewhat skeptical that North Korea does but that's just me.

I suggest you look that that history! Iran doesn't have them yet! And North Korea came out AFTER the Iraq war and stated we have nukes. Do they actually have Nukes though? Have we seen them? No? then I'm still skeptical.

Whoa dude I think you need to look 'that that' history! Because.........

1) Iraq didn't have them "yet" either. Remember W. talking about the tubes and the factories, and that they weren't far off from producing one?

2)N Korea is safe because we haven't seen them and you're skeptical?!?!? Why are you skeptical? They've flat out said that they do!!! Why do I get a feeling that the only things you believe have to first come out of W's mouth?

This makes you look like a very young child. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't want to dissapoint you, I know how you like to use someone insulting you as part of your political argument.

I didn't! But we are talking about Iraq and NOT afghanistan. If you want to talk about Afghanistan, start a new thread on it.

That's interesting, because I was only mentioning names of countries you didn't name! You are so intellectually dishonest, why do you even bother?


*yawns*

Sorry but my information comes from the boots on the ground. In other words, our military soldiers fighting over there.

That's right, you're the neo-con who thinks everyone should just take your word for it. You're so full of it. It's a good game plan though, say what you want, and when someone asks you to back it up, just tell them your source isn't able to be reached. Nothing like honest debate.

Why do I even bother. Because you love it :p

1. Israel-Yes Arafat dying helped. I won't say otherwise. I'll give you that one.Thanks

2. Saudi Arabia-You have proof that it wasn't due to the War in Iraq? These reforms didn't start till the Afghan operation but more have occured since our invasion of Iraq. So again, do you have proof that these reforms aren't due to the Iraq War?You made the claim in the first place. Have YOU got any evidence that they are because of the war?

3. Libya-Yes they have been talking but have those talks gone anywhere? Nope they haven't. We've been talking to them for years. Then what happens? We invaded Iraq and shortly-there-after, they agree to give up its wmd. So Again, proof that it wasn't due to the Iraq War?
The month long talks resulted in the weapons program being abolished and inspections being allowed. There've been secret talks with Libya before they opened up in December 2003.

4. Instability? They've already been unstable. The Crown is running scared and they are having a tough fight because the security forces have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda sympathizers.

Due to the Iraq war, the oil industry became target. This has caused the oil price to rise tremendously. That hasn't really subsided yet. They've been unstable before, but not to the degree that came after Iraq.

Where's the legitimacy? Its in the Congressional Archives. I could pull the bill out if you really want me too that Congress passed to Authorize the Use of Force to oust Saddam Hussein from Power. (and that is also another bill that was passed under the Clinton's Administration)Ah, but what was the legitimacy to go in? Congress under Bush was fooled into thinking that it was because of the WMDs and September 11th.

And according to the US Government, Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. What's your point?


Are you kidding me?!!?!?

You're one pliable person, aren't you?

Actually, no we don't. Care to show me in those two sections of Article 2 that states we need UN Authorization?
The part about settling international disputes without endangering international security sounds like it. The SC is the only organ to authorize such force. That's chapter 7 as far as I can remember.

Dude, we could've invaded North Korea in all these past 50 years and we haven't done it yet. Why? Because they really weren't a threat. We invaded Iraq BEFORE, again BEFORE, they announced they had nukes. I'm still somewhat skeptical that North Korea does but that's just me.Ok that's all very nice, but to address an off-topic issue..
Can you stop calling other NS users "stupid" and "ignorant" at the sound of a bell, simply because they have another point of view.
Some may be right others may be wrong but being trigger happy in denigrating other people does not help create a comfortable platform of discussion where said people can share opinions and maybe learn something from each other.

Well, Duh.

This war was illegitimate, and people are dying everyday for something that shouldn't have happened. I feel sorry for them. I wish they could all come home now.

IF you haven't, I would recommend you watch Farenheit 9/11. Its very informative and of course if it weren't true, I'm sure Michael Moore would have been sued.

Many members of congress and many Americans no longer support this war, we realize we were mislead by the administration and now they've started something they can't get out of.

I think we have to support troops,(excluding those who misbehave and commit horrible crimes) because troops joined this war to fight for us, though it turns out they really aren't because we have absolutely nothing to do with them at all, and they had nothing to do with harming us. But they dont want to be over there either. However, we do not have to support this war and what it stands for. and I think anybody who does, should sign up for the millitary right now, and go see what its all about. I think its really stupid and hypocritical for someone to fight wholeheartedly for an obviously wrong war. Its a lost cause, and if you refuse to admit failure and bad judgement, you should go pick up a gun and fight for YOUR war.

Dude, we could've invaded North Korea in all these past 50 years and we haven't done it yet. Why? Because they really weren't a threat. We invaded Iraq BEFORE, again BEFORE, they announced they had nukes. I'm still somewhat skeptical that North Korea does but that's just me.The Clinton administration labeled North Korea as a threat and prepared military action, only not to do so because negotiations were successful. Once Bush got elected and went on his crusade, they sought ways to protect themselves, seeing that negotiations no longer protect and not having WMDs doesn't either.

The part about settling international disputes without endangering international security sounds like it. The SC is the only organ to authorize such force. That's chapter 7 as far as I can remember.

Sorry my friend. But no nation needs the UNSC to wage war on another nation. Never had and never will. Do I have to point to the string of wars that took place without UN authorization to prove my point?

It says we should settle them peacefully and to bring the disputes before the world body. Says nothing about a nation waging war without their approval being legal.l

Well Corny, it's been a blast, but i've got to get to work. Even us liberals know what "hard werk" is all about.

Btw, my condolences to your talking points, they're in a better place now.

The truth is going to war secretly makes the people happier and the goverment more likely stay in power.

Well, Duh.

This war was illegitimate, and people are dying everyday for something that shouldn't have happened. I feel sorry for them. I wish they could all come home now.

How is it illegitimate? Define it. The war was completely legal.

IF you haven't, I would recommend you watch Farenheit 9/11. Its very informative and of course if it weren't true, I'm sure Michael Moore would have been sued.

A movie that has been thoroughly trashed and you want us to watch it? Excuse me while I die laughing.

Many members of congress and many Americans no longer support this war, we realize we were mislead by the administration and now they've started something they can't get out of.

And in that same poll, the majority said to stay till the job is done. Which number do you think the Admin is going to look at? The one that states to stay till the job is done. And to borrow a quote: "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" The Iraqis are starting to stand on their own two feet. Middle of Next year we should begin pulling our forces out. Hopefully!

I think we have to support troops,(excluding those who misbehave and commit horrible crimes) because troops joined this war to fight for us, though it turns out they really aren't because we have absolutely nothing to do with them at all, and they had nothing to do with harming us. But they dont want to be over there either. However, we do not have to support this war and what it stands for. and I think anybody who does, should sign up for the millitary right now, and go see what its all about. I think its really stupid and hypocritical for someone to fight wholeheartedly for an obviously wrong war. Its a lost cause, and if you refuse to admit failure and bad judgement, you should go pick up a gun and fight for YOUR war.

Very nice statement. One I can agree with.

The Clinton administration labeled North Korea as a threat and prepared military action, only not to do so because negotiations were successful.

They were? You have a warped sense of history. BTW, North Korea violated the 1994 agreement. Now, who did what to whom? Yes we negotiated and got an agreement but then who breaks it? North Korea. Go figure.

Once Bush got elected and went on his crusade, they sought ways to protect themselves, seeing that negotiations no longer protect and not having WMDs doesn't either.

They've been after nukes for quite sometime. LONG BEFORE Bush came into office. The 1994 agreement helped them tremendously in this regard. Clinton was a fool to give them a nuclear reactor.

Well Corny, it's been a blast, but i've got to get to work. Even us liberals know what "hard werk" is all about.

Btw, my condolences to your talking points, they're in a better place now.

*looks around*

Nope wasn't using talking points. Nice try though and the word is WORK not werk.

Well its true, the war was legal in the US. but I think we all know, if the truth had been known, it wouldn't have passed congress. Thats all I meant.

In its simplist terms. This war was a bad idea, and its really messy. Does anybody think it will be over during the Bush Administration. I applaud the effort by people like Condoleezza Rice, at least we finally have someone working on our image now. Our heads aren't in the clouds soo much anymore.

Sorry my friend. But no nation needs the UNSC to wage war on another nation. Never had and never will. Do I have to point to the string of wars that took place without UN authorization to prove my point?Which were illegal. Name some. I dare you.

It says we should settle them peacefully and to bring the disputes before the world body. Says nothing about a nation waging war without their approval being legal.l
According to Kofi:"Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Anyway, it's been nice sparring with you, Corneliu, but my battery's nearly dead, so I'm calling it quits for now.

Well its true, the war was legal in the US. but I think we all know, if the truth had been known, it wouldn't have passed congress. Thats all I meant.

We'll never know that will we? Though I will admit that speculation is fun :D

In its simplist terms. This war was a bad idea, and its really messy. Does anybody think it will be over during the Bush Administration. I applaud the effort by people like Condoleezza Rice, at least we finally have someone working on our image now. Our heads aren't in the clouds soo much anymore.

I do. Remember, it takes time to rebuild a nation after a war. Look how long it took us to rebuild Germany and Japan after World War II. Considering we've only been at this for 2 years, the political achievements of Iraq have been quite remarkable. Now, if we can only capture Al Zaraqawi.....

Which were illegal. Name some. I dare you.

Name what? Wars?

The Falkland War
The 3 Arab Israeli wars
the 3 Pakistani/Indian Wars
The Ugandan/Tanzanian War
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

These quickly come to mind.

According to Kofi:"Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

And he's the UN Secretary General! Did you expect him to say anything else? Sorry, but our invasion of Iraq is not a violation of International Law. You can't spin it to say that it was.

Anyway, it's been nice sparring with you, Corneliu, but my battery's nearly dead, so I'm calling it quits for now.

Take Care Laerod!