The real 'blowback' behind Osama

[Laworkerbee]

Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan empowered Osama bin Laden's Islamist forces; ours from Iraq would do the same.

On April 17, 1987, Osama bin Laden led 120 of his most fierce Arab mujahedin into battle. The attack was planned for months and billed as a major offensive for the warriors of God against the atheistic Soviet Red Army and its apostate Afghan puppets. The target: an Afghan government position on the outskirts of Khost.

Things went so poorly one wonders what "FUBAR" is in Arabic. None of the mujahedin positions had been supplied with ammunition, which was stuck in a car far from the battle scene. Men were so exhausted from carrying their own rockets and mortars -- they didn't have enough mules -- that some went back to their cave and passed out from exhaustion before the battle even started. And nobody remembered to pack those pesky wires used for connecting rockets to detonators. A lone government soldier heard the racket Bin Laden's men made and kept the entire force pinned down with a machine gun until Bin Laden ordered a retreat.

This sort of thing was typical among the so-called Arab Afghans, a few thousand ragtag religious misfits imported from the Arab world, interested not so much in Afghan liberation as global jihad. The real Afghans considered the Arab forces clownish and lousy fighters. They were more like the Keystone Kops than battle-hardened mujahedin.

But the following month, Bin Laden helped lead the Arab Afghans in their most successful military effort: defending their mountain lair, the so-called Lion's Den. The battle was militarily successful in the sense that the already retreating Red Army was held at bay on its way out of Dodge.

"From the Soviet perspective the battle of the Lion's Den was a small moment in the tactical retreat from Afghanistan," wrote Lawrence Wright, my source for all of this, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "The Looming Tower." But for Bin Laden and his followers, it was divine proof that the mujahedin crushed the mighty Soviets. There was, according to Wright, "a dizzying sense that they were living in a supernatural world, in which reality knelt before faith. For them, the encounter at the Lion's Den became the foundation of the myth that they defeated the superpower."

Armed with this useful myth, the Arab Afghans became the core of a new global jihadist insurgency called Al Qaeda.

Bin Laden and his lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri, were convinced that they were the protagonists in a world historical drama, when in fact they were more like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, jabbering outside of the limelight.

For years, some of the shriller voices on the left have argued that 9/11 was a classic example of "blowback" from our support of the mujahedin's struggle against Afghanistan. But the fact is we didn't "create Bin Laden" -- he largely created himself. And to the extent that any superpower can claim credit for him, it's the Soviets. It was their withdrawal, not our support, that convinced the foreign fighters that their pinpricks felled the Soviet bear.

Today, a new "blowback" thesis is in the works. The Washington Post, Time magazine and the Associated Press are just a few of the news outlets that have asserted the U.S. is arming the Sunnis in Iraq. This is simply not true, Gen. David H. Petraeus insisted in congressional testimony Monday. But it's no surprise that so many people are leaping to that conclusion because the familiar "blowback" story line is the only plausible one for millions of people who've made up their minds that the war is, was and forever shall be hubristic folly.

Similarly, opponents of the war denounced Petraeus' testimony before he said a single word, not because they know the facts better than Petraeus -- please -- but because anything that doesn't fit the narrative of an ever-worsening quagmire must be a lie of some kind. MoveOn.org even seems willing to suggest that Petraeus' personal motives are perfidious.

Now, many war supporters have certainly forced reality to kneel before faith in recent years. But reality can't stay on bended knees for very long, so those running the Iraq project have had to change course and give facts the respect they deserve.

Many Democrats too have been grudgingly breaking from their base's otherworldly narrative of late, though they continue to insist that a "political solution" can be had in Iraq without a concomitant military one. Even the Sunni insurgents are coming to grips with the fact that Al Qaeda doesn't have Iraq's best interests at heart.

But there is one group that is under no inclination to nod to reality: Al Qaeda. The jihadis' mission, as always, is to create a new reality.

If the Bin Laden of the late 1980s could convince himself that his motley crew delivered the death blow to the Evil Empire, leading to the formation of Al Qaeda, one can only imagine what lesson he and the Bin Ladens of tomorrow would take from America's defeat in Iraq. That's a story line we should all hope won't be written.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg11sep11,0,3372352.column?coll=la-home-commentary

[Hollis]

LA -( )'), Thanks, interesting read.

[nahimov]

Soviet army had to leave Afghanistan and if things continue as they are in Iraq US would have to leave too. Very simple. Either you win or you lose and deal with consequences whatever they might be. If another Al-Qaeda is formed as a result of the defeat than we have to deal with that. You can't fight forever, time of 100 year wars is past.

[Laworkerbee]

It follows the line that whatever happens, whenever the United States withdraws from Iraq the Islamist's will claim victory.

[seraosha]

You can't fight forever, time of 100 year wars is past.

I disagree.
The conflict we are in will last longer, albeit under different names, until there is a victor. And since the roots of this conflict go back over a thousand years, we have a long road ahead of us.

[Shellshock1918]

It follows the line that whatever happens, whenever the United States withdraws from Iraq the Islamist's will claim victory.

Yes, lets just stay until our military collapses on itself and our country goes bankrupt.

What we are doing now is just saving face, and thats it. Time to bring them home and end this senseless, unconstitutional, immoral war. It was wrong to go in, so it is wrong to stay.

$700 Billion dollars(on top of $9 TRILLION debt)
3,800 soldiers killed
20,000 Iraqis killed

How much more will it cost, Laworkerbee???

We did the greatest thing for Osama Bin Laden by invading Iraq, AQ recruitment has been up 20 times its pre-9/11 numbers.

[Hollis]

Yes, lets just stay until our military collapses on itself and our country goes bankrupt.

What we are doing now is just saving face, and thats it. Time to bring them home and end this senseless, unconstitutional, immoral war. It was wrong to go in, so it is wrong to stay.

$700 Billion dollars(on top of $9 TRILLION debt)
3,800 soldiers killed
20,000 Iraqis killed

How much more will it cost, Laworkerbee???

We did the greatest thing for Osama Bin Laden by invading Iraq, AQ recruitment has been up 20 times its pre-9/11 numbers.


So you decided to do the Sahadah? I am not ready yet.

Try reflecting back about 7 years....... Or have you forgotten or?????


From General Price;

"Pace called current debate about whether the United States should be in
a war at all "misunderstood."

"We didn't know we were in a war until Sept. 11, 2001, even though our
enemy had declared war on us several years before," he said. "As long as
you have an enemy who is trying to destroy your way of life, you are in
a war. If they are trying to kill you, you are in a war.

"So the discussion is not whether we are going to be in a war or not,"
he said. "The discussion is about where we are going to stand and
fight." "

[Shellshock1918]

So you decided to do the Sahadah? I am not ready yet.

Try reflecting back about 7 years....... Or have you forgotten or?????


From General Price;

"Pace called current debate about whether the United States should be in
a war at all "misunderstood."

"We didn't know we were in a war until Sept. 11, 2001, even though our
enemy had declared war on us several years before," he said. "As long as
you have an enemy who is trying to destroy your way of life, you are in
a war. If they are trying to kill you, you are in a war.

"So the discussion is not whether we are going to be in a war or not,"
he said. "The discussion is about where we are going to stand and
fight." "

Please tell me what a secular Arab, Saddam Hussein, had to do with 9/11. Please tell me how Iraq had anything to do with AQ.

I have no problem with killing AQ, but not invading countries that have nothing to do with the enemy we are fighting.

[Laworkerbee]

How much more will it cost, Laworkerbee???

What the hell are you asking me for? I don't work for the GAO nor did I advocate invading Iraq.

I believe our country has a duty to the Iraqis and to our fallen and wounded soldiers and that is to find a satisfactory end to this conflict, because it is immoral to waste peoples lives to just pick up and quit when things look difficult.

Beyond that your missing my point of what you quoted; WHENEVER YOU WITHDRAW FROM A FIGHT FROM ISLAMISTS THEY ALWAYS CLAIM VICTORY NO MATTER HOW BAD YOU BENT THEM OVER......


Also please point out to me how the conflict in Iraq is "unconstitutional"

[Hollis]

What the hell are you asking me for? I don't work for the GAO nor did I advocate invading Iraq.

I believe our country has a duty to the Iraqis and to our fallen and wounded soldiers and that is to find a satisfactory end to this conflict, because it is immoral to waste peoples lives to just pick up and quit when things look difficult.

Beyond that your missing my point of what you quoted; WHENEVER YOU WITHDRAW FROM A FIGHT FROM ISLAMISTS THEY ALWAYS CLAIM VICTORY NO MATTER HOW BAD YOU BENT THEM OVER......


That is much better than my reply, Thanks, very well said.

[Shellshock1918]

I believe our country has a duty to the Iraqis and to our fallen and wounded soldiers and that is to find a satisfactory end to this conflict, because it is immoral to waste peoples lives to just pick up and quit when things look difficult.
Saving face. How many more soldiers do you want to be killed in order to have them return with "their honor." I want them alive and not fighting wars that are unnecessary and not dying for reasons that have nothing to do with our national security.


WHENEVER YOU WITHDRAW FROM A FIGHT FROM ISLAMISTS THEY ALWAYS CLAIM VICTORY NO MATTER HOW BAD YOU BENT THEM OVER......Bent them over? We've been the best recruiting tool for AQ! Their numbers have sky rocketed and more people hate us now than ever.

I hope you have your water bottle ready, cause its hot in the desert.

Its unconstitutional because we did not declare war. We have not declared war since WWII. Whats the matter with us?? Why do we evade the very document that we agree to abide by? Congress gave the President the authority to go to war whenever he wanted. It is the responsibility of the congress to declare war.

[nahimov]

I disagree.
The conflict we are in will last longer, albeit under different names, until there is a victor. And since the roots of this conflict go back over a thousand years, we have a long road ahead of us.

And what conflict would that be? War on terror? Than Iraq is not part of that conflict.

[Laworkerbee]

That is much better than my reply, Thanks, very well said.

Wal Hamdu Lillaah p-)

[Laworkerbee]

Saving face. How many more soldiers do you want to be killed in order to have them return with "their honor." I want them alive and not fighting wars that are unnecessary and not dying for reasons that have nothing to do with our national security.

I didn't mention anything about saving face, saving face isn't the point here. Lost lives and limbs are the point. You and I both want the same thing....to see the United States withdraw from Iraq.


Bent them over? We've been the best recruiting tool for AQ! Their numbers have sky rocketed and more people hate us now than ever.
I beg to differ 9/11 was the best recruiting tool AQ ever had since it showed the great Satan America could be dealt a heavy blow.


I hope you have your water bottle ready, cause its hot in the desert.What are you trying to imply there I have no idea but I'm waiting to be called a NeoCon.



Its unconstitutional because we did not declare war. We have not declared war since WWII. Whats the matter with us?? Why do we evade the very document that we agree to abide by? Congress gave the President the authority to go to war whenever he wanted. It is the responsibility of the congress to declare war. Save it and stow it, I already agree with you there as well.


I'm not going to debate you further about the Iraq war, this thread isn't about it so try keeping it on track.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Its unconstitutional because we did not declare war. We have not declared war since WWII. Whats the matter with us?? Why do we evade the very document that we agree to abide by? Congress gave the President the authority to go to war whenever he wanted. It is the responsibility of the congress to declare war.

Well your opinion (as ill-advised as it is) is one thing, but this is just factually incorrect. There is not, and never has been a constitutional requirement to declare war.

Over our history, we've declared war 5 times. Our first "undeclared" war was back in 1798. Was Bush to blame for that one? We also had them in 1801, 1815, 1820, 1859...hell, 46 years of war with the Apache Nation. If you're going to revise history to make a declaration of war the only way to wage a legal war, you'll have to go a looonnng way back.

[KillerBD]

Soviet army had to leave Afghanistan and if things continue as they are in Iraq US would have to leave too. Very simple. Either you win or you lose and deal with consequences whatever they might be. If another Al-Qaeda is formed as a result of the defeat than we have to deal with that. You can't fight forever, time of 100 year wars is past.

Thats really interesting... So when did all of these wars end? Last I checked our disfunctional planet is still fighting wars/in conflict all over the place... Many of them have been going on for centuries (Middle East, Africa, South Eash Asia, etc.). Sure we took a few breaks from war here and there but for the most part we as in humankind still just fight.

Also your logic seems a little strange to me: "If another Al-Qaeda is formed as a result of the defeat than we have to deal with that" So if another terrorist organization crops up we will just try and wage another war and if that one doesn't end within 5 years or so we should pull out and then another terrorist organization will come out and so on, and so on, and on, and on...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It's more comforting to see things as a series of isolated, compartmentalized events with a finite beginning and end. It's possible to trace the current Mideast mess all the way back to WWI - probably before - though most folks would say both WWI and WWII were "ended". But then half the people you meet can't even connect the dots between Iraq today and the "end" of the first Gulf war so that really shouldn't surprise me.

[nahimov]

Thats really interesting... So when did all of these wars end? Last I checked our disfunctional planet is still fighting wars/in conflict all over the place... Many of them have been going on for centuries (Middle East, Africa, South Eash Asia, etc.). Sure we took a few breaks from war here and there but for the most part we as in humankind still just fight.

Also your logic seems a little strange to me: "If another Al-Qaeda is formed as a result of the defeat than we have to deal with that" So if another terrorist organization crops up we will just try and wage another war and if that one doesn't end within 5 years or so we should pull out and then another terrorist organization will come out and so on, and so on, and on, and on...

Oh boy way to over exaggerate. I can put it in better terms using smaller words. Do you think US can fight the war in Iraq at the same level as it is right now for 100 years (keeping over 100,000 troops in the country)? I'm not talking about the whole planet or the Universe in general.

Dealing with terrorist organizations does not always require war. That is the mistake US government makes over and over and over again. Besides it is not a fact that if US retreats from Iraq, it will become a terrorist state a la Afghanistan. Iraqis don't like Al-Qaeda any more than we do.

[PoGo]

Dealing with terrorist organizations does not always require war. That is the mistake US government makes over and over and over again.


Is there any other way to get a point across to people who aren't willing to compromise or negotiate? And i would like to remind you that we didn't start this war, which began 6 years ago today, they did.

[Shellshock1918]

Well your opinion (as ill-advised as it is) is one thing, but this is just factually incorrect. There is not, and never has been a constitutional requirement to declare war.

Over our history, we've declared war 5 times. Our first "undeclared" war was back in 1798. Was Bush to blame for that one? We also had them in 1801, 1815, 1820, 1859...hell, 46 years of war with the Apache Nation. If you're going to revise history to make a declaration of war the only way to wage a legal war, you'll have to go a looonnng way back.
Got a source? Its easy to say things and not have anything to back them up.

It is a constitutional requirement to declare war against nations that have done us harm.

[Hollis]

Got a source? Its easy to say things and not have anything to back them up.

It is a constitutional requirement to declare war against nations that have done us harm.


LOL, Where is YOUR SOURCE........ ?????????

Or did you flunk out of civic class?

Just as you stated in another post Fred is not getting your vote.............. I think that is another reason to vote for Fred.

[nahimov]

Is there any other way to get a point across to people who aren't willing to compromise or negotiate? And i would like to remind you that we didn't start this war, which began 6 years ago today, they did.

Sure, 6 years ago mostly Saudi Arabs attacked US. We did not declare war on Saudi Arabia, so I guess there are ways of dealing with terror organizations without invading countries. Terror organizations exist in many countries and the way to deal with them is normal FBI/CIA/Police type of work. Huge armies will not get this job done.

[AlterMega]

Dealing with terrorist organizations does not always require war. That is the mistake US government makes over and over and over again.

If your knowledge on terrorism and attacks on the U.S and its citizens by AQ went back further than 9/11;I'm sure you would think twice before saying anything of the sort.

[PoGo]

Sure, 6 years ago mostly Saudi Arabs attacked US. We did not declare war on Saudi Arabia, so I guess there are ways of dealing with terror organizations without invading countries. Terror organizations exist in many countries and the way to deal with them is normal FBI/CIA/Police type of work. Huge armies will not get this job done.

AFAIK Saudia Arabia wasn't responsible for 9/11 and didn't harbour know terrorists so I don't know why you even brought that up. And I'm sure the Taliban would have let the FBI and CIA just waltz right in to try to catch Osama. :roll:

[Laworkerbee]

the way to deal with them is normal FBI/CIA/Police type of work. Huge armies will not get this job done.

That was tried by the Clinton administration and it failed. The policy needs to be comprehensive, involving all organs of the state; military, diplomatic, law enforcement, and intelligence.

[nahimov]

AFAIK Saudia Arabia wasn't responsible for 9/11 and didn't harbour know terrorists so I don't know why you even brought that up. And I'm sure the Taliban would have let the FBI and CIA just waltz right in to try to catch Osama. :roll:

Yeah we did so great with catching Osama by invading Afghanistan.

[California Joe]

Do you have anything constructive to add or are you just being an asshat for something to do?

[PoGo]

Yeah we did so great with catching Osama by invading Afghanistan.

Well you obviously can't think of a better startegy so don't be so quick to criticize.

[Laworkerbee]

This thread has gone so far off track it doesn't even matter any more. I highly doubt most even read the God damned article.

[PoGo]

Haha don't be sad buddy, I read it.:hug:

[shocker1]

This thread has gone so far off track it doesn't even matter any more. I highly doubt most even read the God damned article.
I read the damn thing. The keystone cops need not win great victories with a media itching for blood and bad news. Our enemy has a friend in media and are experts at using all forms of it.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Got a source? Its easy to say things and not have anything to back them up.

It is a constitutional requirement to declare war against nations that have done us harm.

Well let's go straight to the horse's mouth, the US Constitution.



Section 8: The Congress shall have power

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


That means exactly what it says. The Congress has the power to declare war. It does not say that the Congress "will" declare war, or "must" declare war, nor does it anywhere provide a legislative or deliberative process for doing so. It simply states that when it comes to war, the Congress is the state organ that does so. And as I've illustrated, we have gone into conflict since the 1700's with no such declaration.

Now before you launch into your own personal opinion of what the Constitution means, just don't. The truth is that we have been doing things this way, year after year, since the inception of this country. For God's sake, Thomas Jefferson himself got us involved in an undeclared interventionist war with Islamists back during his administration in 1801 -and it wound up in the Marine Corps Hymn "to the shoes of Tripoli..." This is nothing new.

Or you can just disregard 230 years of history and pretend that we popped into 4D spacetime in 2003 and this is the first time under the Sun that anything like this has ever happened - utterly ignore the actions of FDR and Lincoln and make George Bush look entirely too clever.

[Laworkerbee]

Your a gem 2Sheds

Me thinky he not coming back for more loving.

[shocker1]

He would have been better to argue that Congress bestowed too much power upon the President. Without proper oversight and investigation into the need for such granting of powers. None the less it is in Congress's Constitutional power to do what the voted to do.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Back to the original article - I think it makes a good point. I knew that it was going to be savaged by the "everything that supports the war is a lie" crowd though. I'm also expecting "the CIA created Bin Laden" type hit & run any moment.

[Laworkerbee]

Reading the article made me recall British withdrawal from one of their bases recently and the Mahdi army claiming to have driven them out after words.

I fear following a withdrawal from Iraq the same scene will be repeated but on a grander scale.

[Shellshock1918]

Well let's go straight to the horse's mouth, the US Constitution.



That means exactly what it says. The Congress has the power to declare war. It does not say that the Congress "will" declare war, or "must" declare war, nor does it anywhere provide a legislative or deliberative process for doing so. It simply states that when it comes to war, the Congress is the state organ that does so. And as I've illustrated, we have gone into conflict since the 1700's with no such declaration.

Now before you launch into your own personal opinion of what the Constitution means, just don't. The truth is that we have been doing things this way, year after year, since the inception of this country. For God's sake, Thomas Jefferson himself got us involved in an undeclared interventionist war with Islamists back during his administration in 1801 -and it wound up in the Marine Corps Hymn "to the shoes of Tripoli..." This is nothing new.

Or you can just disregard 230 years of history and pretend that we popped into 4D spacetime in 2003 and this is the first time under the Sun that anything like this has ever happened - utterly ignore the actions of FDR and Lincoln and make George Bush look entirely too clever.

Show me where in the Constitution the President is allowed to go to war without the consent of the Congress.

In Iraq, Congress gave up its authority to judge when to go to war by giving the President to go to war whenever he chose to.

Just because past President's have strayed from the Constitution does not mean that we can excuse recent acts. People have murdered people in the past and we don't just "let that slide".

The Barbary wars were not really wars, but conflicts against pirates. Much the same way we went after AQ in Afghanistan.

The Iraq war was a full military invasion of another nation. That constitutes and requires a declaration of war. AQ, Pirates and Indians are not nations, they are groups of individuals that either were or are deemed threatening to US interests and security. They are not countries and there for do not warrant a declaration of war. However, consent of Congress to(which those respective Presidents did) is essential. The President should never be allowed to throw a nation into war because he or she feels it is necessary, that decision should be up to the people through their elected representatives.

[saBBBat]

Back to the original article - I think it makes a good point. I knew that it was going to be savaged by the "everything that supports the war is a lie" crowd though. I'm also expecting "the CIA created Bin Laden" type hit & run any moment.


I am also fed up with this notion of lies that the Democrats have been pushing for years with sly off hand remarks. May I recommend that you check out "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb. I guess this is kind of off subject, but at one point he discusses how it is basic human nature to "find out" or conclude what "is really going on." Wall Street claims that it can predict the future, when in fact its models of the current market are soley based on historical data. Bankers claim to be experts until a crash occurrs that no one saw coming. Same thing with this war. People want the perception that they know what is going on, so they use anecdotal evidence of Vietname to ridicule Petreaus before he speaks. Petreaus lying to Congress? Last time I checked, this dude is on his staff:

http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Johnson-McNamara-Vietnam/dp/0060929081/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4197479-4872419?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189556696&sr=8-1

Mauser, go **** yourself.

[Shellshock1918]

Mauser, go **** yourself.

Well this sure spiraled down quickly. Ok I think a mod should lock this thread. Obviously saBBBat can't refrain from childish attacks.



And actually its Shellshock1918.

[PoGo]

Show me where in the Constitution the President is allowed to go to war without the consent of the Congress.

In Iraq, Congress gave up its authority to judge when to go to war by giving the President to go to war whenever he chose to.

Just because past President's have strayed from the Constitution does not mean that we can excuse recent acts. People have murdered people in the past and we don't just "let that slide".

The Barbary wars were not really wars, but conflicts against pirates. Much the same way we went after AQ in Afghanistan.

The Iraq war was a full military invasion of another nation. That constitutes and requires a declaration of war. AQ, Pirates and Indians are not nations, they are groups of individuals that either were or are deemed threatening to US interests and security. They are not countries and there for do not warrant a declaration of war. However, consent of Congress to(which those respective Presidents did) is essential. The President should never be allowed to throw a nation into war because he or she feels it is necessary, that decision should be up to the people through their elected representatives.


So many things factually wrong with this post, but I'll just hit the high points.
1. OEF was also a military invasion of another country.
2. We went in after the Taliban the same as we went after Saddam's gov.
3. We were never at war with Iraq or with Afghanistan, we were at war with the Taliban, AQ and Saddam's regime not the country as a whole (i.e. Nazi Germany)

But this is going nowhere so I'm done. PoGo out.

[Shellshock1918]

So many things factually wrong with this post, but I'll just hit the high points.
1. OEF was also a military invasion of another country.
2. We went in after the Taliban the same as we went after Saddam's gov.
3. We were never at war with Iraq or with Afghanistan, we were at war with the Taliban, AQ and Saddam's regime not the country as a whole (i.e. Nazi Germany)

But this is going nowhere so I'm done. PoGo out.

Thats our problem. We let Osama go after pursuing him. Much the same as we went after the Barbary coast pirates in their states. And instead, we invade Iraq! Which had nothing to do with the reason we went into Afghanistan, 9/11!

[shocker1]

Iraq had nothing to do with 911. It does however have everything to do with the past two decades. A long policy of regime change was in place before 911 to at least contain Saddam until his fall. 911 provided the opportunity to call Saddam on his bluffs, cease fire violations, sanctions violations and the WMD issue of course. The war was legal in so many aspects the argument that it was not is uninformed at best. We had the right to invade the first time he violated cease fire shooting at aircraft in the no fly zone.

Congress acted within it's power to grant the President war powers. How that was done and if it was a good decision is another matter for another thread. This thread is way off topic now.

[Shellshock1918]

Iraq had nothing to do with 911. It does however have everything to do with the past two decades. A long policy of regime change was in place before 911 to at least contain Saddam until his fall. 911 provided the opportunity to call Saddam on his bluffs, cease fire violations, sanctions violations and the WMD issue of course. The war was legal in so many aspects the argument that it was not is uninformed at best. We had the right to invade the first time he violated cease fire shooting at aircraft in the no fly zone.

Congress acted within it's power to grant the President war powers. How that was done and if it was a good decision is another matter for another thread. This thread is way off topic now.

No, Congress said "go to war whenever you choose". Not "when we say to". This was an unconstitutional act, it gave the power to go to war solely in the lap of the President and a handful of neo-conservative advisers that advocated our intense involvement in the middle east, so that we can reshape it for our benefit.

[shocker1]

Back to the topic. The goals of the War on Islamic Terrorism were not helped by invading Iraq. I supported the reasons for it but in the long run it has made our fight against AQ that much more difficult. That one action drove a huge wedge between Muslims as a whole and America. Right action, wrong time but we are at this point now. No matter how much death we give our enemy. Nor how much help we give good people AQ and all Islamic extremist will find Victory. Damn fine mess if you ask me.

[Shellshock1918]

Back to the topic. In the goals of the War on Islamic Terrorism were not helped by invading Iraq. I supported the reasons for it but in the long run it has made our fight against AQ that much more difficult. That one action drove a huge wedge between Muslims as a whole and America. Right action, wrong time but we are at this point now. No matter how much death we give our enemy. Nor how much help we give good people AQ and all Islamic extremist will find Victory. Damn fine mess if you ask me.
Yep, we did the best thing for Osama and AQ. We basically painted the world's biggest recruiting poster with the blood of our soldiers and Iraqis. A terrible mistake that was drafted and chosen by a few. A failed foreign policy and a failed plan to defeat our enemies.

[clean]

It also seems to tie in with the old AQ mantra of the hit the US and they will pull out. Beruit in the 80s, Somalia, first Gulf War. There could be 2 AQ guys left when we pull out, but those guys will scream victory and recruiting will start all over again.

[shocker1]

No, Congress said "go to war whenever you choose". Not "when we say to". This was an unconstitutional act, it gave the power to go to war solely in the lap of the President and a handful of neo-conservative advisers that advocated our intense involvement in the middle east, so that we can reshape it for our benefit.
They said when you choose. How hard headed can you be? They signed off, had their committees, press conferences and such. It was legit and the President had a legal loaded gun. Now I do not like that kind of power handed about like that but it was Constitutional. How about saying your elected reps legally mishandled oversight? Like it or not they used the many set laws, policies regarding Iraq and Constitution and granted power.

[clean]

Yep, we did the best thing for Osama and AQ. We basically painted the world's biggest recruiting poster with the blood of our soldiers and Iraqis. A terrible mistake that was drafted and chosen by a few. A failed foreign policy and a failed plan to defeat our enemies.

I don't not agree with you here. Though I wouldn't use the pseudo-New Yorker type language. But the thing is, it's done. The poster is painted. Now what? Loading up the humvees and throwing them in reverse? Is it over when we do that? No more terrorism? No more loss of life?

[shocker1]

The problem with this enemy is his goal is more war and escalation. In a sense we are helping them by not turning the other cheek per say. Not that I am saying ignore the enemy. We could have effected a better strategy in Afghanistan and shown the Muslim world the improvements to the Afghan's lives. Now that we have taken Iraq and from day 1 let lawlessness rule. We have shown a sort of uncaring disrespectful side to Muslims. I am just trying to see it from the eyes of someone directly effected by our wars.

[Shellshock1918]

I don't not agree with you here. Though I wouldn't use the pseudo-New Yorker type language. But the thing is, it's done. The poster is painted. Now what? Loading up the humvees and throwing them in reverse? Is it over when we do that? No more terrorism? No more loss of life?
How many more lives..how many more dollars is it worth to keep fighting in a complete **** up of a situation?

[clean]

Yeah, shocker1. I don't know. There could be something strategic in pulling out, coming home, doing some laundry, re-tooling and getting set to hit them somewhere else. And in the meantime, taking Afghanistan and turning it around.
But the other side of it is, our best ambassadors in the middle east right now all carry the rank of Capt. and below.

[clean]

How many more lives..how many more dollars is it worth to keep fighting in a complete **** up of a situation?

The answer lies in the reverse. How many more lives are lost and how much more does it cost to pull out of a completely f-ed up situation? The answer...

[shocker1]

I just do not see Iraqis working things out with us in the middle of it. I hoped by now Iraq would deal with gangs of thugs and we with a small force would provide the fear factor. AQ is now part of the issue in Iraq and that alone has trapped us in a difficult problem. Not to mention Iran.



But the other side of it is, our best ambassadors in the middle east right now all carry the rank of Capt. and below.
Truth

[clean]

Another part of the equation. Is Iraq a war? Or is it just a battle in the war on terror. Well, not a battle, but another front. It seems people separate the war on terrorism, with the war in iraq. If we pull out of Iraq, how many of those we were fighting then pull up stakes and head to Afghanistan?

But if we do pull out, and those guys do head east, maybe the Iraqis have a chance to work it out.

[shocker1]

They were separate issues then we made them the same. That is how I see it. I think Bush used 911 to further a strategy laid out by certain think tanks in regards to Iraq.

[chas]

Do you really believe the "global war on terror" **** and the WMDs crap or are just trying to convince a few idiots?

[clean]

They were separate issues then we made them the same. That is how I see it. I think Bush used 911 to further a strategy laid out by certain think tanks in regards to Iraq.

I agree. ////

[clean]

Do you really believe the "global war on terror" **** and the WMDs crap or are just trying to convince a few idiots?

Just one idiot.

Dude, it's 9/11. Don't flame today. Save it for tomorrow.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Show me where in the Constitution the President is allowed to go to war without the consent of the Congress.

Honestly, I'm getting a bit tired of showing you things that you're clearly too lazy to look up for yourself. It continues to amaze me that somebody who's throwing around such opinionated statements has such a breathtakingly shallow understanding of the subject matter about which he is commenting.




Constitutional Text.

The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency. Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, §

1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. (3) During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch. (4)

By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President. The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President. It has long been the view of this Office that the Commander-in-Chief Clause is a substantive grant of authority to the President and that the scope of the President's authority to commit the armed forces to combat is very broad. See, e.g., Memorandum for Honorable Charles W. Colson, Special Counsel to the President, from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The President and the War Power: South Vietnam and the Cambodian Sanctuaries (May 22, 1970) (the "Rehnquist Memo"). The President's complete discretion in exercising the Commander-in-Chief power has also been recognized by the courts. In the Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 670 (1862), for example, the Court explained that, whether the President "in fulfilling his duties as Commander in Chief" had met with a situation justifying treating the southern States as belligerents and instituting a blockade, was a question "to be decided by him" and which the Court could not question, but must leave to "the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted." (5)

Some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war - indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to make war. An earlier draft of the Constitution had given to Congress the power to "make" war. When it took up this clause on August 17, 1787, the Convention voted to change the clause from "make" to "declare." 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966) (1911). A supporter of the change argued that it would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id. at 318. Further, other elements of the Constitution describe "engaging" in war, which demonstrates that the Framers understood making and engaging in war to be broader than simply "declaring" war. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3 ("No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."). A State constitution at the time of the ratification included provisions that prohibited the governor from "making" war without legislative approval, S.C. Const. art. XXVI (1776), reprinted in 6 The Federal and State Constitutions 3247 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909). (7) If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of military hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm


There's plenty more where that came from - entire books on the subject - but since you're too lazy to even bother to google it, I suspect you've just painted yourself into a corner and are hoping nobody pushes you off the stool.

...



The President should never be allowed to throw a nation into war because he or she feels it is necessary, that decision should be up to the people through their elected representatives.

You're of course free to wish for any "should be"'s that you like- but we're engaged in a discussion here about what "is" not what "should be". I "should be" able to get Elizabeth Hurley to give me a sponge bath but like your imaginary war process here, it just ain't gonna happen.

From here on in, you're going to have to produce similarly scholarly rebuttals to the references I've posted, and you're protestations of "no it's not" aren't gonna cut it. If you have one of the 4 remaining copies of the Super Ultra Secret Real US Constitution of 1977 wadded up in your pants, that shows something different than the Constitution the rest of us have been using as a reference for law, you'll have to post a transcript to be taken seriously.