Did Al Qaeda Outsmart America?

[OB Kenobi]

One of the best articles I've seen in a while. When you read all this, how can you not wonder about what's really going on?

Try not to be an idiot when replying, this isn't a pissing contest, and it doesn't have anything to do with John Kerry or Michael Moore! If you want to answer, it better be backed up by facts.

Some points raised by the article:

1. Al Qaeda wanted to get rid of Saddam.
2. Al Qaeda gave the CIA false intel about Saddam's WMD.
3. Al Qaeda WANT war so they can gain power.
4. Members of the Bush administration continued to use these claims to justify the war, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE KNOWN TO BE FALSE OR UNPROVEN.
5. What's so important about Iraq to Bush?

Seems that both Bush and Al Qaeda wanted to get rid of Saddam, only Bush didn't take Al Qaeda seriously enough and wonder why they might want the same thing. I think at this point we know why they did, and Bush stepped right in it with both feet...

Did al-Qaeda game Bush into Iraq war?
by Juan Cole

Douglas Jehl of the New York Times explains how Ibn al-Shaykh Libi, a high al-Qaeda official of Libyan extraction, was captured in fall of 2001 and alleged to CIA interrogators that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with training in chemical and biological weapons.

Later on, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaykh Muhammad were captured in Pakistan. Abu Zubaydah was wounded in the course of being captured and was put on heavy duty pain killers, and was interrogated in part while under their influence. Both he and KSM maintained that Bin Laden had forbidden any operational cooperation with Iraq, because it was ruled by an infidel secular Arab socialist regime.

When the CIA came back to Libi with these statements of his colleagues, he folded and admitted he had lied.


What is going on here? It has been suggested that Libi told the CIA whatever they wanted to hear because they tortured him. But there is another possibility, which is that he deliberately misled them. Libi is also the source of a report in January 2002 that al-Qaeda had targeted the US naval base in Bahrain. That allegation was never confirmed, and it is possible that it was also a lie, intended to draw US resources away from Afghanistan, or to make the US cautious about using the base.

I think Bin Laden and his lieutenants wanted to provoke wars between the US and Muslim states. I think they knew that the 9/11 attacks would guarantee a US war on Afghanistan, and that they were confident they could draw the US into the country and defeat it, as they had the Soviets.

That they were trying to provoke a US/Afghanistan war and knew their actions would provoke one is suggested in several ways. First, they made no effort to have the hijackers on 9/11 employ aliases or cover their tracks. A toddler could have traced Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar back to al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. They made their reservations under their own names! All of the hijackers had. Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke was astounded that these men had even been let on the planes under those names, many of which were well known to US intelligence. Likewise, Bin Laden hand-picked the Saudi "muscle" that he sent along at the last minute, from among young men personally loyal to him, and who would be known to be his men. September 11 was a way of waving a huge red flag from Afghanistan at the American bull.

Two days before 9/11, al-Qaeda agents posing as Algerian newsmen blew up Ahmad Shah Masoud, the gallant leader of the Northern Alliance. Clearly, Bin Laden had gamed out the aftermath of 9/11 and understood that the US might well try to partner with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and he wanted to reduce the military effectiveness of the NA by eliminating its most talented strategist, Massoud.

Bin Laden, in choosing the "muscle" to be 15 Saudis, also was clearly attempting to alienate the US from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in hopes of weakening the regime in Riyadh and preparing it for overthrow by radical Islamists.

Libi's story about Iraq training al-Qaeda, delivered after 9/11, is of a piece with the rest of this strategy. It was aimed at instigating a war by the US on Iraq.

All of these wars were intended to stir hatred of the US invader throughout the Muslim world, to weaken the "puppet" governments of the Middle East that were allied with the US and make them ripe for overthrow, and to mire the US in a series of Islamic quagmires that would sap its will and strength and ultimately force its withdrawal from the region.

In form, the Libi strategy resembles the Maoist hope that the rural third world could be brought into a confrontation with the industrialized capitalist countries, one in which contradictions would be sharpened and the capitalist minority ultimately surrounded and overwhelmed by socialist villagers. Substitute "radical Islamist" for "socialist" and you have the Libi plan.

If al-Qaeda wanted wars between the US and Muslim countries, why would Abu Zubayda and Khalid Shaikh Muhammad have told the US the truth? I can only speculate, of course. But Abu Zubayda may have been debriefed while badly wounded and heavily sedated, and may not have had his wits entirely about him, so that he reacted with anger and hatred at the Baathist regime when it was brought up. Khalid Shaikh Muhammad was not arrested until March of 2003, and may have delighted in revealing to the US that it had been duped after the war began on March 19.

Even though Libi recanted his earlier disinformation, Vice President **** Cheney has continued to rely on his allegations. Note that it should no longer be necessary for the US to depend on a single unreliable source such as Libi, since it has captured the Baath intelligence files and should by now know pretty much exactly what the Baath government was up to with regard to terrorism. If the US does not know, it would be because it irresponsibly gave those intelligence files to Ahmad Chalabi.

Chalabi was playing the US from the other side, feeding it disinformation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda ties that was just made up out of whole cloth.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz allowed themselves to be manipulated by Libi and Chalabi because it suited them.

The question is whether letting ourselves be duped in this way suits the American public.

[seruriermarshal]

Like left wing foolisher than AQ .

[Midav]

It's a bunch of horse crock.

Many Muslims already had a problem with the US to begin with, not just al-qaida. Attacks have been going on before 9-11 and will happen afterward.

Any attack against a Muslim state in retaliation for an attack on the US is going to bring more hatred towards the US.

Why I've said, school those that need to be schooled along with carrying the fight to the terrorists.

Now, if these guys actually "duped" anyone is a guess. Either way, Iraq most probably had it coming.

[Romulus]

Oh my god we have been had!!!! :roll:

OB your posts get more and more "out there" everyday.

[DE_Six]

Interesting article. Juan Cole is a specialist of Shia muslims and generally a well informed commentator of Middle East affairs.

However, two things to keep in mind:


I think Bin Laden and his lieutenants wanted to provoke wars [...]

Personal interpretation. I trust Mr. Cole's informed opinion, but it remains that, an opinion.


Two days before 9/11, al-Qaeda agents posing as Algerian newsmen blew up Ahmad Shah Masoud, the gallant leader of the Northern Alliance. Clearly, Bin Laden had gamed out the aftermath of 9/11 and understood that the US might well try to partner with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and he wanted to reduce the military effectiveness of the NA by eliminating its most talented strategist, Massoud.


That is the conclusion pretty much everyone reached after 9/11... Massoud would have been of great help to the Coalition, so they neutralised him...However:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41841-2004Jun14.html


Al Qaeda May Have Delayed 9/11 Attack
Commission Finds Evidence Pointing To Earlier Date
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 15, 2004; Page A01


The independent commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has found evidence suggesting the attacks were intended to be carried out in May or June of that year, but were postponed by al Qaeda leaders because lead hijacker Mohamed Atta was not ready, according to sources privy to the panel's findings.


Equally reliable evidence points out to a delay in the 9/11 attacks. It is also documented that Massoud's murderers followed the Lion's entourage for a great deal of time, waiting to be finally granted an interview.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17970&highlight=masoud

The AQ assassins were not on a fixed schedule. They would kill Massoud whenever they could, not when they chose. So, according to the plan, the attacks on America would have been carried out, Massoud alive or not. It was not carefully timed with the attacks, it seems. It just turned out that way, because a complicated plan like the 9/11 attacks could not be on hold indefinitely until they could kill Massoud.


Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz allowed themselves to be manipulated by Libi and Chalabi because it suited them.

Again, no big secret. A regime change for Iraq was on track way before Bush's arrival in office.

The Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) was passed in 1998. The Bush administration was simply more eager to carry it out, and the global war on terror provided a perfect background. Much like Pearl Harbor was the perfect excuse to attack an increasingly threatening imperial Japan.

The regime change in Iraq was not the Bush administration brainchild, only the way it was (imperfectly) carried out.

About the identity: it's easy with hindsight to be horrified about how they sneaked in. But the immigration system is a vast and complex bureaucracy, there's holes in the net, always will.

Just my .02$

[DE_Six]

Now, if these guys actually "duped" anyone is a guess. Either way, Iraq most probably had it coming.

Exactly. Confrontation with Iraq was unavoidable. The checks and balances (Northern/Southern Watch, military presence in the Gulf, etc) was a heavy burden to carry, both in terms of political, military and economical burden. Repeated transgression of UN sanctions aggravating the case and with Saddam's notorious record for misjudging the international situation, it was a matter of time before a clash occured. We were wise enough not to let him choose the time and place this time, like in 1991, when the US diplomacy failed to properly warn Hussein of the consequences of his attack on Kuwait. We picked the time and place this time around.

[Aussie E]

OB
Thanks for using bold print and CAPS were you wanted to enforce the statements being made. Nothing like a little editorilizing, plain text just wouldn't have got the message accross!

[Tane Angle]

I guess I'll say this much: It is true that the US was further discredited among most of the population of the Middle East by its invasion of Iraq. Terrorists have been saying for years that the US wanted to take over their lands, so when we invaded, guess what it looked like? It's not quite a Catch-22, a "darned if we do, and darned if we don't," (because we could have hit AI and friends without the full invasion), but it's something close to one.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Lt_Crooks]

I guess I'll say this much: It is true that the US was further discredited among most of the population of the Middle East by its invasion of Iraq. Terrorists have been saying for years that the US wanted to take over their lands, so when we invaded, guess what it looked like? It's not quite a Cath-22, a "darned if we do, and darned if we don't," (because we could have hit AI and friends without the full invasion), but it's something close to one.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
i agree, that is why we now have MORE MORE terrorist

[SeanAshi]

Terrorists have been saying for years that the US wanted to take over their lands,Don't forget we want to eat their children and rape their women Tane. Perhaps if we had a President who took after Neville Chamberlain you would be happier? I know the Arabs would.

[Tane Angle]

Actually I'd probaly be happier with a President who hit AI anytime during the first two years of his Presidency, and hit AQO within the 2 months following the six-month grace period at the start of the term but before 9/11.

And since you brought it up, I guess that means that we'd better avoid eating their children and raping their women, no?

[Siddar]

Actually I'd probaly be happier with a President who hit AI anytime during the first two years of his Presidency, and hit AQO within the 2 months following the six-month grace period at the start of the term but before 9/11.

And since you brought it up, I guess that means that we'd better avoid eating their children and raping their women, no?

If Bush had attacked Al Queda before 9/11 you know the excuse that 9/11 was just a response to Bushs attack would be being chanted nite and day by every leftwing anti Bush idiot on the planet.

[Tane Angle]

The President's job is not to get reelected or be popular, it is to abide by his oath, the US Constitution, and US law.

Popular or not, it would have been the correct course of action.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[BadKarma26]

Osama Bin Laden will always hate the US and the West for "disgracing the holy lands" by coming into Arab countries to fight Saddam in the first gulf war. He advocated an Arab army to get Saddam out of Kuwait but now thinks of most Arab governments as weak for giving in to US power and demands. There is nothing we can do now using diplomacy to reverse the opinions Arab extremists have of the West. We can only prevent them from gaining power and killing them where we can. It doesn't matter what the current administration's policies are, AMERICA WILL ALWAYS BE AT WAR WITH ARAB EXTREMISTS AND MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS.

[SeanAshi]

If Bush had attacked Al Queda before 9/11 you know the excuse that 9/11 was just a response to Bushs attack would be being chanted nite and day by every leftwing anti Bush idiot on the planet.Bill Clinton had his chances but didn't do enough, what a poor Commander in Chief he was. What will he be remembered for? "I did not have ****** relations with that woman."

[Secret Squirrel]

If Bush had attacked Al Queda before 9/11 you know the excuse that 9/11 was just a response to Bushs attack would be being chanted nite and day by every leftwing anti Bush idiot on the planet.Bill Clinton had his chances but didn't do enough, what a poor Commander in Chief he was. What will he be remembered for? "I did not have ****** relations with that woman."

What the Clinton admin. isnt remembered for is a little more important than what you remember it for.

[SeanAshi]

http://www.wage-slave.org/comics/images/clintontalking.gif
I did not have ****** relations with that woman.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Try not to be an idiot when replying, this isn't a pissing contest, and it doesn't have anything to do with John Kerry or Michael Moore! If you want to answer, it better be backed up by facts.

Some points raised by the article:

1. Al Qaeda wanted to get rid of Saddam.
2. Al Qaeda gave the CIA false intel about Saddam's WMD.
3. Al Qaeda WANT war so they can gain power.
4. Members of the Bush administration continued to use these claims to justify the war, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE KNOWN TO BE FALSE OR UNPROVEN.
5. What's so important about Iraq to Bush?


1. I had always interpreted OBL’s early rants as saying “use” or “take advantage of” people like Saddam. That “could” be implied as support for number 3.
2. No data
3. Yes and, they hoped so…
4. Yes and misleading/incorrect comment.
5. Power, oil, money, testosterone, politics, two wrongs making right, ignorant foreign policy (not necessarily American)…Hell, I don’t know but he stuck his ! in Iraq and now we have to marry her. Too late now for b*tching about why. People should be debating how now to best help the Iraqi!!!

Sorry, no facts but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn express last night! No, really…

[ROY H]

OB Kenobi you arent even a american , we know you hate the USA but stfu with your dumb ass post's please iam not just being a prick iam sure alot of poeple agree with me.Post your liberal left wing american hating bull**** somewere else you bloke.Same goes for yosy

[scott]

Easy on the anger bringing Roy
OB is posting an alternate view, other members are taking it in and discussing.
I'd suggest you do the same, rather than attacking him personally
We have mods to regulate if things get inappropriate.

[fisheyestudio]

Hey howdy hey OB! (may the "force" be with you)

I like what you posted for this reason: it makes you wonder what might be a work behind the scenes in the "big picture" sense of things.

Have you considered that all of the things that are happening in iraq may be happening so some things foretold in scripture can take place?

Knowing that President Bush is a Christian and prays, seeking guidance from Jesus, maybe the interest that the President had in Iraq, are divinely inspired...

I will have to dig and find the specific scriptures, but in general, the Anti-Christs econimic base will be centered in the area we now now as Iraq. A democratic, free maket economy etc seems like a good place to start building from...

Jesus blessings!
chris

[EvanL]

Hey howdy hey OB! (may the "force" be with you)

I like what you posted for this reason: it makes you wonder what might be a work behind the scenes in the "big picture" sense of things.

Have you considered that all of the things that are happening in iraq may be happening so some things foretold in scripture can take place?

Knowing that President Bush is a Christian and prays, seeking guidance from Jesus, maybe the interest that the President had in Iraq, are divinely inspired...

I will have to dig and find the specific scriptures, but in general, the Anti-Christs econimic base will be centered in the area we now now as Iraq. A democratic, free maket economy etc seems like a good place to start building from...

Jesus blessings!
chris
Wow
isnt that scary

[Secret Squirrel]

edit...WWJD ;)

[Sayeret]

So according to OB the terrorists don't like the US because it invaded Iraq despite the fact that 9/11, the USS Cole, the first WTC, the bombing of the embassies in Africa, Khobar Towers, and USS Sullivan all took place before that ever occured?

[mocking_loudly_died]

that dude is scary.

[Secret Squirrel]

So according to OB the terrorists don't like the US because it invaded Iraq despite the fact that 9/11, the USS Cole, the first WTC, the bombing of the embassies in Africa, Khobar Towers, and USS Sullivan all took place before that ever occured?

I think the argument behind the article is that AQ wanted the U.S to invade Iraq. ;)

[Rrotz]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v352/SPR_Mk12/Smilies/bump.gif

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Yes, Iraq could be seen as a victory for al Qaeda, what with the diversion of their focus, resources, and massive & ever growing fundamentalist body count. Surely they must have wanted this - more infidels in the holy land has always been one of their goals - and they're doubtless thrilled at the prospect of a functionally permanent US presence in the area.

[SeanAshi]

Yes, Iraq could be seen as a victory for al QaedaJust like after ever Israeli raid into Palestinian territories, they lose militants and buildings and then the IDF pulls back Palestinians claim victory.

[Secret Squirrel]

Yes, Iraq could be seen as a victory for al Qaeda, what with the diversion of their focus, resources, and massive & ever growing fundamentalist body count. Surely they must have wanted this - more infidels in the holy land has always been one of their goals - and they're doubtless thrilled at the prospect of a functionally permanent US presence in the area.

It's not a far stretch of the imagination. What has been the result of the Iraq war/occupation? A lot of strain international relations, massive amounts of money diverted to Iraq, a strain on the U.S military, and further reinforcing the image (in some minds) of an American crusade (Bush actually used the word crusade before someone informed him what it meant) in the middle east...etc. The fundamentalist body count really is insignificant when you realize that the Iraq war "recruited" a lot more people to fight the U.S and it's allies in Iraq. It seems to be, more or less, a basic "divide and conquer" strategy by AQ.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Yes, Iraq could be seen as a victory for al Qaeda, what with the diversion of their focus, resources, and massive & ever growing fundamentalist body count. Surely they must have wanted this - more infidels in the holy land has always been one of their goals - and they're doubtless thrilled at the prospect of a functionally permanent US presence in the area.

It's not a far stretch of the imagination. What has been the result of the Iraq war/occupation? A lot of strain international relations, massive amounts of money diverted to Iraq, a strain on the U.S military, and further reinforcing the image (in some minds) of an American crusade (Bush actually used the word crusade before someone informed him what it meant) in the middle east...etc. The fundamentalist body count really is insignificant when you realize that the Iraq war "recruited" a lot more people to fight the U.S and it's allies in Iraq. It seems to be, more or less, a basic "divide and conquer" strategy by AQ.

No, it's a reeeaallly big stretch of imagination. You think AQ prefers some ethereal notion of moral victory to an "actual" victory...you know, the kind where they actually win something? I think not. These guys blow things up and cut off heads, they don't give a rat's ass about some fanciful "perceptive" victory.

But I will agree with one thing you said- that AQ is fighting the US in Iraq - i.e. not on US soil. This has been a stated goal of the Bush administration from the beginning (or was that idea put in his head by AQ too). Pile up the militant bodies overseas please, we don't want them stinking up the place over here.

Nobody would prefer these negligible "perceptive" victories to actual quantifiable results. Who are they dividing and conquering? All the good ol' boys on the UN Security Council will go back to paying each other off, secret deals will resume, and everybody will make money. When all is said and done, the Infidel will have cemented his presence in the Middle East more than ever.

There is no use in AQ trying to polish this turd - it ain't gonna shine. As far as I'm concerned, AQ can keep right on winning these kinds of victories. Soon, they'll have triumphed themselves right out of existence.

[DE_Six]

Great post, 2Sheds!

The war on terror is not about looking good or bad in the eyes of outside observers. It's about achieving solid objectives.

[Secret Squirrel]

No, it's a reeeaallly big stretch of imagination. You think AQ prefers some ethereal notion of moral victory to an "actual" victory...you know, the kind where they actually win something? I think not. These guys blow things up and cut off heads, they don't give a rat's ass about some fanciful "perceptive" victory.

But I will agree with one thing you said- that AQ is fighting the US in Iraq - i.e. not on US soil. This has been a stated goal of the Bush administration from the beginning (or was that idea put in his head by AQ too). Pile up the militant bodies overseas please, we don't want them stinking up the place over here.

Nobody would prefer these negligible "perceptive" victories to actual quantifiable results. Who are they dividing and conquering? All the good ol' boys on the UN Security Council will go back to paying each other off, secret deals will resume, and everybody will make money. When all is said and done, the Infidel will have cemented his presence in the Middle East more than ever.

There is no use in AQ trying to polish this turd - it ain't gonna shine. As far as I'm concerned, AQ can keep right on winning these kinds of victories. Soon, they'll have triumphed themselves right out of existence.

But a lot things that has happened because of the Iraq war has favored AQ. In addition to the previous examples you can add what the Iraq war has done to voters. It also gave AQ a new front for their war (ie. the Spanish incident...etc) while taking pressure off Ghanny. Or are you arguing that the Iraq war somehow hurt AQ? Someone has mentioned that the Iraq war was inevitable (not sure if i completely agree) but would it favor AQ for a U.S led coalition to invade Iraq while Ghanny was still an issue instead of Ghanny being as secure as possible before the Iraq invasion?

[talib_killa34]

Great post, 2Sheds!

The war on terror is not about looking good or bad in the eyes of outside observers. It's about achieving solid objectives.


It is a war of survival.

Just wait if AQ have their way and shut down all access to the internet as they surely would saying it is "an affront to God" and all that hooya......... OB where would you be able to post, save for America saving the world's ass again and again?

;)

[DE_Six]

But a lot things that has happened because of the Iraq war has favored AQ. In addition to the previous examples you can add what the Iraq war has done to voters.

As the wise Tane Angle once said:


The President's job is not to get reelected or be popular, it is to abide by his oath, the US Constitution, and US law.

Popular or not, it would have been the correct course of action.

The will of the US government to fight back fundamentalist terrorism should not be held back by populist considerations. Of course, like all career politicians, President Bush thinks of his re-election, but staying in office is not a good judge in terms of policies. If, for some X reason, the world and the US population was against any form of retaliation, should the government sit arms crossed when terrorists target the civilian poulation? Just a rhetoric example.


It also gave AQ a new front for their war (ie. the Spanish incident...etc) while taking pressure off Ghanny. Or are you arguing that the Iraq war somehow hurt AQ?

It's not entirely new, since US presence in the Gulf is one of the main point of contention for AQ. Numerous attacks have occurred in that region (USS Cole, Khobar towers, etc.) Now , it's only more concentrated. I'm not sure new front is a good thing for an organization like AQ, which strenght lies in surprise and evasiveness, much like a guerrilla force. By choosing to confront the Americans on a foreign soil (Iraq is much less welcoming than Afghanistan ever was, since not all factions have the same goal, whereas the Taliban alliance was centered around religion), they have to spend energy and funds in a war that does not directly inflict harm to the US. Sure, they kill soldiers. But the capacity of the American people to tolerate military death is much more forgiving than it is regarding civilian ones. So while they are busy fighting in Iraq, it diverts their capabilities away from other targets.
This is not to say that AQ is tied in Iraq, but it keeps them busy and it is little productive. Besides, against soldiers, in drawn-out engagements, AQ is at disadvantage. It really shines when it comes to murdering innocents to impress public opinion, but in Iraq, they are nowhere near any significant progress. Some will argue it was the same in Vietnam, but they neglect a major aspect: the US had an option to pull out of Vietnam. Sure, it meant to surrender the country to communism and abandoning contaiment, but it was possible. If the US pulls out of Iraq, the AQ elements thus freed will bring the war to America's doorstep again.

As to whether or not Iraq has weakened AQ, well, who knows? Who actually knows the extent of AQ's resources? It could be much less than we think, in which case Aq could be in death throes. Or it could be much more, in which case, at least we're trying to weaken them on grounds of our chosing, even if it not enough.

As for pressure on Afghanistan, there are still ongoing operations there, there is a large multinational contingent and progress is made. The situation is not perfect, but it's better than the terrorist nest it was pre-9/11.



Someone has mentioned that the Iraq war was inevitable (not sure if i completely agree) but would it favor AQ for a U.S led coalition to invade Iraq while Ghanny was still an issue instead of Ghanny being as secure as possible before the Iraq invasion?

Well, I did mention it. It was because diplomacy had obviously failed, and it was only a matter of time until Hussein went on the offensive again. He has proven time and again during his tenure that he only understood the language of force and would use it no matter the costs, costs he seldom understood. How else could one explain the costly war on Iran, much less the suicidal attack on Kuwait? Only next time, no one knows what weapons he could have used. We know he had no remorse using biochemical weapons or promoting suicide bombing, he had enormous financial resources and plenty of terrorist for hire roam this planet, what kept him? Besides, it was about time this source of instability and costly burden was done with, so the US could start considering pulling out of the hornet's nest that is Saudi Arabia. The reliance over those crooked monarchies is quickly becoming embarrassing, and the only thing that kept the US there was Hussein's regime.

AQ doesn't care much about Afghanistan. It was a disposable HQ. Now, it may not be peaceful and secure, but it's no longer aplace from where they can quietly train and plan their operations. They moved out. They could well be anywhere or nowhere in particular. Their flexibility is a great asset. All they need are training camps. Maybe in Yemen, or Sudan? Maybe even Columbia, many terrorism experts predict a possible ties-building with narco-terrorists. But while they're no longer in Afghanistan, they couldn't resist going to Iraq to mess with the infidels. And they are going nowhere there. They kill US soldiers, they take casualties, they siphon resources and all that for what? It doesn't give them squat but a bloody fight. All the soldiers they kill can't approach the impact of a 9/11, or a Bali, or a Madrid.

AQ is wasting energy in Iraq, the US have them in a fight, even if it leads nowhere. And that's the point. A little like how Muhammad Ali drained his opponents of energy by breezing around them endlessly, before delivering the kill. Of course, it's not that simple. But the you get the idea.

Cheers

[KB]

Interesting article...I read something similar implying the Iranians were the ones feeding Chalabi the data we used as rationale for taking down Saddam.

[Secret Squirrel]

But a lot things that has happened because of the Iraq war has favored AQ. In addition to the previous examples you can add what the Iraq war has done to voters.

As the wise Tane Angle once said:


The President's job is not to get reelected or be popular, it is to abide by his oath, the US Constitution, and US law.

Popular or not, it would have been the correct course of action.

The will of the US government to fight back fundamentalist terrorism should not be held back by populist considerations. Of course, like all career politicians, President Bush thinks of his re-election, but staying in office is not a good judge in terms of policies. If, for some X reason, the world and the US population was against any form of retaliation, should the government sit arms crossed when terrorists target the civilian poulation? Just a rhetoric example.

You've misquoted Tane. He was referring to striking AQ targets in Ghanny before 9/11.



It also gave AQ a new front for their war (ie. the Spanish incident...etc) while taking pressure off Ghanny. Or are you arguing that the Iraq war somehow hurt AQ?

It's not entirely new, since US presence in the Gulf is one of the main point of contention for AQ. Numerous attacks have occurred in that region (USS Cole, Khobar towers, etc.) Now , it's only more concentrated. I'm not sure new front is a good thing for an organization like AQ, which strenght lies in surprise and evasiveness, much like a guerrilla force. By choosing to confront the Americans on a foreign soil (Iraq is much less welcoming than Afghanistan ever was, since not all factions have the same goal, whereas the Taliban alliance was centered around religion), they have to spend energy and funds in a war that does not directly inflict harm to the US. Sure, they kill soldiers. But the capacity of the American people to tolerate military death is much more forgiving than it is regarding civilian ones. So while they are busy fighting in Iraq, it diverts their capabilities away from other targets.

I was refering to attacking U.S allies such as Spain to turn more countries against Bush's foreign policy. And this directly affects the U.S. Also, the other front i was refering to meant that the U.S military has to deal with another warzone (ie. if there wasnt an invasion, then factions in Iraq wouldnt be targeting the U.S. and AQ, regardless if they have a large or small presence in Iraq, wouldnt have a new way to attack the U.S either directly or through it's allies).


This is not to say that AQ is tied in Iraq, but it keeps them busy and it is little productive. Besides, against soldiers, in drawn-out engagements, AQ is at disadvantage. It really shines when it comes to murdering innocents to impress public opinion, but in Iraq, they are nowhere near any significant progress. Some will argue it was the same in Vietnam, but they neglect a major aspect: the US had an option to pull out of Vietnam. Sure, it meant to surrender the country to communism and abandoning contaiment, but it was possible. If the US pulls out of Iraq, the AQ elements thus freed will bring the war to America's doorstep again.

Does Iraq keep AQ more busy than the U.S is kept busy with Iraq? AQ, or foreign terrorists, arent the majority that's attacking the U.S and it's coalition's allies in Iraq. But that's the point isnt it? AQ, assuming the article has "truth", helped a long a war in which they dont have to participate in directly and which will fuel itself without their involvement to tie up U.S military resources.


As to whether or not Iraq has weakened AQ, well, who knows? Who actually knows the extent of AQ's resources? It could be much less than we think, in which case Aq could be in death throes. Or it could be much more, in which case, at least we're trying to weaken them on grounds of our chosing, even if it not enough.

As for pressure on Afghanistan, there are still ongoing operations there, there is a large multinational contingent and progress is made. The situation is not perfect, but it's better than the terrorist nest it was pre-9/11.

I agree that it's better. But how much better would it be now if all the resources that Iraq has consumed, had been directed at Ghanny first instead of rushing a war with Iraq?




Someone has mentioned that the Iraq war was inevitable (not sure if i completely agree) but would it favor AQ for a U.S led coalition to invade Iraq while Ghanny was still an issue instead of Ghanny being as secure as possible before the Iraq invasion?

Well, I did mention it. It was because diplomacy had obviously failed, and it was only a matter of time until Hussein went on the offensive again. He has proven time and again during his tenure that he only understood the language of force and would use it no matter the costs, costs he seldom understood. How else could one explain the costly war on Iran, much less the suicidal attack on Kuwait? Only next time, no one knows what weapons he could have used. We know he had no remorse using biochemical weapons or promoting suicide bombing, he had enormous financial resources and plenty of terrorist for hire roam this planet, what kept him? Besides, it was about time this source of instability and costly burden was done with, so the US could start considering pulling out of the hornet's nest that is Saudi Arabia. The reliance over those crooked monarchies is quickly becoming embarrassing, and the only thing that kept the US there was Hussein's regime.

Iran was in the 1980s, and Kuwait was in early 1990s. Was he really a threat in 2003? Or could the invasion have waited?


AQ doesn't care much about Afghanistan. It was a disposable HQ. Now, it may not be peaceful and secure, but it's no longer aplace from where they can quietly train and plan their operations. They moved out. They could well be anywhere or nowhere in particular. Their flexibility is a great asset. All they need are training camps. Maybe in Yemen, or Sudan? Maybe even Columbia, many terrorism experts predict a possible ties-building with narco-terrorists. But while they're no longer in Afghanistan, they couldn't resist going to Iraq to mess with the infidels. And they are going nowhere there. They kill US soldiers, they take casualties, they siphon resources and all that for what? It doesn't give them squat but a bloody fight. All the soldiers they kill can't approach the impact of a 9/11, or a Bali, or a Madrid.

A little presumptuous to say AQ is no longer in Ghanny. Again, they dont need to play a major role in Iraq to fuel the conflict.


AQ is wasting energy in Iraq, the US have them in a fight, even if it leads nowhere. And that's the point. A little like how Muhammad Ali drained his opponents of energy by breezing around them endlessly, before delivering the kill. Of course, it's not that simple. But the you get the idea.

Yea i get the idea. And AQ's idea is to pull the U.S into the middle east as far as it can and fight a war of attrition. Just curious, how long do you think it will take to pacify Iraq?

Cheers[/quote]

[KB]

Read some of these threads more, have a hard time agreeing that AQ is suffering a great deal by our invasion of Iraq. Reports I've read indicate there are some foreign terrorists on the ground there, but most of the guys we're fighting seem to be indigenous Iraqis. The 9/11 commission report indicates there was never any active link between AQ and Saddam's regime. We've got a huge piece of our combat troops tied up in Iraq for the foreseeable future. If there is any AQ involvement in Iraq, it is a great example of the principle of "economy of force" when compared to US commitment.

Hard to say where US is in this conflict; on one hand US has removed Afghanistan as a safe haven (for the most part) and is putting pressure on AQ with Pakistani help inside that country. Feedback I've gotten from contacts in Iraq says most locals are getting pissed off with constant strife and feel insurgency's days are numbered due to diminishing popular support. On the other hand, AQ scored a huge success in Spain in March and is putting the pressure on in Saudi Arabia. Anonymous CIA author of recent book says Iraq is a perfect recruiting fodder for AQ.

[DE_Six]

You've misquoted Tane. He was referring to striking AQ targets in Ghanny before 9/11.

No, I didn't. Tane was dead on, the job of the President is to uphold the Constitution, and that includes defending the nation against its enemies, not to get re-elected.




I was refering to attacking U.S allies such as Spain to turn more countries against Bush's foreign policy. And this directly affects the U.S. Also, the other front i was refering to meant that the U.S military has to deal with another warzone (ie. if there wasnt an invasion, then factions in Iraq wouldnt be targeting the U.S. and AQ, regardless if they have a large or small presence in Iraq, wouldnt have a new way to attack the U.S either directly or through it's allies).

How it affects the US is endlessly arguable. Let's face it, wether or not they agree with all US foreign policies, US partners will not sever all ties with the US. Our economies are too interdependent to allow such a thing. The only damage AQ inflicts to the US by scaring its allies away is put the US in a less favorable position, increasing the pressure. But from there to say this could seriously affect the unity of the western world, much less coerce the US in giving up the fight by isolating it, that's stretching it beyond breakpoint.

You are right by saying no invasion, no factions in Iraq. But that would imply two things: the men and resources actually in Iraq would be use to other purposes, arguably more nefarious ones. Every eager-hearted Muslim didn't flock to Iraq after the invasion. The foreigners had to be selected, trained, and ferried to Iraq, supplied with weapons and currently receive logisitc support. Iraq is not that friendly to AQ has to offer it every resources needed. Many rival factions are in the arena, and not all of them are pleased with foreign jihadis carrying their own religious agenda. Maybe not to the point of fighting among them, but enough not to support each others. AQ elements in Iraq are also a foreign army, relying on their won logistic, with support from only a fraction of the local population. Much similar to the US situation. These men, and these logisitcs would still exist if Iraq had been left alone. The volunteers would come for different reasons, and they would be assigned other targets, is all. Better have them fight in Iraq than Manhattan.

Second, letting a tyran like Hussein reign free, oppressing his population, requiring massive US presence in a sensitive region, justifying a smothering embargo that unfairly targets the poor and spare the Baathist regime, requiring constant attention lest he'd venture into another aggressive folly against a neighbor, for the sake of not upsetting AQ and motivating a few terrorists to take arms is not only selfish, imprudent and short-sighted, it's foolish. We're not going to let some backward fundamentalists call the shots in one of the world's most critical regions.

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
p-)



Does Iraq keep AQ more busy than the U.S is kept busy with Iraq? AQ, or foreign terrorists, arent the majority that's attacking the U.S and it's coalition's allies in Iraq. But that's the point isnt it? AQ, assuming the article has "truth", helped a long a war in which they dont have to participate in directly and which will fuel itself without their involvement to tie up U.S military resources.

OK, so this comes down to who will run out of gas first, us or them. Since we can't quantify neither's resources accurately.

Part of my answer: I don't believe Iraq is enough to tie up US capabilities. It stretches them, but not overly.
Besides, all US allies are not equally fragile. Some of them are in for the long run. They may not all have gone to Iraq, but they may well jump in the next round.




Iran was in the 1980s, and Kuwait was in early 1990s. Was he really a threat in 2003? Or could the invasion have waited?

Did we had to wait for him to be a threat? If you think Hussein was weak in 2003, it was nothing compared to 1988. The country was in shamble. He still managed to invade Kuwait.
Maybe his army was only the shadow of what it used to be, but the Baathist regime was still solid, wealthy and connected. Just consider the number of foreign terrorists living in Baghdad. It's not impossible they would repay Hussein for his hospitality by hooking him up or advising him.
What weapons Hussein had matters little. In 1991, when he massacred the Marsh Arabs, he used helicopter gunships. Hardly a WMD. It's not the weapons that made Saddam dangerous, it's the other way around. Saddam made about anyhting dangerous. If it's not armor divisions, it's helicopters. If not, it's sarin. If not, then something else. Did we really have to wait and see?
Because he was going to come back. Since 1991, he never stopped resisting. No cooperation with the UN, he fired SAMs at US/UK planes enforcing the no-fly zones, etc. None of that could have possbily done any good. But Saddam was a fighter. And he would have struck back someday.

Could the invasion have waited? Sure, but how long? How long do we tolerate him, the embargo that killed the children, the growing danger of sitting out in Saudi Arabia, monitoring his every moves? It had to come down, and to the anti-war types, to the supporters of the status-quo, it was never yet time to get down to it.



A little presumptuous to say AQ is no longer in Ghanny. Again, they dont need to play a major role in Iraq to fuel the conflict.

I didn't say AQ is no longer in Afghanistan at all. But it obviously no longer is a proper, viable base of operation, and that was the goal of the war there. Let's face it, Afghanistan won't be an autonomous, peaceful and democratic country within the next decade. So what do we do? Stay and babysit them and ignore the rest of the world, while AQ sneaks out and goes boom someplace else?



Yea i get the idea. And AQ's idea is to pull the U.S into the middle east as far as it can and fight a war of attrition. How long did Kosovo take? Just curious, how long do you think it will take to pacify Iraq?

Kosovo is hardly comparable to Iraq. It has nowhere near the degree of complexity of Iraq. Much less schisms, religious, political, ideological, etc. Much smaller country, smaller population. The circumstances were much different too. Also, there was no party presence to debunk. It was pretty much about keeping the warring factions from exacting too much revenge on each other.

I prefer the example of Germany. It took roughly a decade to comletely de-nazify Germany, restore order and security and rebuild the country. And the country was in rubbles. In 1945, you could get a panoramic view of downtown Berlin by stepping on a brick...
It took time, effort and patience. On the other hand in Iraq, media people and other intellectuals have been clamoring for results before the last firefights had died. It seems as if the swiftness of modern information had triggered an urge for results, for conclusion.
Iraq's infrastructure are in an endlessly better shape than german ones were in 1945. And much like the Iraqi population, the Germans were so fed up with war and oppression, even if they didn't welcome the Allies as saviors, they were glad it was over and rebuilding could start. The average Iraqi isn't dissatisfied because foreign infidels march his streets...He is because he wish the reconstruction would get on faster! Eventually, insurgence will die down. Popular support is the key to life for insurgents. And the Iraqi people already knows that if you leave the Coalition soldiers alone, the faster they will rebuild, the faster they'll be gone. Iraq is not religiously fertile enough to go against necessity. The Iraqi need new structures, not a religious war.

So, how long? I don't know, I'm not prescient. The time it will take, I guess.

[Secret Squirrel]

You've misquoted Tane. He was referring to striking AQ targets in Ghanny before 9/11.

No, I didn't. Tane was dead on, the job of the President is to uphold the Constitution, and that includes defending the nation against its enemies, not to get re-elected.




I was refering to attacking U.S allies such as Spain to turn more countries against Bush's foreign policy. And this directly affects the U.S. Also, the other front i was refering to meant that the U.S military has to deal with another warzone (ie. if there wasnt an invasion, then factions in Iraq wouldnt be targeting the U.S. and AQ, regardless if they have a large or small presence in Iraq, wouldnt have a new way to attack the U.S either directly or through it's allies).

How it affects the US is endlessly arguable. Let's face it, wether or not they agree with all US foreign policies, US partners will not sever all ties with the US. Our economies are too interdependent to allow such a thing. The only damage AQ inflicts to the US by scaring its allies away is put the US in a less favorable position, increasing the pressure. But from there to say this could seriously affect the unity of the western world, much less coerce the US in giving up the fight by isolating it, that's stretching it beyond breakpoint.

No the U.S's allies will not sever ties. But i still think this was a case of politics dominating reality. Blair obviously wanted to be as close as he could to Bush. Other members of the coalition joined for various gains (ie. national interests) However, the damage comes when Bush tries to get other countries, who opposed the war, to help out either in Iraq or elsewhere. Bush pushed through with this war despite opposition, so does he have a moral right to condemn nations who resist his plans because they view Bush's plans as counter to their nation's best interest? Isnt it the job of all nations to look out for their own interests first? And actually with an election coming up, it isnt stretching it beyond the breaking point.


You are right by saying no invasion, no factions in Iraq. But that would imply two things: the men and resources actually in Iraq would be use to other purposes, arguably more nefarious ones. Every eager-hearted Muslim didn't flock to Iraq after the invasion. The foreigners had to be selected, trained, and ferried to Iraq, supplied with weapons and currently receive logisitc support. Iraq is not that friendly to AQ has to offer it every resources needed. [huh?] Many rival factions are in the arena, and not all of them are pleased with foreign jihadis carrying their own religious agenda. Maybe not to the point of fighting among them, but enough not to support each others. AQ elements in Iraq are also a foreign army, relying on their won logistic, with support from only a fraction of the local population. Much similar to the US situation. These men, and these logisitcs would still exist if Iraq had been left alone. The volunteers would come for different reasons, and they would be assigned other targets, is all. Better have them fight in Iraq than Manhattan.

The insurgents in Iraq/terrorists are only a small percentage foriegn fighters. Regarding weapons and logistics, well that little thing called the black market or the fact that Iraq is loaded with weapons wouldnt pose much of a problem to outfit a foreign cell. Now I was taking you seriously but that last statement is just silly. Because they're fighting in Iraq they cant target Manhattan? Thats the kind of dangerous thinking that causes national catastrophes.


Second, letting a tyran like Hussein reign free, oppressing his population, requiring massive US presence in a sensitive region, justifying a smothering embargo that unfairly targets the poor and spare the Baathist regime, requiring constant attention lest he'd venture into another aggressive folly against a neighbor, for the sake of not upsetting AQ and motivating a few terrorists to take arms is not only selfish, imprudent and short-sighted, it's foolish. We're not going to let some backward fundamentalists call the shots in one of the world's most critical regions.

It is not, repeat NOT, Bush's job to care for the people of Iraq. However cold you may think that sounds, its simply a fact of life. Saddam was not a threat to the U.S or anyone in 2003. There is absolutely no reason this war, with all its costs in lives and dollars, had to be pushed through and rushed to the point where there didnt even exist a decent plan for the occupation. And before you argue the WMD and it wasnt Bush's fault regarding the intel...well he was already saying that Iraq had WMDs before the CIA even finished their analysis and written the reports.



Does Iraq keep AQ more busy than the U.S is kept busy with Iraq? AQ, or foreign terrorists, arent the majority that's attacking the U.S and it's coalition's allies in Iraq. But that's the point isnt it? AQ, assuming the article has "truth", helped a long a war in which they dont have to participate in directly and which will fuel itself without their involvement to tie up U.S military resources.

OK, so this comes down to who will run out of gas first, us or them. Since we can't quantify neither's resources accurately.

Part of my answer: I don't believe Iraq is enough to tie up US capabilities. It stretches them, but not overly.
Besides, all US allies are not equally fragile. Some of them are in for the long run. They may not all have gone to Iraq, but they may well jumo in the next round.

Iraq has already tied up U.S capabilities in part due to resources and in part due to a poor (or even lack their of) post war occupation plan. From what i understand, you have three phases to your armed forces...1) deployed, 2) training/moblized, 3) resting.





Iran was in the 1980s, and Kuwait was in early 1990s. Was he really a threat in 2003? Or could the invasion have waited?

Did we had to wait for him to be a threat? If you think Hussein was weak in 2003, it was nothing compared to 1988. The country was in shamble. He still managed to invade Kuwait.
Maybe his army was only the shadow of what it used to be, but the Baathist regime was still solid, wealthy and connected. Just consider the number of foreign terrorists living in Baghdad. It's not impossible they would repay Hussein for his hospitality by hooking him up or advising him.
What weapons Hussein had matters little. In 1991, when he massacred the Marsh Arabs, he used helicopter gunships. Hardly a WMD. It's not the weapons that made Saddam dangerous, it's the other way around. Saddam made about anyhting dangerous. If it's not armor divisions, it's helicopters. If not, it's sarin. If not, then something else. Did we really have to wait and see?
Because he was going to come back. Since 1991, he never stopped resisting. No cooperation with the UN, he fired SAMs at US/UK planes enforcing the no-fly zones, etc. None of that could have possbily done any good. But Saddam was a fighter. And he would have struck back someday.

Saddam didnt invade Kuwait in 1988. Hooking him up? rofl Saddam like most dictators in history suffered from paranoia (ie. if he couldnt control something he didnt want it around. I dont think AQ would bow to the will of an infidel). I thought he drained the marsh lands to punish the marsh Arabs? You're saying he blew up the marshes with helocopters? Saddam fought U.S and U.K presences in Iraq because he thought they were spying. And low and behold, he was actually right as members of British intel services and the CIA were mixed (without U.N knowledge) among weapons inspectors.


Could the invasion have waited? Sure, but how long? How long do we tolerate him, the embargo that killed the children, the growing danger of sitting out in Saudi Arabia, monitoring his every moves? It had to come down, and to the anti-war types, to the supporters of the status-quo, it was never yet time to get down to it.

As long as it took to finish the real front of the war on terror (ie. Ghanny) instead of claiming Iraq as another war on terror.



A little presumptuous to say AQ is no longer in Ghanny. Again, they dont need to play a major role in Iraq to fuel the conflict.

I didn;t say AQ is no longer in Afghanistan at all. But it obviously no longer is a proper, viable base of operation, and that was the goal of the war there. Let's face it, Afghanistan won't be an autonomous, peaceful and democratic country within the next decade. So what do we do? Stay and babysit them and ignore the rest of the world, while AQ sneaks out and goes boom someplace else?

Nope, you thoroughly finish the job there first before you venture off and divert resources away from the real war on terror.




Yea i get the idea. And AQ's idea is to pull the U.S into the middle east as far as it can and fight a war of attrition. How long did Kosovo take? Just curious, how long do you think it will take to pacify Iraq?

Kosovo is hardly comparable to Iraq. It has nowhere near the degree of complexity of Iraq. Much less schisms, religious, political, ideological, etc. Much smaller country, smaller population. The circumstances were much different too. Also, there was no party presence to debunk. It was pretty much about keeping the warring factions from exacting too much revenge on each other.

Right, thats my point. And as less complex than Iraq, it took 10 years.


I prefer the example of Germany. It took roughly a decade to comletely de-nazify Germany, restore order and security and rebuild the country. And the country was in rubbles. In 1945, you could get a panoramic view of downtown Berlin by stepping on a brick...
It took time, effort and patience. On the other hand, media people and other intellectuals have been clamoring for results before the last firefights had died. It seems as if the swiftness of modern information had triggered an urge for results, for conclusion.

Nazi Germany is an extremely poor example. There was no significant or really any mentionable deaths attributed to insurgent forces in Germany after the war. The male population of Germany was spent both physically and psychologically, leaving the way for the "women of the rubble" to emerge.

[Tane Angle]

That's ok, he can use that quote to make that argument if he likes. Of course, I am of the opinion that Iraq violated the Oath of Office, while DE6 might differ in his opinion. That's ok, so long as we are realistic about what the job of an elected official, especially the President of the United States, should be.


Just like after ever Israeli raid into Palestinian territories, they lose militants and buildings and then the IDF pulls back Palestinians claim victory.That's because the PA doesn't need to win to remain in power, it just has to not lose. A bit like the VC in Vietnam.


No, it's a reeeaallly big stretch of imagination. You think AQ prefers some ethereal notion of moral victory to an "actual" victory...you know, the kind where they actually win something? I think not. These guys blow things up and cut off heads, they don't give a rat's ass about some fanciful "perceptive" victory. A "percieved" victory today can give a boost to recruitment and funding, allowing for two "actual" victories later on. AQO knows this.

The problem is that in Iraq, we are committing a greater ratio of troops to the fight than AQO is. The US has roungly 125,000 ground troops recuperating from Iraq, roughly the same number preparing to go to Iraq, and roughly that number in Iraq now. Of course, infantry and tanks don't win the fight against terrorism, HUMINT does. It's those HUMINT personnel who are such a precious commoditiy. Ironically, in the past, terrorists have often times grasped this better than the United States has (for example, Hezbollah's efforts to remove the US's intelligence gathering capabilities in Lebanon by repeatedly attacking the CIA personnel there).

AQO's prescence is, for the most party, limited to one of perhaps as many as half a dozen major strains. So while AQO might be committing 1/6th of its force, the other 5/6ths are left relatively unhindered to complete their training. Yes, they are also being pursued, but if we had the HUMINT folks who are battling the Iraqi insurgents instead going after AQO cells, those other AQO strains would be considerably more hindered. The one strain, Zarqawi's, would seem to be sacrificed to buy time for the other strains. It's sort of like distracting someone your left hand and then hitting them upside the head with the other hand (or, as in this case, five or more hands).

So the real important thing is if where and against whom we are committing our limited HUMINT resources.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[DE_Six]

Ok, this is turning lame, your opinion vs. mine goes nowhere. But what the heck:




No the U.S's allies will not sever ties. But i still think this was a case of politics dominating reality. Blair obviously wanted to be as close as he could to Bush. Other members of the coalition joined for various gains (ie. national interests) However, the damage comes when Bush tries to get other countries, who opposed the war, to help out either in Iraq or elsewhere. Bush pushed through with this war despite opposition, so does he have a moral right to condemn nations who resist his plans because they view Bush's plans as counter to their nation's best interest? Isnt it the job of all nations to look out for their own interests first? And actually with an election coming up, it isnt stretching it beyond the breaking point.


Oh yeah, the good old "lapdog" cliché...

Just FYI, Blair was the one who pushed Clinton to intervene in Kosovo. He partly made the original casse for regime change in Iraq, way before Bush ever entered office (a case most republicans scoffed at back in 1995 and 1998, btw). He is also behind the intervention in Sierra Leone, a much needed intervention. He was a proactive politician before Bush. He just happened to meet a US President to match his ambition.

If politics dominated reality, the diplomatic ballet would still be going on. It's realpolitik that propelled this war forward.

But back to my point, Bush never morally condemned any nation for not following. Some necon pundits did, but that is their opinion. Find one line were he actually lectures any nation.
And yes it is overstretching to think AQ will win over the US by isolating them. When push comes to shove (9/11), America's allied stand up. And even in time of disagreement, the relations remain civil. Economic interdependance, cultural unity, etc.


Now I was taking you seriously but that last statement is just silly. Because they're fighting in Iraq they cant target Manhattan? Thats the kind of dangerous thinking that causes national catastrophes

That is never what I said, nor even implied. You read what you please. I said that it's globally positive to tie up AQ assets around the world. It may not negate the threat on US soil, it certainly doesn't, but it's better than let the terrorists roam freely and concentrate ALL their efforts on homeland attacks. What do you suggest, let them go in spite?


It is not, repeat NOT, Bush's job to care for the people of Iraq.

Now, you're being silly. Thinking like that led to the world turning a blind eye on the Rwandan genocide. Isolationism, way to go.


There is absolutely no reason this war, with all its costs in lives and dollars, had to be pushed through and rushed to the point where there didnt even exist a decent plan for the occupation. And before you argue the WMD and it wasnt Bush's fault regarding the intel...well he was already saying that Iraq had WMDs before the CIA even finished their analysis and written the reports

Yes, there was. The miserable conditions of Iraq and the potential quagmire in the Arabic peninsula were enough. The status quo was deadlier than war, and with every passing year, increased the incertitude.
A decent plan for occupation doesn't exist. You can never tell in advance how it's gonna be. Case in point? In 1945, the US forces advancing through capitulating Japan expected the worst. After all, Japanese soldiers were committed to victory beyond death. Instead, the Japanese people resigned to their fate and welcomed them as guests. They had expected strong resistance, they got polite welcomes.
I was not going to argue about WMDs, as far as I know, none have been found. Thanks for passing judgement in advance though.


Saddam didnt invade Kuwait in 1988

This is boring. You need every word spoonfed? No, he did in 1990, two years later. Two years, nothing compared to the time it'd have taken to rebuild his nation's strength. It was suicidal. He did it nonetheless, which proves the man's recklessness.


I thought he drained the marsh lands to punish the marsh Arabs? You're saying he blew up the marshes with helocopters?

He did that, too. But drought doesn't quell armed rebellion very quickly. First, repression. Then, reprisal (the marsh draining). Read more about that period.


Saddam fought U.S and U.K presences in Iraq because he thought they were spying.

That's beside the point. What is the point, is that he knew, or worse, he didn't and was honestly ignorant, that this would do no good. Even with his army in shambles, his own airspace denied, surrounded by enemies and with the UN on his back, he didn't offer the slightest hint of cooperation. Instead, he put up a fight. That's a very imprudent move, proof of the man's recklessness and danger for the region. He simply couldn't go unchecked anymore.


Nope, you thoroughly finish the job there first before you venture off and divert resources away from the real war on terror.

Afghanistan will take decades, and even then, it will never be a western-model democracy. Again, what do you suggest? Stay there for 20 years before turning to something else? The war on terror is fought on multiple fronts simultaneously. We do not have the luxury of "finishing everyhting" within a realstic time frame. It is however, a serious goal at long terms. Nationbuilding will greatly help in the war against terror.


Right, thats my point. And as less complex than Iraq, it took 10 years.

So, because it's long and hard, we shouldn't do it? Again, way to go...


Nazi Germany is an extremely poor example. There was no significant or really any mentionable deaths attributed to insurgent forces in Germany after the war. The male population of Germany was spent both physically and psychologically, leaving the way for the "women of the rubble" to emerge.

No, actually it's a favorite in many political science departments. The lack of insurgence is offset by the tremendous gap in infrastructure damages.

[DE_Six]

Good points, Tane.

[Secret Squirrel]

Ok, this is turning lame, your opinion vs. mine goes nowhere. But what the heck:

Running out of "facts" already?





No the U.S's allies will not sever ties. But i still think this was a case of politics dominating reality. Blair obviously wanted to be as close as he could to Bush. Other members of the coalition joined for various gains (ie. national interests) However, the damage comes when Bush tries to get other countries, who opposed the war, to help out either in Iraq or elsewhere. Bush pushed through with this war despite opposition, so does he have a moral right to condemn nations who resist his plans because they view Bush's plans as counter to their nation's best interest? Isnt it the job of all nations to look out for their own interests first? And actually with an election coming up, it isnt stretching it beyond the breaking point.


Oh yeah, the good old "lapdog" cliché...

Just FYI, Blair was the one who pushed Clinton to intervene in Kosovo. He partly made the original casse for regime change in Iraq, way before Bush ever entered office (a case most republicans scoffed at back in 1995 and 1998, btw). He is also behind the intervention in Sierra Leone, a much needed intervention. He was a proactive politician before Bush. He just happened to meet a US President to match his ambition.

If politics dominated reality, the diplomatic ballet would still be going on. It's realpolitik that propelled this war forward.

But back to my point, Bush never morally condemned any nation for not following. Some necon pundits did, but that is their opinion. Find one line were he actually lectures any nation.
And yes it is overstretching to think AQ will win over the US by isolating them. When push comes to shove (9/11), America's allied stand up. And even in time of disagreement, the relations remain civil. Economic interdependance, cultural unity, etc.

Bush isnt the sharpest knife in the drawer but even I dont think even Bush would publicly condemn another nation for not going along with his "frankenstein". AQ wont win over the U.S by isolating the U.S? The fact remains that the Iraq war has greatly reduced pressure on AQ. They dont have to fight in Iraq. And valuable resourcecs were diverted away from targeting AQ to trying to pacify Iraq. Yes America's Allies stand up for the real war on terror. But as we have seen, Iraq is another case in point where most countries came along for concessions.



Now I was taking you seriously but that last statement is just silly. Because they're fighting in Iraq they cant target Manhattan? Thats the kind of dangerous thinking that causes national catastrophes

That is never what I said, nor even implied. You read what you please. I said that it's globally positive to tie up AQ assets around the world. It may not negate the threat on US soil, it certainly doesn't, but it's better than let the terrorists roam freely and concentrate ALL their efforts on homeland attacks. What do you suggest, let them go in spite?

you said'


Better have them fight in Iraq than Manhattan.

You know by your own logic it would be better to concentrate all our resources on AQ in Ghanny instead of dividing them for Iraq. ;)




It is not, repeat NOT, Bush's job to care for the people of Iraq.

Now, you're being silly. Thinking like that led to the world turning a blind eye on the Rwandan genocide. Isolationism, way to go.

There was a genocide in Iraq? :| The world doesnt exist in black and white, so it doesnt mean either attacking Iraq or not doing anything. It means actually attacking AQ in Ghanny where they actually are. The foreign terrorists in Iraq are there because the coalition is there.



There is absolutely no reason this war, with all its costs in lives and dollars, had to be pushed through and rushed to the point where there didnt even exist a decent plan for the occupation. And before you argue the WMD and it wasnt Bush's fault regarding the intel...well he was already saying that Iraq had WMDs before the CIA even finished their analysis and written the reports

Yes, there was. The miserable conditions of Iraq and the potential quagmire in the Arabic peninsula were enough. The status quo was deadlier than war, and with every passing year, increased the incertitude.
A decent plan for occupation doesn't exist. You can never tell in advance how it's gonna be. Case in point? In 1945, the US forces advancing through capitulating Japan expected the worst. After all, Japanese soldiers were committed to victory beyond death. Instead, the Japanese people resigned to their fate and welcomed them as guests. They had expected strong resistance, they got polite welcomes.
I was not going to argue about WMDs, as far as I know, none have been found. Thanks for passing judgement in advance though.

Japan actually tried to claim victory, go figure. :roll: Since when is the U.S president's job to worry about people in another country? If there was a genocide in Iraq i could understand. Now you're being silly again. Some one suggested that around 40,000 troops would be all that was necessary to occupy Iraq. However, someone else with actual military knowledge said it would require at least 100,000 or more (not exactly sure on the numbers). However, he was ignored and what happened after major combat ended? Troops were sent home only to have to redeploy them again and extend the TOD of troops already there. The marines had to have to their tanks reshipped back to Iraq. Theres no excuse for that kind of poor planning.



Saddam didnt invade Kuwait in 1988

This is boring. You need every word spoonfed? No, he did in 1990, two years later. Two years, nothing compared to the time it'd have taken to rebuild his nation's strength. It was suicidal. He did it nonetheless, which proves the man's recklessness.

If you cant keep the dates straight then dont bring up the points. ;) Recklessness? Perhaps but perhaps he was assuming that like Reagan and Bush Sr., who both took actions to support his regime, nothing would happen.



I thought he drained the marsh lands to punish the marsh Arabs? You're saying he blew up the marshes with helocopters?

He did that, too. But drought doesn't quell armed rebellion very quickly. First, repression. Then, reprisal (the marsh draining). Read more about that period.

:roll:



Saddam fought U.S and U.K presences in Iraq because he thought they were spying.

That's beside the point. What is the point, is that he knew, or worse, he didn't and was honestly ignorant, that this would do no good. Even with his army in shambles, his own airspace denied, surrounded by enemies and with the UN on his back, he didn't offer the slightest hint of cooperation. Instead, he put up a fight. That's a very imprudent move, proof of the man's recklessness and danger for the region. He simply couldn't go unchecked anymore.

http://www.blairfacedlies.org/UNSCOMRepOct1997A1P3.htm read that one first and i'll add more later. ;)



Nope, you thoroughly finish the job there first before you venture off and divert resources away from the real war on terror.

Afghanistan will take decades, and even then, it will never be a western-model democracy. Again, what do you suggest? Stay there for 20 years before turning to something else? The war on terror is fought on multiple fronts simultaneously. We do not have the luxury of "finishing everyhting" within a realstic time frame. It is however, a serious goal at long terms. Nationbuilding will greatly help in the war against terror.

I suggested, "since i have to spell it out for you" that AQ be targetted and finished as much as possible in Ghanny instead of diverting HUMINT towards Iraq. ;)



Right, thats my point. And as less complex than Iraq, it took 10 years.

So, because it's long and hard, we shouldn't do it? Again, way to go...

Not at all. But AQ should have been the focus first. And proper training (ie. linguistics) and planning should have been completed before Iraq was invaded.


Nazi Germany is an extremely poor example. There was no significant or really any mentionable deaths attributed to insurgent forces in Germany after the war. The male population of Germany was spent both physically and psychologically, leaving the way for the "women of the rubble" to emerge. [quote]

No, actually it's a favorite in many political science departments. The lack of insurgence is offset by the tremendous gap in infrastructure damages.

Political science depts. perhaps...i cant speak for them...but certainly not for any historians that i know. Of course you realize that Iraq's infrastructure wasnt exactly in tip top shape after years of neglect and bombing. ;)

[Sayeret]

But a lot things that has happened because of the Iraq war has favored AQ. In addition to the previous examples you can add what the Iraq war has done to voters. It also gave AQ a new front for their war (ie. the Spanish incident...etc)

The war didn't give the terrorists any legitamacy in attacking Spain. The same people who justify Spain's Madrid Train bombings, justify 9/11.


Or are you arguing that the Iraq war somehow hurt AQ?

Losing people is never a good thing. Also I don't know where you got your idea that its easier to recruit people because the war in Iraq is "illegal". AQ existed long before any "illegal wars". Its the same logic as the targetted killings in Gaza and the West Bank. A lot of people said that killing leaders will only help recruit people but in the end it seriously hurt the terrorist groups and made it a lot harder for them to attack.

It seems like in your view of the world people won't do anything to you if you don't do anything to them. The US didn't do anything to the Al Qaeda before 9/11/01, yet it took place. If the world ignores the terrorists then they will only get stronger.


There was a genocide in Iraq? :|

I am not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic by this comment but maybe you should make it more clear because hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Iraq as a result of this genocide. You don't have to support the war in Iraq but don't act like Iraqis are some kind of lower class of humans than yourself.

[Secret Squirrel]

But a lot things that has happened because of the Iraq war has favored AQ. In addition to the previous examples you can add what the Iraq war has done to voters. It also gave AQ a new front for their war (ie. the Spanish incident...etc)

The war didn't give the terrorists any legitamacy in attacking Spain. The same people who justify Spain's Madrid Train bombings, justify 9/11.

Attacking Spain gave AQ a victory over the U.S led coalition.



Or are you arguing that the Iraq war somehow hurt AQ?

Losing people is never a good thing. Also I don't know where you got your idea that its easier to recruit people because the war in Iraq is "illegal". AQ existed long before any "illegal wars". Its the same logic as the targetted killings in Gaza and the West Bank. A lot of people said that killing leaders will only help recruit people but in the end it seriously hurt the terrorist groups and made it a lot harder for them to attack.

It seems like in your view of the world people won't do anything to you if you don't do anything to them. The US didn't do anything to the Al Qaeda before 9/11/01, yet it took place. If the world ignores the terrorists then they will only get stronger.

The recruit comment , which was in quotation marks for a reason, refered to the Iraqi insurgents who are fighting the U.S led coalition. It has nothing to do directly with AQ recruiting. But of course as Tane has pointed out, "A "percieved" victory today can give a boost to recruitment and funding, allowing for two "actual" victories later on. AQO knows this." ;) Your last statement made my whole point again. Resources should have been focused on Ghanny instead of diverted for Iraq.

[Sayeret]

Attacking Spain gave AQ a victory over the U.S led coalition.

But are you justifying that attack?


The recruit comment , which was in quotation marks for a reason, refered to the Iraqi insurgents who are fighting the U.S led coalition. It has nothing to do directly with AQ recruiting. But of course as Tane has pointed out, "A "percieved" victory today can give a boost to recruitment and funding, allowing for two "actual" victories later on. AQO knows this." Your last statement made my whole point again. Resources should have been focused on Ghanny instead of diverted for Iraq.

If the AQ perceives the loss of twenty people as a victory so be it, what can the coalition do better. What stops the AQ from claiming that all people killed by the Coalitions are martyrs and accodring to you that would be a victory also.

Heres why the Coalition is winning: Iraq has a new government and Saddam Hussein is on trial.


last statement made my whole point again. Resources should have been focused on Ghanny instead of diverted for Iraq.

All terrorists live in Afghanistan?

[Secret Squirrel]

Attacking Spain gave AQ a victory over the U.S led coalition.

But are you justifying that attack?

Personally, I sure as hell didnt want to wake up that day and see on the news the attacks that happened in Spain, or terrorists attacks anywhere. But to quote Bush, "you're either with us, or against us"...theres two sides to that coin.



The recruit comment , which was in quotation marks for a reason, refered to the Iraqi insurgents who are fighting the U.S led coalition. It has nothing to do directly with AQ recruiting. But of course as Tane has pointed out, "A "percieved" victory today can give a boost to recruitment and funding, allowing for two "actual" victories later on. AQO knows this." Your last statement made my whole point again. Resources should have been focused on Ghanny instead of diverted for Iraq.

If the AQ perceives the loss of twenty people as a victory so be it, what can the coalition do better. What stops the AQ from claiming that all people killed by the Coalitions are martyrs and accodring to you that would be a victory also.

Heres why the Coalition is winning: Iraq has a new government and Saddam Hussein is on trial.

Terrorism is built around death...around the idea that terrorists will glad go to their grave to accomplish their goals. The victory came when the votes were tallied and Spain with drew from Iraq. Iraq has a sort-of-ocracy You have appointed officals who are talking about marshal law and who are propped up by coalition forces. If you ask me, the real Iraq war began after Bush declared "mission accomplished".



last statement made my whole point again. Resources should have been focused on Ghanny instead of diverted for Iraq.

All terrorists live in Afghanistan?

AQ was/is in Ghanny (you didnt forget that we were talking about AQ did you?).

[Tane Angle]

The miserable conditions of Iraq That's not a good enough reason to into Iraq, I'm sorry to say.

and the potential quagmire in the Arabic peninsula were enough. We could have withdrawn from Saudi Arabia without going into Iraq.

I don't think anyone is justifying any terrorist attacks. But it is wise to study one's enemy, their tactics, their actual (not imagined) mentality, to respect their strengths and search for exploitable weaknesses. For example, by noticing the fact that the WTC was hit twice, one might notice that symbolic targets and targets that were not destroyed in earlier attacks are targets that AQO likes to hit. From that, we can say, "The Cole was attacked but not destroyed (and thus a bit of a defeat for AQO), and Navy ships are a very visible sign of US power. Therefore it is plausible that AQO might be planning to attack, if not the Cole itself, a US Navy ship in general." We can further deduce things two ways: That AQO might try to hit a carrier because it is so extremely symbolic ("4.5 acres of American soveignty" is the saying), or that they might attempt to hit a smaller ship, like a destroyer, that is more destroyable. It's almost impossible to actually sink a carrier, so a smaller, more easily sunk target might make more sense. Judging from the repeated WTC attacks, AQO doesn't like to be embarassed by failing to destroy its targets.


If the AQ perceives the loss of twenty people as a victory so be it, what can the coalition do better. What stops the AQ from claiming that all people killed by the Coalitions are martyrs and accodring to you that would be a victory also. Nothing, that's sort of the problem. As a result, every fight they engage in in Iraq can be used for publicity purposes.


Losing people is never a good thing. Also I don't know where you got your idea that its easier to recruit people because the war in Iraq is "illegal". AQ existed long before any "illegal wars". Its the same logic as the targetted killings in Gaza and the West Bank. A lot of people said that killing leaders will only help recruit people but in the end it seriously hurt the terrorist groups and made it a lot harder for them to attack. It's not that recruitment didn't exist before, it's just that it's easier to recruit now.

Regarding the genocide in Iraq, ordinarily, I would certainly urge intervention against genocide. I did want it when that genocide was actually occuring. A decade after the fact doesn't help anyone, and when our resources are limited, we can't be doing the nice thing or even the right thing; we have to do the correct thing.

Again, I am not against fighting terrorists in Iraq. President Bush failed to attack terrorists in Iraq for the first two years of his Presidency. No ground or air strikes against the camps, either the ones in the northern No-Fly Zone or otherwise. We should have hit them early on, even before 9/11. Why didn't we? I really want to know, because I'm not sure if there was a good reason. Remember, for before 9/11, the President had eight months to launch strikes. It could be argued that he Presidents deserve a 6-month grace period after first taking office. Ok, fine, but that still leaves two months of inaction and thumb-twidling.


Ok, this is turning lame, your opinion vs. mine goes nowhere. But what the heck: This is probably true, I'm not sure when the last time someoneon here changed their mind was. :D

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Tane Angle]

Somebody sent me a PM a while back asking how I could anti-US. I kept my cool and did not pummel the writer with stories oy my career. I thought this was clarified, but perhaps it was not. I am not anti-US, and whether I agree with the foreign policy or not, if called I will do my duty. I dedicated 15 years of my life to a foreign policy I found to be ludicrous, but I still did it because that was my job.

I make posts disagreeing with the current policy specifically because I love the United States of America and Americans so much. I find the current policies to degrade America's and Americans' safety, and so I say so. That, my friends, is my motivation in these posts.

That same person asked how I could give respect to groups like the Party of God. I give them respect because the last time we underestimated them in a war, they beat us. And yes, it was a war, and our failure to grasp that was one of the main reasons why they defeated us. I respect them - and try to understand them - because that is the only way to fight them. If we just say "stupid terrorists," we won't be any more protected than we were prior to 9/11.

As always, have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Oh yeah, I'm going to try this at work and see how it goes.

"sure boss, I meant to break that 24 pair fiber optic cable. Of course I can see all the real damage that's been done to our operation - but trust me boss, I'm clever and devious - you'll see in time the many subtle advantages this will bring" I'm sure he'd see this the same way I do.

Maybe AQ wanted us to go into Iraq. That doesn't mean that it was actually a good thing for them. Where are the big AQ attacks against the Great Satan™ - where are the AQ successes as a result of OIF? They can say "I meant to do that", just like when I spill my coffee - and it's still a joke.

This boils down to opinion, or perhaps wishful thinking on some people's part. Anything to criticize gullible ol' America. Nothing new to see here folks, keep moving...

[OB Kenobi]

This boils down to opinion, or perhaps wishful thinking on some people's part. Anything to criticize gullible ol' America. Nothing new to see here folks, keep moving...

For the record, I wasn't criticizing America, I was criticizing the Iraq invasion. I think it was a mistake... a huge ****ing mistake! Bush totally FUBAR'd the "war on terror" by going into Iraq the way he did. Some might even say he fabricated the "war on terror" when none was needed. Let me know when someone figures out the origin of this "terror" so we can actually declare war against it.

Now what the hell are we supposed to do? Is Iraq improving? Why are we still getting two US soldiers killed per day on average? I mean, you've still got Al Sadr in power, this phantom Zarqawi character (who may or may not exist) still around, and even the Baathists themselves, who have forced their way into getting control of some of the ICDC, police and government again. Not to mention the obscene numbers of Iraqis killed, wounded, and disenfranchised on a daily basis. What about the reconstruction? The oil pipelines are still being blown up, several contractors have pulled out before finishing the job.

If that sounds like just bad new to you, tell me some good news. What has improved in Iraq?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Hey, don't ask me what's better in Iraq. Ask an Iraqi. Although they obviously would want any foreign powers to leave, there is almost universal agreement that things are better than they were under Saddam. (Note that you won't get this answer if you ask a Baathist)

We are also certain now that Saddam will not use WMD on us, or give his WMD to others to use on us. You can argue that there may never have been significant WMD there - or that attacking us by proxy was never his intention - but it is no longer an issue now. That is an improvement.

So apart from improving the lives of most Iraqis, and eliminating the WMD threat, yeah, I guess not much has improved.

I am an American. I have family and co-workers in Iraq & A-stan. I'll probably be headed there shortly. I am not complaining, nor do I find significant fault in the administration's actions. I do not expect perfection in a chaotic world, when fighting enemies who try to deceive us. There is a price to be paid in blood for this action, and I'm satisfied that the price has been acceptably low. That is my opinion.

God, this endless harping on how America did this wrong, America did that wrong, things didn't go exactly as planned so America is stupid, America wore white shoes before Easter, America blah blah - Christ on a polo pony - go out and DO something. Create something. Produce something. It's easy to do nothing and point out everybody else's failures...it's just so tiresome. I think I'm done with this lame thread (pounding head on table) :cantbeli:

[Tane Angle]

This boils down to opinion, or perhaps wishful thinking on some people's part. Anything to criticize gullible ol' America. Nothing new to see here folks, keep moving...
Is that referring to me?


God, this endless harping on how America did this wrong, America did that wrong, things didn't go exactly as planned so America is stupid, America wore white shoes before Easter, America blah blah - Christ on a polo pony - go out and DO something. Create something. Produce something. It's easy to do nothing and point out everybody else's failures...it's just so tiresome.
Is this?

Yes, Zarqawi does exist. We have done a great deal to prevent civilian casualties, and many construction jobs have been finished very well, though there is still very much room for imporvment there.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[Sayeret]

AQ was/is in Ghanny (you didnt forget that we were talking about AQ did you?).

Last time I checked AQ was a global organization that had people in many different countries around the world not just Afghanistan.

[DE_Six]

As many said, it's down to opinions now.

@ Secret Squirrel: I see your point, hope you got mine.

But just to settle a few scores:


Running out of "facts" already?

It's not about facts anymore, it's about how we each interpret them. It's pointless.

We are comparing opinions. So far, neither of us has presented a "fact" ( dubious term anyway since neither of us has anything better than second-hand, biased information) that would objectively prove one of us wrong.


You know by your own logic it would be better to concentrate all our resources on AQ in Ghanny instead of dividing them for Iraq.

No, quite the opposite, in fact. My biggest gripe about post-war Iraq is, incidentally, the number of troops involved. I believe the US should maintain the flexibility to intervene anywhere, anytime, to answer a flexible threat. But in my opinion, getting bogged down in a single place is not better than splitting forces, wihtin reasonable limits.
Of course, this only works in theory. Certain "fronts" require more troops than others. It's just a general idea I have.


There was a genocide in Iraq?

Check numbers on the embargo:
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/ethique.htm
The Iraqi people was paying the toll.
Anyway, again there wasn't my point. Other situations than genocide justify foreign intervention, morally if not legally.


Since when is the U.S president's job to worry about people in another country?

The situation in the Middle-East is closely linked to US national interests, for a start.


If you cant keep the dates straight then dont bring up the points.

If you have to nag on insignificant details, don't bother.


read that one first and i'll add more later.

No need, I've read that before. If Saddam was so cooperative, how come he was still ni breech of UN resolutions on the eve of the war? Don't answer that.


that AQ be targetted and finished as much as possible in Ghanny instead of diverting HUMINT towards Iraq.

Afghanistan is no longer the best place to look if you want to find AQ. There are still elements there, but not enough to justify a monopoly on intel resources. That's my opinion, feel free to disagree.


Of course you realize that Iraq's infrastructure wasnt exactly in tip top shape after years of neglect and bombing

And of course, if you are familiar with the work of historians, I will assume you know that it's nothing compared to 1945 Germany.

Once more, opinion debate here. But I see your point, don't worry. I wasn't trying to convince you, no sweat. Just an interesting bout of conversation.

Cheers

[Sayeret]

Some might even say he fabricated the "war on terror" when none was needed. Let me know when someone figures out the origin of this "terror" so we can actually declare war against it.

Terrorism needs to be fought in many ways since the terrorists are doing everything they can to hurt the people they are fighting. Like Tane says all the time you shouldn't underestimate the terrorists, they can't be dealt with through police alone, everything should be brought to bare to deal with terrorists. Police have an important job fighting terrorists but you can't rely on police alone because often once the terrorists are in the police juridiction it will be too late. Many countries shelter and protect terrorists and won't arrest them when they are told to, so sometimes wars need to be fought.

[Secret Squirrel]

As many said, it's down to opinions now.

@ Secret Squirrel: I see your point, hope you got mine.

But just to settle a few scores:


Running out of "facts" already?

It's not about facts anymore, it's about how we each interpret them. It's pointless.

We are comparing opinions. So far, neither of us has presented a "fact" ( dubious term anyway since neither of us has anything better than second-hand, biased information) that would objectively prove one of us wrong.

I put facts in quotation marks because most we're just offering opinions (i probably you have just used "opinions").



You know by your own logic it would be better to concentrate all our resources on AQ in Ghanny instead of dividing them for Iraq.

No, quite the opposite, in fact. My biggest gripe about post-war Iraq is, incidentally, the number of troops involved. I believe the US should maintain the flexibility to intervene anywhere, anytime, to answer a flexible threat. But in my opinion, getting bogged down in a single place is not better than splitting forces, wihtin reasonable limits.
Of course, this only works in theory. Certain "fronts" require more troops than others. It's just a general idea I have.

But that's was my entire point. I still think some people thought that this Iraq war would be like the last one. Or that some people grossly misjudged the number of troops that it would take to occupy Iraq. It's common sense, or at least it should be, that when you topple a regime, without having another form of leadership and force waiting, then you have commit a lot of troops and its going to take a long time (even longer if you do it by yourself ;) ). If there was intel of AQ operating in Iraq, then what stopped the Bush admin. from targeting them without the invasion? Wouldnt that make Iraq a front on the war on terror if this had been done? And if Saddam retaliated or openly showed himself to be a threat, then forming a real coalition would certainly have been easier than rushing to war.



There was a genocide in Iraq?

Check numbers on the embargo:
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/ethique.htm
The Iraqi people was paying the toll.
Anyway, again there wasn't my point. Other situations than genocide justify foreign intervention, morally if not legally.

Morally? Let me ask you exactly what you think is Bush's job? Why did you vote for him and or support him?



Since when is the U.S president's job to worry about people in another country?

The situation in the Middle-East is closely linked to US national interests, for a start.

Sorry, i cant let you get away with a often spouted catch phrase. ;) The war didnt need to happen.



If you cant keep the dates straight then dont bring up the points.

If you have to nag on insignificant details, don't bother.

The devil is in the details. ;) Instead of citing "faulty intel" later, just make sure your "intel" is correct. (usually someone will come along though and correct you if you dont correct yourself).



read that one first and i'll add more later.

No need, I've read that before. If Saddam was so cooperative, how come he was still ni breech of UN resolutions on the eve of the war? Don't answer that.

Dont try to make a point and then say "dont answer that". ;) Was he a threat? nope.



that AQ be targetted and finished as much as possible in Ghanny instead of diverting HUMINT towards Iraq.

Afghanistan is no longer the best place to look if you want to find AQ. There are still elements there, but not enough to justify a monopoly on intel resources. That's my opinion, feel free to disagree.

I do disagree. But before the war AQ was not in Iraq in force. So by your own logic there werent "enough to justify a monopoly on intel resources".


Of course you realize that Iraq's infrastructure wasnt exactly in tip top shape after years of neglect and bombing [quote]

And of course, if you are familiar with the work of historians, I will assume you know that it's nothing compared to 1945 Germany.

Once more, opinion debate here. But I see your point, don't worry. I wasn't trying to convince you, no sweat. Just an interesting bout of conversation.

Of course, just to narrow it down (again, details which i should have mentioned earlier), you're refering to the FRG or GDR? I'd like to know which political scientists in particular compare post war Germany to post war Iraq. I dont see how you can compare an insurgency and basically having to rebuild a country to just rebuilding a country. But let me know if you meant the FRG or GDR just to keep things in context.

[Tane Angle]

So once again, why not hit just the camps? Use air assault troops, use SOF teams, use bombs and missiles, but it would have been possible to deny the terrorists access to their camps without a full scale invasion. Fallujah was not the bastion it was, and it would have been possible to inflict a tremendous amount of damage on the terrorists that were in Iraq prior to the invasion. It also would have allowed the US to use the element of surprise, as opposed to the lengthy pre-invasion buildup that was the military equivalent of waving a sign saying, "run to another coming for you soon!"

While I appreciate Sayeret quoting me, in my own humble opinion, invading Iraq was not the best way to combat terrorism.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...