NationStates Jolt Archive

Word came out this morning that British police forces halted a terrorist operation in Britain that they say was close to being executed. Apparently the suspects in question intended to use liquid explosives to simultaneously blow up multiple U.K. to U.S. flights. Although the information is incomplete at this early hour, it appears to have the stamp of Al-Qaida on it. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terror_plot_43;_ylt=AorT5eULSrJ0EVl4D2tmMhgTv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

This comes one day after I had an argument with a Bush-supporting conservative who was hailing the "brilliance" of the Iraq War. His argument (repeated by many supporters of the President) was essentially a re-tread of an idea introduced by the Bush Administration: we're fighting them (the terrorists) there in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here at home. I tried arguing with that faulty reasoning...just because we are fighting a war in Iraq does not prevent terrorist cells from setting up shop all around the globe. The argument, as you might expect, didn't go over well.

And now this foiled plot today, which only serves to reinforce my argument.

You see, there's a thing called "proof of concept". Wikipedia defines it as:

"A proof of concept is a short and/or incomplete realization (or synopsis) of a certain method or idea(s) to demonstrate its feasibility, or a demonstration in principle, whose purpose is to verify that some concept or theory is probably capable of exploitation in a useful manner." (Wikipedia Entry).

In other words, proof of concept is a demonstration that a certain principle, idea, or practice can work. In this case, the "proof of concept" is the foiled attack in the U.K. The concept itself is that the war going on in Iraq does not prevent terrorists from striking or planning to strike targets outside of the Middle East.

Britain is one of our allies in the war in Iraq. They were among the nations that participated in the invasion of Iraq, and they still have troops deployed there today. But the presence of British troops in Iraq did not prevent terrorists from setting up shop in Britain itself. Had British police not detected and stopped this plot in time, we might well have witnessed yet another terrible attack. As it is, British police and U.S. national security officials caution us that they cannot be sure that they managed to get to all of the cell's members with today's crackdown, and airport security has been ramped up until further notice.

This little event should dispel any lingering doubts about our current policy. We are not going to protect our nation by fighting a war overseas in Iraq. Fighting terrroists is as much a job for the police and intelligence community as it is for the military, if not more so. The current policy as envisioned by the Administration is flawed, and we need to change direction if we are to be successful in fighting terrorism.

Nice try but apparently this was a homegrown thing as it was a British based terror group that planned this. The plot was broken up by an undercover British agent.

As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with the Iraq War.

As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with the Iraq War.

This proves his point exactly. The Iraqi war didn't do squat to prevent terror attacks as Bush supporters so desperately try to purport.

Okay, so your alternative for fighting terrorism is to do...what?

Seriously, I'm curious.

Okay, so your alternative for fighting terrorism is to do...what?

Seriously, I'm curious.

How about adopting friedndlier policies, cutting funds to OTHER terrorists, and not so much with the invading?

There are still five of them - at least - on the run.

That said, why does it always have to be all or nothing with people? Surely the situation can be more shaded than you propose. Is it not conceivable that "fighting them over" there helps prevent domestic terrorism because Iraq attracts foreign jihadis but at the same time does not completely eliminate it because some of them - although a reduced number - will still focus on the US and UK? Basically, it reduces the chances of a terrorist attack at home, but never completely eliminates it.

Mind you, since no one can actually agree what causes terrorism, or even what the ultimate goals of these people are anyway, arguments of this sort are rather pointless to begin with.

Okay, so your alternative for fighting terrorism is to do...what?

Seriously, I'm curious.
Well, for one thing, don't invade countries that were not a threat, i.e. Iraq.

What that does is create even more terrorists.

For another thing, don't abandon one goal (Afghanistan) until you can claim "Mission Accomplished", instead of racing of to another country (Iraq) to declare "Mission Accomplished", when in fact, neither mission has been accomplished.

Okay, so your alternative for fighting terrorism is to do...what?

Seriously, I'm curious.
Maybe do what the British finally did regarding the IRA. i.e. talk with them, rather than just fighting in their country and trying to kill them all.
That seems to have worked.
When was the last time you heard of an IRA plot to attack Britain?

Maybe do what the British finally did regarding the IRA. i.e. talk with them, rather than just fighting in their country and trying to kill them all.
That seems to have worked.
When was the last time you heard of an IRA plot to attack Britain?

The British had it easy with the IRA, they aren't made up of a bunch of semi-apocolyptic nuts prepared to kill themselves to try and take over England and then the world. They were totally happy with just getting Ulster. And they didn't even get that, the Islamists aren't that easily dissuaded.

And the last IRA plot in England? Well, they've been quiet since 2000, probably because they knew that if they tried anything after 9/11, they'd get the holy hand of God coming down on them.

Well, for one thing, don't invade countries that were not a threat, i.e. Iraq.

What that does is create even more terrorists.

For another thing, don't abandon one goal (Afghanistan) until you can claim "Mission Accomplished", instead of racing of to another country (Iraq) to declare "Mission Accomplished", when in fact, neither mission has been accomplished.

Strange thing about terrorists is that they seem to grow up anyway. And what's the alternative then? If invading Iraq creates terrorists, and not invading Iraq would still lead to terrorists being created, what does that leave us with? I'd rather be on the offensive then wait on my heels for another attack.

And it's not like we just up and left Afghanistan after we invaded Iraq. We had the situation pretty well under control before invading Iraq, so it wasn't that big a deal. And we still have troops there, doing their thing, and doing it well.

And the "Mission Accomplished" thing was the end of major combat operations: taking Baghdad, knocking Saddam out of power, getting control from the Baathists in the country, stuff like that.

They grow up anyway, but when you attack relatively peaceful countries, you tend to make more of them. When your house gets bombed, or your parents get killed by soldiers (especially in one of the many "incidents" we've had in Iraq) you tend to get angry. You tend to do things that would otherwise be inconcievable to you. The problem with attacking a country to deal with a problem in that country is that many, many other problems are created.

They grow up anyway, but when you attack relatively peaceful countries, you tend to make more of them. When your house gets bombed, or your parents get killed by soldiers (especially in one of the many "incidents" we've had in Iraq) you tend to get angry. You tend to do things that would otherwise be inconcievable to you. The problem with attacking a country to deal with a problem in that country is that many, many other problems are created.

That in no way explains why the people today wanted to blow up airliners. None of them were Iraqi, or had ever even been to Iraq apparently. Clearly there is something more to this than pat explainations.

creating a democracy in Iraq was a step towards eliminating the reasons for terrorist...it will take some time to take hold...so you are saying " do nothing " is a better idea ? actually you say;

The concept itself is that the war going on in Iraq does not prevent terrorists from striking or planning to strike targets outside of the Middle East

thats a strange concept aand has nothing to do with why the US changed the regime In Iraq .


Yes we get to fight plenty of terrorist but our president and others around the world have said we are in a world wide war against terror ...about ..ohh three million or so times..


islamic crazy bastards are in every state ...so whats going on is just a small skirmish against them. keeping rogue states from arming them and supporting them ..like Iran ..and syria ..and what used to be saddam...is another battle in a long war .



Iran supports terrorism and uses it to advance its policy....they want a nuke ...

care to guess why ?

creating a democracy in Iraq was a step towards eliminating the reasons for terrorist...it will take some time to take hold...so you are saying " do nothing " is a better idea ? actually you say;
The democracy in Iraq is now controlled by the Shiites and the Shiites are closer aligned to Iran. The Iraq constitution will be based on Islamic laws. How long before this new "democracy" embraces western style democracy?

Still waiting for Iraqis to welcome the US troops with open arms? You are a dreamer.

Now, just how many terrorists have been created because of the invasion of Iraq?

thats a strange concept aand has nothing to do with why the US changed the regime In Iraq .
Why did the US change the regime in Iraq? I thought the purpose was to look for WMD, not regime change?

Yes we get to fight plenty of terrorist but our president and others around the world have said we are in a world wide war against terror ...about ..ohh three million or so times..
Just how does one go about fighting a war on terrorism, when terrorists are all over the world? Going to invade one country after another?

islamic crazy bastards are in every state ...so whats going on is just a small skirmish against them. keeping rogue states from arming them and supporting them ..like Iran ..and syria ..and what used to be saddam...is another battle in a long war .
I would call it a plan of futility.

Iran supports terrorism and uses it to advance its policy....they want a nuke ...
What are you going to do to stop them?

care to guess why ?
To protect themselves from being invaded like Iraq was?

The democracy in Iraq is now controlled by the Shiites and the Shiites are closer aligned to Iran. The Iraq constitution will be based on Islamic laws. How long before this new "democracy" embraces western style democracy?

why ? who wants it to be western style democracy ...like a western omlete or something /? they have their own type of democracy...thats what its all about in case you missed democracy 101 in school .

and BTW you are wrong about the shiites being in controll...very wrong..if they were they wouldnt need acoalition to controll the country .

Its kind of self evident .




Still waiting for Iraqis to welcome the US troops with open arms? You are a dreamer.

Could not care less about the welcome..in fact I understand iraqi's not wanting to be under an occupying force...all I have to do is imagine being forced to live under the taliban occupation that the Islamofacist would like to impose. Thats not a dream BTW its a nightmare.

Now, just how many terrorists have been created because of the invasion of Iraq?

Most likely as many as have been killed or persuaded not to be terrorist...who cares ? In the short run its a risk ...in the the long run its a win ...a democratic and free Iraq is a plus for those who are anti terror .
the " terrorist' have been there for years you are a fool to think they spring up and grow on tree's . The education and propagation of terrorist wannabee's has been going full force since 1973 and before ...like a few more wars will cut them down ?


Why did the US change the regime in Iraq? I thought the purpose was to look for WMD, not regime change?

then ...sincerly ..you are a dope.

Do you need the list of reasons posted again?

I think you do .

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

###

There you go you dont have to think that anymore .







Just how does one go about fighting a war on terrorism, when terrorists are all over the world? Going to invade one country after another?

No you kill and capture those you can find and you keep those you supect under watch , at the same time to work to remove the support they get from states like Iran and syria and others...even if it means changing those regimes also and you work to support democracy and you treat your friends with respect and destroy your enemies .
teeorist understand strength and resolve ...not pussy appeasment and tree hugging sessions . in fact I think they kill themselves just for pussy ...one of the reasons anyway...


I would call it a plan of futility.

so whats your plan ?


What are you going to do to stop them?

put bullets in their heads and drop laser guided bombs on them along with firing hellfire missiles up their ass .
along with destroying any country that gives them support .


To protect themselves from being invaded like Iraq was?

No actually that will get them destroyed I doubt anyone would have to invade just to put them back into stone age conditions and desroy their ability to make nukes...why what can they do to STOP it ?...but they want them to destroy Israel and for their own Imperial ambitions...

but if anyone Has any sense they will NEVER be allowed to get them .

But hey ....Dictators and crazy fucks have been appeased and " diplomacy ' has managed TWO world wars...so whats to say anyone learned ?

Why not three ?

Strange thing about terrorists is that they seem to grow up anyway. And what's the alternative then? If invading Iraq creates terrorists, and not invading Iraq would still lead to terrorists being created, what does that leave us with? I'd rather be on the offensive then wait on my heels for another attack.
Iraq was not a threat to the US. My guess is that future Iraq will be more of a threat than the former Iraq under Saddam Hussein. So far, it has cost over $300 Billion to bag one guy, and increase terrorism. How much will it cost to get the rest, and how many more terrorists will that create?

And it's not like we just up and left Afghanistan after we invaded Iraq.
For the most part you did. Not much has changed in 5 years.

We had the situation pretty well under control before invading Iraq, so it wasn't that big a deal. And we still have troops there, doing their thing, and doing it well.
Well under control?

Failure in Afghanistan (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06EFDB1F3BF937A25754C0A9629C8B63)

NATO TAKES ON TURMOIL IN SOUTHERN AFGHANISTAN (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n998/a04.html?397)

And the "Mission Accomplished" thing was the end of major combat operations: taking Baghdad, knocking Saddam out of power, getting control from the Baathists in the country, stuff like that.
If it is the end of major operations, then why is the US sending over more troops?

U.S. may send 5,000 more troops to Baghdad (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14071617/)

Mission Accomplished in Baghdad? Apparently not.

why ? who wants it to be western style democracy ...like a western omlete or something /? they have their own type of democracy...thats what its all about in case you missed democracy 101 in school .

Ok, screw western style democracy, when are we going to see a democracy in which it is not legal to kill raped children because they were involved in homosexual acts?


Most likely as many as have been killed or persuaded not to be terrorist...who cares ? In the short run its a risk ...in the the long run its a win ...a democratic and free Iraq is a plus for those who are anti terror .
the " terrorist' have been there for years you are a fool to think they spring up and grow on tree's . The education and propagation of terrorist wannabee's has been going full force since 1973 and before ...like a few more wars will cut them down ?

We haven't seen the end of the long run yet, and all signs are currently pointing to "flaming pit of fundamentalism." You can claim "In the long run" however much you want, in fact, let me try.
"In the long run, all those bullets were good for that Iraqi citizen!" That doesn't make it anything like true.


No you kill and capture those you can find and you keep those you supect under watch , at the same time to work to remove the support they get from states like Iran and syria and others...even if it means changing those regimes also and you work to support democracy and you treat your friends with respect and destroy your enemies .
teeorist understand strength and resolve ...not pussy appeasment and tree hugging sessions . in fact I think they kill themselves just for pussy ...one of the reasons anyway...

No one is talking about extending a hand in diplomacy to Al Queda. That's stupid. What people are talking about is going after Al Queda, and concentrating on security, WITHOUT invading other countries. Because invasion doesn't fucking work!

so whats your plan ?




put bullets in their heads and drop laser guided bombs on them along with firing hellfire missiles up their ass .
along with destroying any country that gives them support .


And god help anyone who happens to be standing nearby, is that it? and when your soldiers pick up the wrong guy and put a bullet in his head, or fire the bombs and missiles at civilian structures (Don't tell me it didn't happen, you KNOW it happened, we SAW it happen when they were invading!) what the hell do you expect the people who are left to do? What would you do if another nation had done what we have done to Iraq to your country?

No actually that will get them destroyed I doubt anyone would have to invade just to put them back into stone age conditions and desroy their ability to make nukes...why what can they do to STOP it ?...but they want them to destroy Israel and for their own Imperial ambitions...

but if anyone Has any sense they will NEVER be allowed to get them .

But hey ....Dictators and crazy fucks have been appeased and " diplomacy ' has managed TWO world wars...so whats to say anyone learned ?

Why not three ?
What the hell are you talking about at this point. Seriously, you descend into incomprehensible gibberish here. Are you honestly saying that the first and second world wars were solved by diplomacy? And are you suggesting that those wars, (In which we faced an actual, unified nation, or several of them) have anything to do with the spread out, nebulous, difficult to identify threat we now face?

why ? who wants it to be western style democracy ...like a western omlete or something /? they have their own type of democracy...thats what its all about in case you missed democracy 101 in school .
I haven't been in school for a long, long time, and it would appear that you failed Democracy 101?

and BTW you are wrong about the shiites being in controll...very wrong..if they were they wouldnt need acoalition to controll the country .

Its kind of self evident .
Oh? Then Iraq really doesn't have a "democracy" then? When will the coalition actually allow the Iraqis to have their democracy?

Could not care less about the welcome..in fact I understand iraqi's not wanting to be under an occupying force...all I have to do is imagine being forced to live under the taliban occupation that the Islamofacist would like to impose. Thats not a dream BTW its a nightmare.
Taliban? The Taliban are in Afghanistan. I think you are a tad confused?

Most likely as many as have been killed or persuaded not to be terrorist...who cares ? In the short run its a risk ...in the the long run its a win ...a democratic and free Iraq is a plus for those who are anti terror .
You have no proof of that, as long as your troops are "controlling" Iraq?

the " terrorist' have been there for years you are a fool to think they spring up and grow on tree's . The education and propagation of terrorist wannabee's has been going full force since 1973 and before ...like a few more wars will cut them down ?
I guess you never heard of instant hatred? Don't need to grow them, you make them on the spot by shooting or bombing their mom or dad or brother or son or daughter. And you are creating all these terrorists because you don't like Saddam. Wonderful job!!

then ...sincerly ..you are a dope.

Do you need the list of reasons posted again?

I think you do .
I have read that document many times, you don't need to keep spamming it. You really should take the time to read it and realize that Bush misused this document.

There you go you dont have to think that anymore .
It is you that needs to do some thinking. :D

No you kill and capture those you can find and you keep those you supect under watch ,
You mean like at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay? Good job!!

at the same time to work to remove the support they get from states like Iran and syria and others...even if it means changing those regimes also and you work to support democracy and you treat your friends with respect and destroy your enemies .
So, you just go around the world changing regimes and everyone will fall in line and it will all be sunshine and roses? You can barely hold on in Iraq. Try again my friend.

teeorist understand strength and resolve ...not pussy appeasment and tree hugging sessions . in fact I think they kill themselves just for pussy ...one of the reasons anyway...
Yeah, those insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are just buckling under the weight of your "strength and resolve". The never ending wars. Hmmm.

so whats your plan ?
I don't have time to explain it to you right now. It is certainly different than your cowboy approach.

put bullets in their heads and drop laser guided bombs on them along with firing hellfire missiles up their ass .
Will you be going over and helping out with the dispensing of lead or you going to sit on the sidelines and let someone else get the dirty hands?

along with destroying any country that gives them support .
What if Pakistan helps them out? You going to destroy Pakistan?

No actually that will get them destroyed I doubt anyone would have to invade just to put them back into stone age conditions and desroy their ability to make nukes...why what can they do to STOP it ?...but they want them to destroy Israel and for their own Imperial ambitions...
You make it sound so simple, yet it is so complex.

but if anyone Has any sense they will NEVER be allowed to get them .
If I was an Iranian, I sure as hell would want them. Look what happened to Iraq.

But hey ....Dictators and crazy fucks have been appeased and " diplomacy ' has managed TWO world wars...so whats to say anyone learned ?
Apparently, it is the diplomacy that is lacking at the present time?

Why not three ?
So, you have a death wish?

Never seen so many people who so desperately need a plate glass window installed in the small of their back so that when they walk around with their head up their ass they won't slam their face into everything they encounter.

The argument that the war in Iraq is not preventing terrorism in the rest of the world is possibly valid, though not for any of the reasons I have seen listed here. It is not a contributing factor in terrorism in the world today because we have removed Iraq from the equation. The organized terrorist cells have moved to other countries to plan their deeds. Had we not done that, we would undoubtedly be facing a more well-financed and better organized threat.

The fact that this operation was nipped in the bud makes an extremely good case for Bush's war against terrorism. It makes him look downright prescient.

Had we not alerted ourselves and our allies to this threat, we'd be facing another 9/11.

Right Now.

According to some political scientist on CBC News, Al-Qaeda is spreading...

Thanks Bush, I can't fly on the plane no more.

Never seen so many people who so desperately need a plate glass window installed in the small of their back so that when they walk around with their head up their ass they won't slam their face into everything they encounter.

The argument that the war in Iraq is not preventing terrorism in the rest of the world is possibly valid, though not for any of the reasons I have seen listed here. It is not a contributing factor in terrorism in the world today because we have removed Iraq from the equation. The organized terrorist cells have moved to other countries to plan their deeds. Had we not done that, we would undoubtedly be facing a more well-financed and better organized threat.

The fact that this operation was nipped in the bud makes an extremely good case for Bush's war against terrorism. It makes him look downright prescient.

Had we not alerted ourselves and our allies to this threat, we'd be facing another 9/11.

Right Now.

OMFG, he's prescient to have thought that we need to be more aware since 9/11? My DOG Knew we had to be more aware since 9/11. Nothing about the terrorist plot seems to point to it being poorly financed. In fact, the only thing we really owe in this situation is the vigilence of the british police force (and possibly intelligence agency) who uncovered this.

Okay, so your alternative for fighting terrorism is to do...what?

Seriously, I'm curious.

I've said this before.
There are only two historically proven methods for dealing this sort of thing (suicide terrorists):

1) the "Mongol Method": wholesale slaughter of the population from which the terrorists derive. Kill every man woman and child in that population. Every. Last. One. Salt the earth. Make these people disappear from history.

2) Address the Issue(s): Address the grievances that generate the suicidal volunteers. Fix whatever it is that causes the problem in the first place.

At the moment, neither of these is tenable.

The Mongol method, as it would work today, would mean using nuclear weapons on a large portion of the worlds population. This is simply unacceptable in today's political climate, for a wide variety of reasons. Not to mention the ecological damage it would bring to the West.

Addressing the issues causing the current problems would be difficult to impossible, depending on the exact issue. A complete pull out of the Mid East by all western forces would be difficult. Full conversion to Islam would be impossible.

To conclude, we aren't likely to defeat the terrorists using current methods and we aren't likely to adopt effective methods. We will continue on in the tradition of most historical nations - alternatl;y swatting at fles and paying them off, in an attempt to keep the violence down to an acceptable level. If it reaches an unacceptable level (much, much higher than it is now, even in Iraq - frequent and widespread use of WMDs or other real threats of high level destruction), one of the historically proven methods will be adopted. Hopefully. If not, we go down.

I've said this before.
There are only two historically proven methods for dealing this sort of thing (suicide terrorists):

1) the "Mongol Method": wholesale slaughter of the population from which the terrorists derive. Kill every man woman and child in that population. Every. Last. One. Salt the earth. Make these people disappear from history.

2) Address the Issue(s): Address the grievances that generate the suicidal volunteers. Fix whatever it is that causes the problem in the first place.

At the moment, neither of these is tenable.

The Mongol method, as it would work today, would mean using nuclear weapons on a large portion of the worlds population. This is simply unacceptable in today's political climate, for a wide variety of reasons. Not to mention the ecological damage it would bring to the West.

Addressing the issues causing the current problems would be difficult to impossible, depending on the exact issue. A complete pull out of the Mid East by all western forces would be difficult. Full conversion to Islam would be impossible.

To conclude, we aren't likely to defeat the terrorists using current methods and we aren't likely to adopt effective methods. We will continue on in the tradition of most historical nations - alternatl;y swatting at fles and paying them off, in an attempt to keep the violence down to an acceptable level. If it reaches an unacceptable level (much, much higher than it is now, even in Iraq - frequent and widespread use of WMDs or other real threats of high level destruction), one of the historically proven methods will be adopted. Hopefully. If not, we go down.

I agree with this pretty much completely.

OMFG, he's prescient to have thought that we need to be more aware since 9/11? My DOG Knew we had to be more aware since 9/11. Nothing about the terrorist plot seems to point to it being poorly financed. In fact, the only thing we really owe in this situation is the vigilence of the british police force (and possibly intelligence agency) who uncovered this.

What he did do was go to the country that was one of the leading financiers at the time of international terrorism (Iraq), and took them out. By doing so, he made Al Qaeda's leadership fragmented for a time and certainly made it less able to finance global operations such as this one. The prescience (and I only said it makes him appear to be prescient)comes into play when you acknowledge that preparedness by ourselves and our allies would prevent future occurrences of another 9/11 style scenario possible.

Until we ALL open our eyes and help make the necessary changes in policy we shall always be at risk.

What he did do was go to the country that was one of the leading financiers at the time of international terrorism (Iraq), and took them out.
Proof that Iraq was "one of the leading financiers at the time of international terrorism".

By doing so, he made Al Qaeda's leadership fragmented for a time and certainly made it less able to finance global operations such as this one.
What did the invasion of Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda's operations?

What did the invasion of Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda's operations?

Just this. Not that you'll listen.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGU0MjdhNTZhYmNjMDFiMzdkMmNiYzAzOTAyNjQ0ZTE=
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007809
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

creating a democracy in Iraq was a step towards eliminating the reasons for terrorist...it will take some time to take hold...

Democracy in Iraq? Hahahaha! I think the US was more concerned with setting up a pro-Capitalist government, stuffed with cronies who support oil industry privitisation. That way all those US oil companies who Bush, Cheney and Rice are involved with can get lots of lovely concessions on big oilfields.

Yes we get to fight plenty of terrorist but our president and others around the world have said we are in a world wide war against terror

There are terrorist groups in every part of the world. Why does the US care about the Middle East so much? Perhaps because that's where the oil is?

islamic crazy bastards are in every state ...so whats going on is just a small skirmish against them. keeping rogue states from arming them and supporting them ..like Iran ..and syria ..and what used to be saddam...is another battle in a long war .

Again, we're only talking about the Middle East here.

Iran supports terrorism and uses it to advance its policy....they want a nuke ...

care to guess why ?

Maybe because they feel a little bit threatened by a large military power who have a track record, spanning decades, of interferring with their politics and the politics of their neighbouring countries? Who are currently causing chaos in two of their neighbouring countries following aggressive invasions of these states? Maybe they're trying to defend their autonomy against the only country in the history of the world who has ever used nuclear weapons (and they were against civilian targets)?

I'm not trying to defend terrorists, but I can't see the difference between "terrorists" killing civilians and states killing civilians. The US has funded plenty of "terrorist" groups in the past to arrange coups and regime changes. Osama bin Laden being the most glaring case in point.

What he did do was go to the country that was one of the leading financiers at the time of international terrorism (Iraq), and took them out. By doing so, he made Al Qaeda's leadership fragmented for a time and certainly made it less able to finance global operations such as this one. The prescience (and I only said it makes him appear to be prescient)comes into play when you acknowledge that preparedness by ourselves and our allies would prevent future occurrences of another 9/11 style scenario possible.

Until we ALL open our eyes and help make the necessary changes in policy we shall always be at risk.Al Qaeda's leadership was fragmented through the Iraq invasion? Are you sure?

And please back up the statement about the leading financer of terror bit. I'd like to know some background on that.

Just this. Not that you'll listen.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGU0MjdhNTZhYmNjMDFiMzdkMmNiYzAzOTAyNjQ0ZTE=
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007809
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025
The national review is quite slanted in favor of a side. Not that that means it's wrong, but that means that an editorial from that page isn't valid as a source.
I hope I don't have to point out the obvious on the two opinionjournal editorials.
The worldnetdaily article is rather slanted and bases a the last portion of its arguments on a conspiracy theorist. No, there's no point in listening.

Al Qaeda's leadership was fragmented through the Iraq invasion? Are you sure?

And please back up the statement about the leading financer of terror bit. I'd like to know some background on that.

He can't back it up because those are two Bushevik Rhetorics without documented proof that MyopicAmnesia is reciting as a justification for the Quagmire of the Century that the Middle East has become thanks to Dear Leader and his cowboy impulse to outdo Daddy.

Some of these posts are completely unreadable.

As I read some of these posts I am amazed at just how singularly detatched from reality some of you good people are. I don't really blame you, in some ways. Emotions are high and it's very easy to start wanting to blame someone for the vileness we see around us in the world. You are doing yourself a disservice, though, when you bury your head in the sand and try to convince yourself that you know the best approach just because it's the one that "feels good."

What blows my mind is that a rational, thinking human being can look at a situation like airline hijacking and blame, not the terrorists or the masterminds behind them, but President Bush. You may not like how he's running the USA, you may not like the war we're involved in or his leadership of the country, but friends, at the end of the day, there is *NO JUSTIFICATION* for the deliberate murder of civilians. Yet, by blaming Bush firts, you're doing precisely that. Allow me to explain:

When you say "Bush is responsible because of his invasions" you are suggesting that the terrorists who seek to attack innocents are, in some way, justified. As if you yourself would do the same thing in their position. You begin to see the act of terrorism as a viable and nigh acceptable strategy to institute political change. You might even say that these people are simply basic folks who are fighting back against oppression in the only way they can.

I've even heard it said that in history, the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is who the winner was.

Guys, it's not like that. Terrorists are NOT justified, they're not brave, and they sure as hell aren't freedom fighters. The difference is who they target. If Hezbollah or Hamas or even AlQaeda were attacking purely military targets, then I'd say your argument carries some weight. As an American, the history of my own country teaches us that sometimes revolution is necessary, and you do it by instigating war against the opressor Government through military action. George Washington was a freedom fighter, not a terrorist precisely because he conducted operations against the British Army and Navy.

When Al-Qaeda attacked U.S.S. Cole, it ocurred to me even than that hey, at least it was a "legitimate" target in the sense that a warship is, by definition, a target during war.

But understand something, terrorists aren't the least bit interested in honorably fighting for a cause. They deliberately target those who cannot defend themselves. That doesn't make them warriors, that makes them murderers. Murder is wrong. That statement is not up for debate. If anyone thinks murder is okay then I don't know what to tell you.

At this stage, I'm sure some folks might be tempted to respons by saying that during the US invation of Iraq, many civilians were killed. Yes, that is true. That ALWAYS happens in war. Heck, it used to be that attacking population centers was actually considered a valid tactic. (Think of London, Dresden, Berlin, Heroshima, Tokyo, etc...) But since then we as a civilization have changed out attitudes toward such things, and have invested vast amounts of R&D into developing weapons to minimize civilian casualties. "Smart" weapon technology isn't for hitting the bad guys better, it's for NOT hitting the innocents. Think about it.

But yes, sometimes civilians do get killed in any war. It's one of the things that makes war such a horrible thing. It's the biggest reason war is horrible. But understand... it's not going to get any better when people like Hezbollah or Saddam Hussein start camping civilians in and around military targets in order to further their propaganda war. That's deliberately putting people in harm's way, then crying foul when something terrible happens. This is not the behavior of civilized and rational men.

Did Iraq increase or decrease terror? I don't know. I think it has given a lot of the lesser terrorist groups an outlet to go attack Americans or British without having to find a way to travel across seas and continents, so in that sense, it's doing it's job. Has it inflamed anger against the US and the UK? Maybe, but terrorism didn't just start when we invaded Iraq in 2003. The first bombing of the World Trade Center, the Cole, the African based US embassies and, of course, 9/11 were all attacked prior to that invasion. I will say this, though, I've seen a few people talking about the huge surge in the number of terrorists now that we're at war in Iraq... please cite your source. How many terrorists? Where are they? Where did they come from and how do you know?

Argue form knowledge, please. People don't take fantasy as fact.

They grow up anyway, but when you attack relatively peaceful countries, you tend to make more of them.

What part of Iraq did you find the most peaceful pre US occupation? The gas attacks or the mass graves?

Or are you talking about the relativly peaceful Iraq that had just been in a 10 year bloody war with Iran? Or are you talking about the relativly peaceful Iraq that invaded Kuwait?

And please back up the statement about the leading financer of terror bit. I'd like to know some background on that.

Well for starters lets talk about the $30,000 that Sadaam sent to the families of each sucessful Palestinian suicide bombers? You cant possibly become any more involved in assisting terrorist activities by doing that, short of blowing yourself up. Hell people who didnt even have religious convictions were blowing thenmselves up just to cash in for the benefit of thier families.
Good riddence to the son of a bitch and if we had to invade Iraq to do so then so be it.

What he did do was go to the country that was one of the leading financiers at the time of international terrorism (Iraq), and took them out.
I think you are confusing with either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Besides, the terrorism backing of Iraq was purely in palestine. There is no chance in hell that a palestinian terrorist could threathen the US. They are far more busy with Israel.

By doing so, he made Al Qaeda's leadership fragmented for a time and certainly made it less able to finance global operations such as this one.
seeing as Al-Quaeda and Iraq had no dealing with each other, I fail to understand your logic. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the contrary. Now, Iraq is open to al-queda and they can recruit and find financing where they were not welcome before.

The prescience (and I only said it makes him appear to be prescient)comes into play when you acknowledge that preparedness by ourselves and our allies would prevent future occurrences of another 9/11 style scenario possible.
wrong. again. Madrid? London? Ring a bell? You have stopped more terrorist, yes. But you also caused more attacks to be staged. At best, it's a zero sum equation.

Until we ALL open our eyes and help make the necessary changes in policy we shall always be at risk.
True. We might start by changing this ridiculous policy of invading countries on dubious justifications and actually follow the treaties we signed which forbid us to start pre-emptive wars like Iraq. (as every other UN member).

Besides, the terrorism backing of Iraq was purely in palestine. There is no chance in hell that a palestinian terrorist could threathen the US. They are far more busy with Israel.

Which happens to be our ally. It is not constructive to treat aggression against Israel as being a separate entity from aggression against the USA or against Western Europe. All of these different terrorist groups are intertwined and back each other up. Palestinians cheered when 9/11 went off. Hezbollah has a history not only of attacking Israel but Americans as well (Marine Barracks ring a bell?) So what if a Palestinian zealot can't reach New York? He's not gonna condemn Al-Qaeda for it.


seeing as Al-Quaeda and Iraq had no dealing with each other, I fail to understand your logic. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the contrary. Now, Iraq is open to al-queda and they can recruit and find financing where they were not welcome before.

Negative. Al-Qaeda documentation and materials were discovered in Iraq shortly after the invasion. Known Al-Qaeda members have been captured/killed in Iraq, and not just recently, either. Iraq hs been used as an Al-Qaeda source for years.

Or do you really think Saddam Hussein, in his goodness, kept them out?


wrong. again. Madrid? London? Ring a bell? You have stopped more terrorist, yes. But you also caused more attacks to be staged. At best, it's a zero sum equation.

Can you actually show some proof that suggests these attacks would NOT have taken place had the USA not gone back to Iraq? This isn't even a coherent argument. Why would terrorists attack Spain when it's the USA they're primarily targeting? The bombing in London was executed by British citizens.


True. We might start by changing this ridiculous policy of invading countries on dubious justifications and actually follow the treaties we signed which forbid us to start pre-emptive wars like Iraq. (as every other UN member).
Which justification, precisely, did you find dubious?

-Iraq was in open violation of UN Treaty in harassing and blocking weapons inspectors (which some people insist he did for reasons other than HE WAS HIDING SOMETHING)

-Iraq was in open violation of UN Treaty terms in firing on allied aircraft

(Remember, this was the treaty that laid out the terms of the ceasefire at the end of Desert Storm)

-Saddam Husseing used gas against Kurds

let us know when you find something that ties iraq to what happened yesterday. Find me concrete proof, not just a skewed opinion of world events. But before you do that, just stop, sit back, put your feet up and enjoy another mark in the loss column for the terrorists.

Which happens to be our ally. It is not constructive to treat aggression against Israel as being a separate entity from aggression against the USA or against Western Europe. All of these different terrorist groups are intertwined and back each other up. Palestinians cheered when 9/11 went off. Hezbollah has a history not only of attacking Israel but Americans as well (Marine Barracks ring a bell?) So what if a Palestinian zealot can't reach New York? He's not gonna condemn Al-Qaeda for it.
Israel as our ally is one of the foreign politcal stance that put us in the terrorist bullseye in the first place. I'm not going to comment on what we should do with Israel but let me say this:

- Saddam never sent money to terrorist organization involved outside the middle east. So the claim that Irak is fuding international terrorism is using international as a misnomer.

- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fund more terrorism than Irak ever did. I don't see them being attacked.

- It is not a good justification to invade anyways. Otherwise, why aren't we invading pakistan, saudi arabia, ireland (IRA) or fighting the tamil tigers?


Negative. Al-Qaeda documentation and materials were discovered in Iraq shortly after the invasion. Known Al-Qaeda members have been captured/killed in Iraq, and not just recently, either. Iraq hs been used as an Al-Qaeda source for years.

Or do you really think Saddam Hussein, in his goodness, kept them out?
Now I'll have to ask for a source because what I've heard is that Saddam didn't help Al-Quaeda and even denied their request to use Irak for building terrorist camps. Saddam didn't want Al-Q. in Irak because it would be a source of Muslim fundamentalism which would pose a threat to his secular regime.



Can you actually show some proof that suggests these attacks would NOT have taken place had the USA not gone back to Iraq? This isn't even a coherent argument. Why would terrorists attack Spain when it's the USA they're primarily targeting? The bombing in London was executed by British citizens.
Spain was in Irak until the bombing under the "coalition of the willing". It renders the US effort less effective if they loose the backing of spanish troops. That was the justification for Madrid.

London was a retaliation for the attack of British troops in Afganistan and Irak.

An argument could be put forth that those two attacks would not have happened had Irak never been invaded. No, I cannot proove it but neither can you proove that the Iinvasion of Irak has helped lower terrorism activities in the US. Which, you know, is the goal of that thread.


Which justification, precisely, did you find dubious?

-Iraq was in open violation of UN Treaty in harassing and blocking weapons inspectors (which some people insist he did for reasons other than HE WAS HIDING SOMETHING)

-Iraq was in open violation of UN Treaty terms in firing on allied aircraft

(Remember, this was the treaty that laid out the terms of the ceasefire at the end of Desert Storm)

-Saddam Husseing used gas against Kurds
All of those?

1. Weapons inspectors: they were doing their job. It's Bush that actually pushed them out when it was becoming clear that he wouldn't be able to invade as Irak was complying with weapons inspections. (Which revealed nothing, btw.)

2. Open violation: Let's talk about those violations as I see firing on a plane that shouldn't be there under the same treaty as perfectly understandable. Nevermind the fact that nobody bothered coming forth to the UN to speak about it because they would have been laughed out of there with a long list of violations of the same treaty by their side.

2b. Not to mention that it is highly illogical to base your actions on a UN treaty when the UN has expressively told you that they don't afree with your planned invasion.

3. Gas, Kurds: twenty years ago? The gas you sold them? The gas you encouraged him to use because Iran was seen as a bigger threat? The gas that can no longer be used at all? That gas?

oh mean the atrocities of killing an uprising. Well, let me point the finger back at you and vaguely mention that your hands are as bloody. And that saying he was a bad man was never a good excuse to invade as we could use the same justification to invade your country if we don't like your current president. Do you really want to go there?

So, yeah, let's not even mention the alleged WMD or the so-called African nuclear cake, or the countless other bullshit they used to try to justify this war.

All of those?

1. Weapons inspectors: they were doing their job. It's Bush that actually pushed them out when it was becoming clear that he wouldn't be able to invade as Irak was complying with weapons inspections. (Which revealed nothing, btw.)

2. Open violation: Let's talk about those violations as I see firing on a plane that shouldn't be there under the same treaty as perfectly understandable. Nevermind the fact that nobody bothered coming forth to the UN to speak about it because they would have been laughed out of there with a long list of violations of the same treaty by their side.

2b. Not to mention that it is highly illogical to base your actions on a UN treaty when the UN has expressively told you that they don't afree with your planned invasion.

3. Gas, Kurds: twenty years ago? The gas you sold them? The gas you encouraged him to use because Iran was seen as a bigger threat? The gas that can no longer be used at all? That gas?

oh mean the atrocities of killing an uprising. Well, let me point the finger back at you and vaguely mention that your hands are as bloody. And that saying he was a bad man was never a good excuse to invade as we could use the same justification to invade your country if we don't like your current president. Do you really want to go there?

So, yeah, let's not even mention the alleged WMD or the so-called African nuclear cake, or the countless other bullshit they used to try to justify this war.


Bush kicked them out....George Bush. George W. Bush, US President. That george bush? HA, no bush didnt kick the weapons inspectors out. Good try. Good try.

The gas attack on the kurds, wasnt a reason for the war. Never was never will be an excuse for the war. But the fact that saddam had, and was willing to use gas and other materials on his own people shows that he was crazy enough to use them on israel saudi arabia or coalition forces in afghanistan.

oh mean the atrocities of killing an uprising. Well, let me point the finger back at you and vaguely mention that your hands are as bloody. And that saying he was a bad man was never a good excuse to invade as we could use the same justification to invade your country if we don't like your current president. Do you really want to go there?


Ummm...which uprising did we quell by launching gas attacks? When did the US ever operate secret prison used to torture civilians? I do know a hell of alot about US history, but i guess there are some things i may have missed.


idiot...

Did Iraq increase or decrease terror? I don't know. I think it has given a lot of the lesser terrorist groups an outlet to go attack Americans or British without having to find a way to travel across seas and continents, so in that sense, it's doing it's job. Has it inflamed anger against the US and the UK? Maybe, but terrorism didn't just start when we invaded Iraq in 2003. The first bombing of the World Trade Center, the Cole, the African based US embassies and, of course, 9/11 were all attacked prior to that invasion. I will say this, though, I've seen a few people talking about the huge surge in the number of terrorists now that we're at war in Iraq... please cite your source. How many terrorists? Where are they? Where did they come from and how do you know?

Argue form knowledge, please. People don't take fantasy as fact.
Well, if it's facts you want then how about this:
U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

Wednesday, April 27, 2005;

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total
Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html)

So to answer your question, "Did Iraq increase or decrease terror?" I would venture that it most certainly has.

As for your statement that it's made them all go to Iraq to attack British troops, thereby stopping them from travelling to England...care to tell me exactly how many attacks or attempted attacks from Islamic terrorists were there on British soil in the 10 years prior to 9/11 and how many have there been afterwards?
Off hand I can think of one major attack and several foiled ones since 2001, and NONE before that.

- Saddam never sent money to terrorist organization involved outside the middle east. So the claim that Irak is fuding international terrorism is using international as a misnomer.

Unless your counting thg Middle East as a single nation by simple definition your the one applying the misnomer.

- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fund more terrorism than Irak ever did. I don't see them being attacked.

In fact they have been themselves victims of Al Queda attacks and have contributed to the cause of defeating terrorism by making countless arrests of key terrorist figures so your barking up the wrong tree there as wel




Spain was in Irak until the bombing under the "coalition of the willing". It renders the US effort less effective if they loose the backing of spanish troops. That was the justification for Madrid.

The day we have to rely on the Spanish to defeat terrorism is the day the world is doomed.






1. Weapons inspectors: they were doing their job. It's Bush that actually pushed them out when it was becoming clear that he wouldn't be able to invade as Irak was complying with weapons inspections. (Which revealed nothing, btw.)

Odd how every single head of the UN inspections teams found Iraq to not be in compliance with inspections isnt it.

2. Open violation: Let's talk about those violations as I see firing on a plane that shouldn't be there under the same treaty as perfectly understandable. Nevermind the fact that nobody bothered coming forth to the UN to speak about it because they would have been laughed out of there with a long list of violations of the same treaty by their side.

?? cite the long list of treaty violations by the British/US


3. Gas, Kurds: twenty years ago? The gas you sold them? The gas you encouraged him to use because Iran was seen as a bigger threat? The gas that can no longer be used at all? That gas?

The last time i checked mass murder of your own population didnt have a statute of limitations.

Israel as our ally is one of the foreign politcal stance that put us in the terrorist bullseye in the first place. I'm not going to comment on what we should do with Israel but let me say this:

Why not? Surely our position with Israel is important, since it's one of the few things Middle Eastern regimes agree on.


- Saddam never sent money to terrorist organization involved outside the middle east. So the claim that Irak is fuding international terrorism is using international as a misnomer.

The word International, my friend, refers to anything that goes on between the borders of sovereign nations. The "Middle East" is a collection of nations. Therefore if he funded Palestinian attacks against Israel, that is, by definition, International terrorism.


- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fund more terrorism than Irak ever did. I don't see them being attacked.

Possibly, although it woul dbe interesting to see what kind of source could possibly accurately and honestly put a number on those figures. Consider, however, that Saudi Arabia did not invade Kuwait, has never posessed nor attempted to posess WMDs, and has not threatened the USA with destruction. (Yes, Saddam did.) Pakistan has been known to harbor terrorists (and still does, beyond the control of the central government) but at the mo ment is governed (however ineffectively) by a faction that is making an effort to be friendly.


- It is not a good justification to invade anyways. Otherwise, why aren't we invading pakistan, saudi arabia, ireland (IRA) or fighting the tamil tigers?

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, see above. Ireland? Seriously? The IRA is an internal problem to the United Kingdom. Please enlighten me, who are the Tamil Tigers?


Now I'll have to ask for a source because what I've heard is that Saddam didn't help Al-Quaeda and even denied their request to use Irak for building terrorist camps. Saddam didn't want Al-Q. in Irak because it would be a source of Muslim fundamentalism which would pose a threat to his secular regime.

In mid 2004 there was an Al-Qaeda safehouse uncovered in the northeasten region of Iraq. This story was carried primarily by Fox News and mentioned briefely on CNN and MSNBC. It was then theorized that Saddam had been making nice with Al-Qaeda as they had a common enemy (USA). Among the items retrieved were computers, training manuals, training videocassettes and documentation for fake IDs.


Spain was in Irak until the bombing under the "coalition of the willing". It renders the US effort less effective if they loose the backing of spanish troops. That was the justification for Madrid.
I stand corrected.


London was a retaliation for the attack of British troops in Afganistan and Irak.
And it is important to note that Afganistan was included in that package. This implies not a protest against the right or wrongness of Iraq, but rather the general objection to invading any Islamic country for any reason, apparently, since the decision to go into Afganistan is much less controversial than Iraq.


An argument could be put forth that those two attacks would not have happened had Irak never been invaded. No, I cannot proove it but neither can you proove that the Iinvasion of Irak has helped lower terrorism activities in the US. Which, you know, is the goal of that thread.


Then I submit to you the following thought. Prior to the American occupation of Iraq, we had sustained terrorist attacks since the late 70s. The marine barracks in Beiruit, Granada, WTC in 1993, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, and 9/11. Add to this the occasional arline hijacking and hostage situation where Americans and Israelis were plumb hostages. Remember the US Embassy in Tehran. The US has been at odds with the Islamic world for a long, long time. Much of that has been related to our close friendship with Israel, which is anathema to most of these regimes. Also, note that the Al-Qaeda attacks on the US during the 90s (Cole, Embassies and WTC I) were launched not because of our presence in Iraq, but because of our INVITED presence in Saudi Arabia, and support for Israel.



1. Weapons inspectors: they were doing their job. It's Bush that actually pushed them out when it was becoming clear that he wouldn't be able to invade as Irak was complying with weapons inspections. (Which revealed nothing, btw.)
No he wasn't. Saddam tested U.N. resolve almost on a regular basis. Usually it took threats of attack or air strikes to get him to relent, usually after he had bought himself enough time to.... hmmmm


2. Open violation: Let's talk about those violations as I see firing on a plane that shouldn't be there under the same treaty as perfectly understandable. Nevermind the fact that nobody bothered coming forth to the UN to speak about it because they would have been laughed out of there with a long list of violations of the same treaty by their side.

Allied overflights in the no-fly zone were perfectly legal under the terms of the treaty and were used to enforce those terms. American planes were not the only planes in that zone nor were they the only ones fired upon.


2b. Not to mention that it is highly illogical to base your actions on a UN treaty when the UN has expressively told you that they don't afree with your planned invasion.

With a different Security Council and General Secretary


3. Gas, Kurds: twenty years ago? The gas you sold them? The gas you encouraged him to use because Iran was seen as a bigger threat? The gas that can no longer be used at all? That gas?

Not 20 years ago, during the 90s. You do realize there was a second zone in northern Iraq established for the protection of the Kurds?


oh mean the atrocities of killing an uprising. Well, let me point the finger back at you and vaguely mention that your hands are as bloody. And that saying he was a bad man was never a good excuse to invade as we could use the same justification to invade your country if we don't like your current president. Do you really want to go there?

You know, it's interesting that you say that, because there is a historical precedent. During the American Civil War, the southern States appealed to England and to France for military aid. They wanted help fighting against a national leader whose election triggered the uprising. Also interestingly, these foreign nations were leaning toward helping when the Battle of Gettysburg demonstrated the relative weakness of the south, thus discouraging these nations from getting involved.


So, yeah, let's not even mention the alleged WMD or the so-called African nuclear cake, or the countless other bullshit they used to try to justify this war.
Let's not. You'd lose that discussion.

Nice try but apparently this was a homegrown thing as it was a British based terror group that planned this. The plot was broken up by an undercover British agent.

As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with the Iraq War.
The other argument that I would use, had this not been a local Arab plot to destroy the western world, would have been simple. The amount of intelligence gained by killing and capturing terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is liable to assist in locating terrorist operations in other areas. So we do profit by prosecuting a war in Iraq, etc.

Well, if it's facts you want then how about this:

Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html)

So to answer your question, "Did Iraq increase or decrease terror?" I would venture that it most certainly has.
Were these attacks the total number of successful attacks, or including foiled ones? This seems to include ones locally inside Iraq, and the reasoning there doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. Think about it.


As for your statement that it's made them all go to Iraq to attack British troops, thereby stopping them from travelling to England......
Quote me correctly or not at all. Go back and re-read.

Doing a bit more googling, I came across these figures:
Terrorist attacks, Worldwide
Year......Acts......Killed......Wounded
2004......655*.....1907......6704
2003......208.......625......3646
2002......199.......725......2013
2001......346......3547......1080
2000......423.......405.......791
1999......392.......233.......706
1998......273.......741......5952
1997......304.......221.......693
1996......296.......311......2652
1995......440.......165......6291
*no data given in the table I found, so I just used the US State Dept tally.

From: Patterns of Global Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism)

And now for the real kicker:
2005
11,111 terrorist attacks
14,602 deaths
24,705 injuries

linky number 1 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/dailyUpdate.html)
linky number 2 (http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20060428112209-29811.pdf)

Is the US State Dept's own figures good enough for you, New Bretonnia?

Demented Hamsters, I'd like to commend you on making an effort to bring real live data to the discussion. Thanks. (No sarcasm here. I really mean that.)

But consider that the data you're citing includes actions and casualties that would be considered part of the war on terrorists. Many of those casualties come from inside Iraq, and also include actions taking place between Israel and Palestine or Hezbollah. So essentially, you can make the argument that there is a net increase in worldwide terrorist activity, but not that it is causing more casualties outside the warzone, at least not to such an extent that it (The invasion) can be considered a failure.

Were these attacks the total number of successful attacks, or including foiled ones? This seems to include ones locally inside Iraq, and the reasoning there doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. Think about it.
What part of the word GLOBAL do you not understand?
How about you exercise a little bit of finger muscle and click the link and read it before wasting your time trying to point out erroneous fallacies, huh?

Quote me correctly or not at all. Go back and re-read.
Okay, let's quote you exactly:
I think it has given a lot of the lesser terrorist groups an outlet to go attack Americans or British without having to find a way to travel across seas and continents, so in that sense, it's doing it's job
Care to explain what that means exactly?
I can only read it to mean they've got the chance to attack the British without having to go to Britain to do so.
Is there another way of reading it?
If that is what you mean, then tell me why have there been so many attacks and attempted attacks by Islamic terrorists ON British soil in the last 5 years, whereas there had been a grand total of NONE in the 10 years prior (indeed if ever)?
In simple terms:
Prior to British involvment in Iraq: No attacks against the British in Britain by Islamic Terrorists.
Since British involvment in Iraq: Lots of attacks against the British in Britain by Islamic Terrorists.

How is that (presumably Iraq) "doing it's job"?

What part of the word GLOBAL do you not understand?
How about you exercise a little bit of finger muscle and click the link and read it before wasting your time trying to point out erroneous fallacies, huh?
Did you even READ my question? This is now the second time I find that you seem to be so anxious to jam your point down someone's throat that you fail to make sure you understand their point. Or is resorting to snippy comments your way of dealing with it?

"GLOBAL" does not answer the question of whether it included foiled attacks, and it doesn't answer the question of whether it included the ones inside Iraq, since one could argue that those are part of a war and thus, not categorized as terrorism. By asking that, I was basically offering you the opportunity to refine your point.


Okay, let's quote you exactly:
Originally Posted by New Bretonnia
I think it has given a lot of the lesser terrorist groups an outlet to go attack Americans or British without having to find a way to travel across seas and continents, so in that sense, it's doing it's job

Care to explain what that means exactly?
I can only read it to mean they've got the chance to attack the British without having to go to Britain to do so.
Is there another way of reading it?
Yes, the correct way. Let's go over this together. Okay. See the beginning of my post there? I said it has given A LOT of the LESSER terrorist groups...

I did not say ALL.
I did not refer to Al-Qaeda.

My point was that it has opened up an opportunity for some some some some some some some some some (I said it a bunch of times for your benefit.) groups to reach targets they otherwise might not be able to, or would have to travel long distances to do it.

I don't know how fine a point I have to put on it for you, but since we're now quibbling about semantics, I'd venture to say the rational part of this particular conversation is lost.

Bush kicked them out....George Bush. George W. Bush, US President. That george bush? HA, no bush didnt kick the weapons inspectors out. Good try. Good try.

The gas attack on the kurds, wasnt a reason for the war. Never was never will be an excuse for the war. But the fact that saddam had, and was willing to use gas and other materials on his own people shows that he was crazy enough to use them on israel saudi arabia or coalition forces in afghanistan.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10215
Claiming that Hussein could provide terrorists with WMD, Bush urged the UN to enforce Iraqi disarmament mandates, precipitating a diplomatic crisis. On November 13, 2002, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei led UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. Lapses in Iraqi cooperation triggered intense debate over the efficacy of inspections. UN inspection teams departed Iraq upon U.S. advisement given four days prior to full-scale hostilities.

don't like Al-Jazeera. I don't blame you. Here's one article from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.intl/index.html
U.S.-led invasion toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in April, but U.S. experts have yet to find the banned weapons the Bush administration said existed and posed a threat to the United States.

U.N. inspectors left Iraq the day before the invasion began in March, and the United States has expressed no interest in letting them return now that its troops control the country.

in fact, if you search most news agency with the search of "Bush inspection irak war" you'll get a lot of hits and can see history unfolds again.

Ummm...which uprising did we quell by launching gas attacks? When did the US ever operate secret prison used to torture civilians? I do know a hell of alot about US history, but i guess there are some things i may have missed.


idiot...
Gas: Contra? Selling the bloody gas to Saddam in the first place? You might not have quelled an uprsising in the US but that doesn't mean you aren't an accomplice to atrocities.

Secret prisons: CIA black sites? Gitmo? And that's just this war.

Idiot...: please refrain from personnal insults. Not only they bring nothing to the debate, they are also against the rules of the forums.

Unless your counting thg Middle East as a single nation by simple definition your the one applying the misnomer.
and unless you count the middle east as direct threat to the world, the international terrorism of Irak was considered regional terrorism at best. Hence the etiquette 'misnomer'.


In fact they have been themselves victims of Al Queda attacks and have contributed to the cause of defeating terrorism by making countless arrests of key terrorist figures so your barking up the wrong tree there as well
AFTER the invasion. I was under the impression we were talking before the invasion for a while there. You justify an invasion under the ground that since then they have helped the war effort? please.


The day we have to rely on the Spanish to defeat terrorism is the day the world is doomed.
I wouldn't knock Spain's expertise on terrorism if I were you. They have been struggling with the ETA for a long time. In fact, they could probably teach you a thing or two about fighting terrorism.

Odd how every single head of the UN inspections teams found Iraq to not be in compliance with inspections isnt it.
What you mean the missiles already slated for destruction?



?? cite the long list of treaty violations by the British/US
UN resolution 1441:
Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Annex

Text of Blix/El-Baradei letter

The bolded parts.
Not to mention a few breaches in previous resolution like flying airplane outside the no-fly zone,thereby invading Irak airspace, bombing a factory.



The last time i checked mass murder of your own population didnt have a statute of limitations.
Last time I checked, Saddam was never accused of crimes against humanities before the invasion so there wasn't a legal right to go get him. If he was accused of it, I certainly didn't know.

Yes he was a bad man. So is Kim-jong-ill. So is a lot of people. Why going after him and not others. And why use it to justify an illegal war?

Why not? Surely our position with Israel is important, since it's one of the few things Middle Eastern regimes agree on.
I would qualify our position on Israel as a menace to global peace and pathetic. But that's another debate entirely.

But Israel is not the US so terrorism targetted at Israel is not a DIRECT threat to the US.

Besides, like people like to say for Irak: better they attack Israel over there than bringing the fight to our doorstep. In which instance Irak wasn't justified either since we already had a theatre of operations in their backyard. (note: I do not endorse that position.)



The word International, my friend, refers to anything that goes on between the borders of sovereign nations. The "Middle East" is a collection of nations. Therefore if he funded Palestinian attacks against Israel, that is, by definition, International terrorism.
Yes.

But see, calling Irak an international terrorist state is like calling the FARC an international threat. Sure they are kidnapping (the FARC) people in two or more countries, but there's no chance of being kidnapped by the FARC in europe. So calling Irak an international threat is a misnomer because they were no threat to an average joe living in, say, Panama.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, see above. Ireland? Seriously? The IRA is an internal problem to the United Kingdom. Please enlighten me, who are the Tamil Tigers?
A terorist organisation that tries to separate a part of their homeland from the central government. They are involved in a few countries and have been funded by organisations from Canada, the US, europe and all over the place. They are similar to the IRA. But if we are saying that terrorism is bad, surely we mean all terrorism is. Not only the arab kind?

In mid 2004 there was an Al-Qaeda safehouse uncovered in the northeasten region of Iraq. This story was carried primarily by Fox News and mentioned briefely on CNN and MSNBC. It was then theorized that Saddam had been making nice with Al-Qaeda as they had a common enemy (USA). Among the items retrieved were computers, training manuals, training videocassettes and documentation for fake IDs.
Listen, I wouldn't trust a fox story as I don't consider them a reliable source. But if that were true, it would only mean that Saddam didn't do as good a job as we thought on keeping al-queada out. If there were ties between the Irak government and Al-Quaeda, they were between a few persons only and they were not happening under the authorization of Saddam. That much we know. As such, I show to you that you found ONE safe house. Not many all over, only one.


I stand corrected.
IT takes a good man to admit defeat on these borads. I salute you. Honestly. I'm not joking, I have respect for someone who has the ability to admit he was wrong. We might be at opposite ends of every debate, but I will have respect for you from now on.


And it is important to note that Afganistan was included in that package. This implies not a protest against the right or wrongness of Iraq, but rather the general objection to invading any Islamic country for any reason, apparently, since the decision to go into Afganistan is much less controversial than Iraq.
Granted. Still, people agreed with Afganistan as it was UN backed. If the UK didn't go into Irak, I doubt they would have been hit. But this is speculation and can never amount to fact. Your conclusion is as good as mine.


Then I submit to you the following thought. Prior to the American occupation of Iraq, we had sustained terrorist attacks since the late 70s. The marine barracks in Beiruit, Granada, WTC in 1993, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, and 9/11. Add to this the occasional arline hijacking and hostage situation where Americans and Israelis were plumb hostages. Remember the US Embassy in Tehran. The US has been at odds with the Islamic world for a long, long time. Much of that has been related to our close friendship with Israel, which is anathema to most of these regimes. Also, note that the Al-Qaeda attacks on the US during the 90s (Cole, Embassies and WTC I) were launched not because of our presence in Iraq, but because of our INVITED presence in Saudi Arabia, and support for Israel.
All true.

But I submit to you that the invasion of Irak has not deterred the terrorists to lauch attack at the US (either mianland or abroad) so the justification used to defend the invasion of Irak (you know, "the terrorist are busy over there so they are less likely to attack over here") is wrong. As it was stated in the OP.



No he wasn't. Saddam tested U.N. resolve almost on a regular basis. Usually it took threats of attack or air strikes to get him to relent, usually after he had bought himself enough time to.... hmmmm
Not during the last inspections. I am talking about the ones after 9/11. The ones that were cut short on account of the invasion.


Allied overflights in the no-fly zone were perfectly legal under the terms of the treaty and were used to enforce those terms. American planes were not the only planes in that zone nor were they the only ones fired upon.
Allied flight regularly skirted the no-fly zone if not going outright of it. Saddam was in breach of the no-fly zone, we were too. Besides, those breach had to be exposed to the UN who had supreme authority on what to do with it.


You know, it's interesting that you say that, because there is a historical precedent. During the American Civil War, the southern States appealed to England and to France for military aid. They wanted help fighting against a national leader whose election triggered the uprising. Also interestingly, these foreign nations were leaning toward helping when the Battle of Gettysburg demonstrated the relative weakness of the south, thus discouraging these nations from getting involved.
Indeed. So we can safely say that "he was a bad man" isn't a good justification for an invasion?

Let's not. You'd lose that discussion.
:rolleyes:

I would qualify our position on Israel as a menace to global peace and pathetic. But that's another debate entirely.
Okay. That's all you had to say. That reveals a LOT.



But see, calling Irak an international terrorist state is like calling the FARC an international threat. Sure they are kidnapping (the FARC) people in two or more countries, but there's no chance of being kidnapped by the FARC in europe. So calling Irak an international threat is a misnomer because they were no threat to an average joe living in, say, Panama.

Maybe we're just thinking different connotations with the word "international." To me, the word means anything that goes on across borders of nations, and usually they have broader implications. Your perspective seems to be more of a global scale.


A terorist organisation that tries to separate a part of their homeland from the central government. They are involved in a few countries and have been funded by organisations from Canada, the US, europe and all over the place. They are similar to the IRA. But if we are saying that terrorism is bad, surely we mean all terrorism is. Not only the arab kind?


In what region do they operate? Just curious.


Listen, I wouldn't trust a fox story as I don't consider them a reliable source. But if that were true, it would only mean that Saddam didn't do as good a job as we thought on keeping al-queada out. If there were ties between the Irak government and Al-Quaeda, they were between a few persons only and they were not happening under the authorization of Saddam. That much we know. As such, I show to you that you found ONE safe house. Not many all over, only one.

I don't expect you to trust ANY single news source. I certainly don't. But as I said, it wasn't just Fox.

True, they refered to one safehouse, but it's not like Al-Qaeda operatives were sneaking into Iraq just to use one single mud shack out in the middle of nowhere. There's more than meets the eye.


IT takes a good man to admit defeat on these borads. I salute you. Honestly. I'm not joking, I have respect for someone who has the ability to admit he was wrong. We might be at opposite ends of every debate, but I will have respect for you from now on.
Much appreciated. I hope you saw my comment a few posts back on the supplying actual data. I find that equally commendable.



Granted. Still, people agreed with Afganistan as it was UN backed. If the UK didn't go into Irak, I doubt they would have been hit. But this is speculation and can never amount to fact. Your conclusion is as good as mine.

Agreed



But I submit to you that the invasion of Irak has not deterred the terrorists to lauch attack at the US (either mianland or abroad) so the justification used to defend the invasion of Irak (you know, "the terrorist are busy over there so they are less likely to attack over here") is wrong. As it was stated in the OP.
True it hasn't deterred them in the short term. But I submit to you that the short term was never part of the equation. It has been said from the very beginning by the President as well as other representatives of the administration that this was going to take a while. A long while. That's why it annoys me when people start talking about the business in Iraq as dragging on... Nobody ever said this was going to be a quickie.



Not during the last inspections. I am talking about the ones after 9/11. The ones that were cut short on account of the invasion.

But see, this business has been going on since the end of the Gulf War. It's not practical to separate the weapons inspections before and after 9/11. I think if anything the timing was coincidental with the new administration. President Clinton was never willing to go any further than a few air strikes and the occasional saber rattle to get Saddam to allow inspections. This was clearly a tactc on Saddam's part to buy time to move stuff around. When Bush and his people took over in 2001, Saddam started pushing harder, probably to test the boundaries with the new President. Well, he found out, didn't he? Don't forget, at one point it was Iraq that expelled the inspectors, not Bush, and they didn't come back for weeks. Doesn't that distrub you?


Allied flight regularly skirted the no-fly zone if not going outright of it. Saddam was in breach of the no-fly zone, we were too. Besides, those breach had to be exposed to the UN who had supreme authority on what to do with it.
Allied planes crossed the line to conduct air strikes as described above.


Indeed. So we can safely say that "he was a bad man" isn't a good justification for an invasion?

Sure, but then, I never said that was a justification. That's a gross oversimplification.

Maybe we're just thinking different connotations with the word "international." To me, the word means anything that goes on across borders of nations, and usually they have broader implications. Your perspective seems to be more of a global scale.
Indded we are. And I always saw the claims of the US administration that Irak was involved in international terrorism as one to spread fear domestically, that is why I scoff at the notion.



In what region do they operate? Just curious.
Wikipedia of the tigers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam)
Here you go.

I don't expect you to trust ANY single news source. I certainly don't. But as I said, it wasn't just Fox.

True, they refered to one safehouse, but it's not like Al-Qaeda operatives were sneaking into Iraq just to use one single mud shack out in the middle of nowhere. There's more than meets the eye.
And I find it dubious to equal one single shack in the middle of nowhere with active dealing between Irak and AQ. Call me a Saddam sympathiser, but I would think that there would be more of those if they were welcome in Irak. Like, say, what they had if Afganistan.


Much appreciated. I hope you saw my comment a few posts back on the supplying actual data. I find that equally commendable.
Indeed.



Agreed
Now we can all sit around a fire and sing kumbaya. ;)



True it hasn't deterred them in the short term. But I submit to you that the short term was never part of the equation. It has been said from the very beginning by the President as well as other representatives of the administration that this was going to take a while. A long while. That's why it annoys me when people start talking about the business in Iraq as dragging on... Nobody ever said this was going to be a quickie.
Whether you are true or not is to be seen. I find it rather dubious that a terrorist organization such as al-quaeda will suddenly change it's modus operandi and become obsessed with only Irak. What would they gain? The only way I see that happening is if the head of AQ becomes suddenly mad and start changing it's goals drastically.

As I see it, the claim that the Irak actions brings the USA safer is only true in the "bringing democracy and bring knowledge where there was none" facet. The true way to defeat terrorism is to root out it's cause. Not outgunning it.



But see, this business has been going on since the end of the Gulf War. It's not practical to separate the weapons inspections before and after 9/11. I think if anything the timing was coincidental with the new administration. President Clinton was never willing to go any further than a few air strikes and the occasional saber rattle to get Saddam to allow inspections. This was clearly a tactc on Saddam's part to buy time to move stuff around. When Bush and his people took over in 2001, Saddam started pushing harder, probably to test the boundaries with the new President. Well, he found out, didn't he? Don't forget, at one point it was Iraq that expelled the inspectors, not Bush, and they didn't come back for weeks. Doesn't that distrub you?
Look at it this way:
Saddam doesn'T have weapons. If his ennemies knows this, he's as good as dead. There will either be a coup or an invasion from neighbouring Iran. Saddam has to look armed and he's playing the cat-and-mouse game to look like he has weapons. His more immediate threat is Iran looking over his shoulder, not the IAEA who will write a rapport who will be discussed in a comitee. Bush enters into the scene and the situation changes drastically. Saddam is fucked. But he did win ten more years of reign with his strategy.

I'm not saying my scenario is true. I'm saying it's as plausible as him having weapons he lugs around while air surveillance sees nothing and he doesn't use his weapons against the invader.


Allied planes crossed the line to conduct air strikes as described above.
In a clear breach of UN resolution 1441, and as an invasion of the Iraqi airspace. Would the US permit a russian plane near it's borders after another russian plane had conducted airstrikes in the past? I rather think not.


Sure, but then, I never said that was a justification. That's a gross oversimplification.
Sure is. But that was the last in a long lines of justifications used to validate the Irak invasion. You might not agree with it, but trust me: it has been used on these boards to justify Irak. As such, I had to respond.

Al Qaeda's leadership was fragmented through the Iraq invasion? Are you sure?

And please back up the statement about the leading financer of terror bit. I'd like to know some background on that.
Just some right wing talking points from Myotisinia with no real substance. Iraq was no threat to the US.

Iraq had no WMD, which is proof that the inspections and sanctions worked.

The 9/11 Commission debunked any meaningful connection between Saddam and Al Queda.

Actually, if one thinks about it, Saddam has been a fairly reserved individual, considering that he had been disarmed, the US has been bombing his country since 1990 until the present, and economic sanctions crippled his country and people.

Democracy in Iraq? Hahahaha! I think the US was more concerned with setting up a pro-Capitalist government, stuffed with cronies who support oil industry privitisation. That way all those US oil companies who Bush, Cheney and Rice are involved with can get lots of lovely concessions on big oilfields.

There are terrorist groups in every part of the world. Why does the US care about the Middle East so much? Perhaps because that's where the oil is?

Again, we're only talking about the Middle East here.

Maybe because they feel a little bit threatened by a large military power who have a track record, spanning decades, of interferring with their politics and the politics of their neighbouring countries? Who are currently causing chaos in two of their neighbouring countries following aggressive invasions of these states? Maybe they're trying to defend their autonomy against the only country in the history of the world who has ever used nuclear weapons (and they were against civilian targets)?

I'm not trying to defend terrorists, but I can't see the difference between "terrorists" killing civilians and states killing civilians. The US has funded plenty of "terrorist" groups in the past to arrange coups and regime changes. Osama bin Laden being the most glaring case in point.
Excellent post. Keep up the good work!! :)

I cannot stand anti war peace fans like the guy that posted this thread. The point is to fight our enemies. That is the point. Yeah we have to fight them abroad and at home so what? We do not always know about all the antiterrorist and antiespionage success stories out there. Anybody who does not like war should go and live in a place with no human rights and then maybe they will see that freedom is worth fighting for. Damn doves!!! The worst thing about it is that otherwise beautiful girls stop shaving their legs because they get all poisoned by pacifistic and neo-liberalism. Makes me want to vomit it does! A pox on their houses!

I cannot stand anti war peace fans like the guy that posted this thread. The point is to fight our enemies. That is the point. Yeah we have to fight them abroad and at home so what? We do not always know about all the antiterrorist and antiespionage success stories out there. Anybody who does not like war should go and live in a place with no human rights and then maybe they will see that freedom is worth fighting for. Damn doves!!! The worst thing about it is that otherwise beautiful girls stop shaving their legs because they get all poisoned by pacifistic and neo-liberalism. Makes me want to vomit it does! A pox on their houses!

Wanting peace is not a crime. To try to find peaceful ways of doing things is also not a crime. I have no problems with those who desire peace. Why do you?

Murflonia, are you suggesting that America should not have dropped A bombs on the Japs? Man you must be a liberal, your idiocy is showing. If you are an American with a father or grandfather who served in the military during World War II and you were conceived after WWII you might not be here if your relative went off to conquer the Jap mainland. You would owe your life to that bomb. Liberals are all a bunch of spoiled pot smoking dummies!!!

Murflonia, are you suggesting that America should not have dropped A bombs on the Japs? Man you must be a liberal, your idiocy is showing. If you are an American with a father or grandfather who served in the military during World War II and you were conceived after WWII you might not be here if your relative went off to conquer the Jap mainland. You would owe your life to that bomb. Liberals are all a bunch of spoiled pot smoking dummies!!!

Knock it off Glorious Freedonia.

Wanting peace is not a crime. To try to find peaceful ways of doing things is also not a crime. I have no problems with those who desire peace. Why do you?

The only way that bad guys become peaceful is if they are a) dead or b) get their way. I am for only option a. That is why I oppose peace.

The only way that bad guys become peaceful is if they are a) dead or b) get their way. I am for only option a. That is why I oppose peace.

So you oppose compromise then which would be option c?

You better believe I do. I would never want to reach any kind of a compromise or understanding with a dictator other than complte and unconditional surrender. Same thing goes for terrorists, pirates, and other internationally operating scum bags out there.

You better believe I do. I would never want to reach any kind of a compromise or understanding with a dictator other than complete and unconditional surrender. Same thing goes for terrorists, pirates, and other internationally operating scum bags out there.

sorry about the double posting

You better believe I do. I would never want to reach any kind of a compromise or understanding with a dictator other than complte and unconditional surrender. Same thing goes for terrorists, pirates, and other internationally operating scum bags out there.

Thank the Lord that you are not running our country for if you were, we would be in dire straits.

Why is that? Do you not believe that we have a duty to use our military to promote human rights abroad and bring bad guys to justice?

Furthermore, police do not reach compromises with criminals (other than not prosecuting little criminals if they work as informants on bigger criminals). Why should it be any different when dealing with those who break international laws?

Why is that? Do you not believe that we have a duty to use our military to promote human rights abroad and bring bad guys to justice?

No I do not believe it is our duty to promote human rights using military force. You do realize that where these terrorists reside in soveriegn countries right? If you want to take out a terrorist organization, you have to attack said country where they reside. That is not always the best policy. Not to mention, if you do not have a very good reason, there is a good chance that you will become diplomatically isolated.

Frankly, I am very concerned about your attitude in all this. You are disregarding all diplomacy when diplomacy could very well work. You should always use diplomacy first. War is always the last resort.

Furthermore, police do not reach compromises with criminals (other than not prosecuting little criminals if they work as informants on bigger criminals). Why should it be any different when dealing with those who break international laws?

Ahh dude, I see you do not know how the criminal justice system works otherwise you would not have made such a comparison.

No I do not believe it is our duty to promote human rights using military force. You do realize that where these terrorists reside in soveriegn countries right? If you want to take out a terrorist organization, you have to attack said country where they reside. That is not always the best policy. Not to mention, if you do not have a very good reason, there is a good chance that you will become diplomatically isolated.

Frankly, I am very concerned about your attitude in all this. You are disregarding all diplomacy when diplomacy could very well work. You should always use diplomacy first. War is always the last resort.

war is the loosers resolution

Why is that? Do you not believe that we have a duty to use our military to promote human rights abroad and bring bad guys to justice?

If that's the motive, then I want to see people like Mugabe dealt with.

war is the loosers resolution

War is always the last resort but if a nation attacks another, I expect the nation that was attacked to retaliate.

War is always the last resort but if a nation attacks another, I expect the nation that was attacked to retaliate.
ok,so Irak is a war.
And a terrorist retaliation

ok,so Irak is a war.
And a terrorist retaliation

A terrorist who is attacking his own people? I expected the Iraqi military to retaliate but they got quickly overwhelmed by American Air power as well as by the American Army.

Your argument would hold weight if the attacks where occuring solely on the coalition forces. Once you start going after your own people, you lose your insurgency protection.

We should go after all the dictatorships that we can. Furthermore, we should have a huge alliance of nations committed to this goal. I do not think that the UN is the best vehicle since these nasty dictatorships are also members there and have connections with the security council. I am thinking something like NATO but not geographically limited. I honestly believe that if we sit by and watch scumbaggery flourish in any part of the world, then we are almost as culpable as the offending scumbag.
Now, I know people can say that America is not perfect but perfection is not the standard. The standard should be whether a government systematically abuses or allows others to systematically abuse human rights or the environment in a manner that shocks the conscience of the International Community. If we went after all of the dirty scumbags nobody would think that we were fighting for oil. We would know that we were fighting for good things like human rights and the environment.

A terrorist who is attacking his own people? I expected the Iraqi military to retaliate but they got quickly overwhelmed by American Air power as well as by the American Army.

Your argument would hold weight if the attacks where occuring solely on the coalition forces. Once you start going after your own people, you lose your insurgency protection.
no a terrorist who invade a country,dividing the people,making fun of their beliefs.
you make them loose their ground

You see, there's a thing called "proof of concept".


There's also a thing called talking down.

Don't be so snooty.

England is getting hit because certain Islamo-Facists view them as weak and ready to cave.

We should go after all the dictatorships that we can.

With what?

Furthermore, we should have a huge alliance of nations committed to this goal. I do not think that the UN is the best vehicle since these nasty dictatorships are also members there and have connections with the security council.

Some truth to this but did it ever occur to you that dictators also have to worry about terrorism?

I am thinking something like NATO but not geographically limited. I honestly believe that if we sit by and watch scumbaggery flourish in any part of the world, then we are almost as culpable as the offending scumbag.

And just how do you suggest that this be done?

Now, I know people can say that America is not perfect but perfection is not the standard. The standard should be whether a government systematically abuses or allows others to systematically abuse human rights or the environment in a manner that shocks the conscience of the International Community.

What one nation labels as a human right abuse my not be the same as another nation.

If we went after all of the dirty scumbags nobody would think that we were fighting for oil.

Except what you are suggesting will lead to many wars in the Middle East.

We would know that we were fighting for good things like human rights and the environment.

Now why are you throwing in the environment when it has nothing to do with human right abuses as is what we are talking about.

There's also a thing called talking down.

Don't be so snooty.

England is getting hit because certain Islamo-Facists view them as weak and ready to cave.
England is getting hit like all imperialism nation will.they made terrorism what it is.still they are not aware,or does not want to face it.
History is what you must read.;)

No I do not believe it is our duty to promote human rights using military force. You do realize that where these terrorists reside in soveriegn countries right? If you want to take out a terrorist organization, you have to attack said country where they reside. That is not always the best policy. Not to mention, if you do not have a very good reason, there is a good chance that you will become diplomatically isolated.

Frankly, I am very concerned about your attitude in all this. You are disregarding all diplomacy when diplomacy could very well work. You should always use diplomacy first. War is always the last resort.
Excellent post. :)

Excellent post. :)

Thank you :)

Why is that? Do you not believe that we have a duty to use our military to promote human rights abroad and bring bad guys to justice?
Will you be signing up to be part of this police force or are you content to throw around the big words and let others go to battle for you?

England is getting hit like all imperialism nation will.they made terrorism what it is.still they are not aware,or does not want to face it.
History is what you must read.;)

Keep hitting.

Last time you took two buildings we took two countries.

Thank you :)

Get a room you two.

Get a room you two.

:confused:

Get a room you two.
We have a room, and your relevant point to this discussion is???

Keep hitting.

Last time you took two buildings we took two countries.
why are you thinking i agree with the "two option"?

Keep hitting.

Last time you took two buildings we took two countries.

First smile i got in this whole thread, well said!

We have a room, and your relevant point to this discussion is???

That you can't take a joke.

That you can't take a joke.

Oh I can take a joke but I have a girlfriend who is still at the university her and I attend :(

why are you thinking i agree with the "two option"?


You came off as though you supported terrorist actions against England because of their imperialist past.

Perhaps you didn't mean to.

Well how about this for a cup of cold hard imperialism. Maybe the Middle East is getting exactly what it needs. These Islamic countries only seem to understand religion and force and however many combinations they can make of the two. Maybe thats the point after all. Maybe it doesnt even matter if the British or the US had "sufficient reason in your eyes" or not. Maybe cleaning out Iraq Afganistan Syria and Iran is exactly what the Middle East needs to ever achieve a real stability? Its not a crazy position really. The alternative is just wait till the psychos get nukes and then god knows what allah tells them to do with them. Maybe an agressive campaign to wipe out the blight that is a huge part of the Middle East is exactly what would be best. Srtrike while the iron is hot, and not talk ourselves into circles on the Middle East till everyone gets a nuke of thier very own. Something to consider.

You came off as though you supported terrorist actions against England because of their imperialist past.

Perhaps you didn't mean to.

no i meant you have to learn.
if England ,France and other Ottomans.
Didn't put theire own interest,it could be different right now.
Of course it is supposing,we all are teletubies

;) :p

Well how about this for a cup of cold hard imperialism. Maybe the Middle East is getting exactly what it needs. These Islamic countries only seem to understand religion and force and however many combinations they can make of the two. Maybe thats the point after all. Maybe it doesnt even matter if the British or the US had "sufficient reason in your eyes" or not. Maybe cleaning out Iraq Afganistan Syria and Iran is exactly what the Middle East needs to ever achieve a real stability? Its not a crazy position really. The alternative is just wait till the psychos get nukes and then god knows what allah tells them to do with them. Maybe an agressive campaign to wipe out the blight that is a huge part of the Middle East is exactly what would be best. Srtrike while the iron is hot, and not talk ourselves into circles on the Middle East till everyone gets a nuke of thier very own. Something to consider.

Excellent. I agree with you 100%.

Excellent. I agree with you 100%.

yeah be the bully and watch.

Terrorism is a global problem and has little to do with dictatorships unless dictatorships are in some way promoting terrorism. I think we should get rid of all dictatorships and terrorists regardless of andy links between the two of them.

No, human rights are not determined by an individual country. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is controlling.

I would personally love to serve in such a military. Would you?

The environment is also a global issue because we all live on the same planet. An extinct species may not be brought back and all this global warming stuff certainly affects us all.

Terrorism is a global problem and has little to do with dictatorships unless dictatorships are in some way promoting terrorism. I think we should get rid of all dictatorships and terrorists regardless of andy links between the two of them.

In that case, you have just declared war on most of the world and no way to do anything about it.

No, human rights are not determined by an individual country. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is controlling.

Uhh the UNDHR is not even binding.

I would personally love to serve in such a military. Would you?

Do you know what the military life is like?

The environment is also a global issue because we all live on the same planet. An extinct species may not be brought back and all this global warming stuff certainly affects us all.

Yep but has no bearing on what is being discussed.

Well how about this for a cup of cold hard imperialism. Maybe the Middle East is getting exactly what it needs. These Islamic countries only seem to understand religion and force and however many combinations they can make of the two. Maybe thats the point after all. Maybe it doesnt even matter if the British or the US had "sufficient reason in your eyes" or not. Maybe cleaning out Iraq Afganistan Syria and Iran is exactly what the Middle East needs to ever achieve a real stability? Its not a crazy position really. The alternative is just wait till the psychos get nukes and then god knows what allah tells them to do with them. Maybe an agressive campaign to wipe out the blight that is a huge part of the Middle East is exactly what would be best. Srtrike while the iron is hot, and not talk ourselves into circles on the Middle East till everyone gets a nuke of thier very own. Something to consider.
Beat them more and maybe they'll stop hating us? Good luck with that.

And if what you think im saying is extreme, consider this. Egypt and the Israelis were mortal enemies. Isreal ripped out Egypts spleen and showed it to them. Then Israel gave the spleen back and they have been reasonable neighbors ever since. Perhaps a blueprint for sucess in the ME.

Keep hitting.

Last time you took two buildings we took two countries.

One of which had nothing to do with the said two buildings, thus making the US mass killers along the lines of Bin Laden but with far more potential to do harm. Congrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if what you think im saying is extreme, consider this. Egypt and the Israelis were mortal enemies. Isreal ripped out Egypts spleen and showed it to them. Then Israel gave the spleen back and they have been reasonable neighbors ever since. Perhaps a blueprint for sucess in the ME.

Have to remember that it take two to make peace. What if a party does not want peace?

Have to remember that it take two to make peace. What if a party does not want peace?

Thats when you take thier spleen. Youll find them suddenly much more amendable to negotiations.Isreal didnt have to worry about if Egypt wanted peace or not, they gave them no other option. And it worked.

creating a democracy in Iraq was a step towards eliminating the reasons for terrorist...?

But Iraq was not a prime "reason" for terrorism in the first place.


Iran supports terrorism and uses it to advance its policy....

So does America.


There you go you dont have to think that anymore .
....

Yeah, theres nothing like vast tracts of c&ped text to spam them into submission.....


and you work to support democracy and you treat your friends with respect and destroy your enemies .....

So why does the US support the regime in Azerbaijan?


The organized terrorist cells have moved to other countries to plan their deeds......

What groups were they? Where in Iraq were they located? Why had nobody mentioned them to this point? Did they leave the keys under the door mat for Al Qaeda and the insurgents when they left?


What he did do was go to the country that was one of the leading financiers at the time of international terrorism (Iraq), and took them out. By doing so, he made Al Qaeda's leadership fragmented for a time and certainly made it less able to finance global operations such as this one. ......

Saddam did not finance Al Qaeda, nor were they based under his control. Please stop spouting nonsense. And your "world net daily" is rather laughable.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan , but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

from The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

In addition, Bush received an intelligence briefing (Presidential Daily Briefing) on September 21st 2001 in which he was told that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda know to US Intelligence. The exact contents of the PDB were requested by the Senate Pre-War intelligence on Iraq Committee but Bush refused to hand them over.

Thats when you take thier spleen. Youll find them suddenly much more amendable to negotiations.Isreal didnt have to worry about if Egypt wanted peace or not, they gave them no other option. And it worked.

It does not seem to work all the time. I could pull out examples of history but I am not going to do so. I will say that the history of the Middle East proves the point.