 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
. I was saying that we need to persevere in Iraq despite our losses just as we persevered in WW2 despire our losses there. We did not cut and run in WW2. We should not cut and run in Iraq either.
|
Lets see WW2 began for the US when a nation-state openly attacked. The US faced high losses at points in the war but generally were advancing and winning. They never faced the war/not war situation that US troops face in Iraq.
Personally I don't advocate the US cutting and running. While I question if the Iraq war was a smart move, the US has to deal with the current reality. THat reality MUST be at least an attempt to leave a stable country behind. My problem is I don't realistically see how that will be accomplished.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
In my opinion, the means you use to resist occupation determines if you are a terrorist. If you bomb a military intallation, you are not a terrorist. When you take a school hostage like the Chechen terrorists did in Russia, then you are a terrorists. When you take some civilian worker or missionary hostage and slice his head off, you are a terrorist.
Zarqawi has ties to Al Queda. There have been several reports of high ranking Iraqi intelligence officers and Al Queda members meeting in Baghdad prior to the war. We know terrorists were practicising highjacking airplanes at Salman Pak in nothern Iraq. We know Saddam was funding Palestinian suicide bombers. We know Saddam had WMD before Gulf War I, and the UN never fully accounted that all were destroyed. We know Saddam built missiles that exceeded the allowed range as detailed in 1991 Cease fire.
It is simply not possible to say that Iraq is not part of the war on terror. Saddam clearly played a role in terrorism eventhough he was not responsible for 9-11. |
1. The Coalition has killed and maimed many innocents in the war in Iraq. Coalition forces have also been responsible for torture. By your logic that would make the Coalition terrorists. Not too mention the fact that the legality of the war in Iraq is being questioned.
2. What decision making position in the Iraqi government did Zarqawi and the other Iraqi's you are referring to occupy prior to the war. President? Vice-President?
3. AQ members met in several countries. They have members of many nationalities. A war against AQ is a war against AQ. Why are we not taking over S. Arabia since OBL is SA.
4. Palestinian suicide bombers do not constitute a direct threat to the security of the U.S. since they generally confine themselves to the areas they are fighting for. Also, why attack Iraq and not Isreal since they spy on us, compromising our security.
5. No WMD's found!! No missiles that can reach the East Coast, West Coast or Hawaii. IE NO THREAT.
6. I agree that the current Iraq is apart of the war on terror because we have made enemies of the Iraqi people. What does a weaker force do when facing overwhelming firepower. They resort to unconventional warfare to balance the equation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax
1. The Coalition has killed and maimed many innocents in the war in Iraq. Coalition forces have also been responsible for torture. By your logic that would make the Coalition terrorists. Not too mention the fact that the legality of the war in Iraq is being questioned.
|
I think his logic for discriminating terrorists from other kinds of combatants is sound. Remember those who took part in torture are going to be jailed for it. If torture were SOP there would be no punishment. Just because the torturers are terrorists doesn't mean that all the rest of the coalition, such as those who are testifying against and jailing the torturers are themselves terrorists as well. That doesn't make any sense. Also, if the terrorists attacked our military and civilian bystanders were injured I don't think it's clear that he would regard them as terrorists in that case, so again, his logic seems to allow for the exclusion of the coalition as a terrorist group.
quote:
Originally posted by Pax
2. What decision making position in the Iraqi government did Zarqawi and the other Iraqi's you are referring to occupy prior to the war. President? Vice-President?
3. AQ members met in several countries. They have members of many nationalities. A war against AQ is a war against AQ. Why are we not taking over S. Arabia since OBL is SA.
4. Palestinian suicide bombers do not constitute a direct threat to the security of the U.S. since they generally confine themselves to the areas they are fighting for. Also, why attack Iraq and not Isreal since they spy on us, compromising our security.
5. No WMD's found!! No missiles that can reach the East Coast, West Coast or Hawaii. IE NO THREAT.
6. I agree that the current Iraq is apart of the war on terror because we have made enemies of the Iraqi people. What does a weaker force do when facing overwhelming firepower. They resort to unconventional warfare to balance the equation. |
I more or less agree with the points in the rest of your post except 6. Unconventional warfare is excusable but it doesn't mean that targeted attacks on non combatant and grossly non military targets could possibly be justified. Those actions don't even facilitate the ejection of the occupiers. They are clearly just acts of spite and calculated terror. If you are going to condemn the administration for needless violence you should not endeavor to excuse the terrorists for doing the same.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax
1. The Coalition has killed and maimed many innocents in the war in Iraq. Coalition forces have also been responsible for torture. By your logic that would make the Coalition terrorists. Not too mention the fact that the legality of the war in Iraq is being questioned. |
When Coalition forces kill and maim innocents, it is accidental. When terrorists kill innocents, it's deliberate. Big difference.
quote:
2. What decision making position in the Iraqi government did Zarqawi and the other Iraqi's you are referring to occupy prior to the war. President? Vice-President? |
So unless someone is vice president or president, their ties to terrorism don't count?
quote:
3. AQ members met in several countries. They have members of many nationalities. A war against AQ is a war against AQ. Why are we not taking over S. Arabia since OBL is SA. |
And we look at the roles those countries may have in harboring or aiding AQ.
quote:
4. Palestinian suicide bombers do not constitute a direct threat to the security of the U.S. since they generally confine themselves to the areas they are fighting for. Also, why attack Iraq and not Isreal since they spy on us, compromising our security. |
There is a thing called a "regional threat". Just because the Palestinian bombers don't do their attacks in the US, does not mean that they are not a threat to US interests. Their attacks in Israel affect US interests indirectly because the US needs a stable middle east.
quote:
5. No WMD's found!! No missiles that can reach the East Coast, West Coast or Hawaii. IE NO THREAT. |
Again, regional threat. Iraq had missiles that could target Israel and Iraq's neighbors. That is a serious concern to the US.
quote:
6. I agree that the current Iraq is apart of the war on terror because we have made enemies of the Iraqi people. What does a weaker force do when facing overwhelming firepower. They resort to unconventional warfare to balance the equation. |
The truth is that most Iraqis are not involved in the violence against US troops. That is another reason why Iraq is not a quagmire. The violence is caused by a small group of insurgents, Baathists and foreign terrorists.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Please assure me, MrFun, that you haven't completely lost your mind and are advocating we pull out of Iraq so as to prevent more beheadings?
-Arrian |
We cannot withdraw from Iraq prematurely -- if we do this, then we allow the terrorists to continue using Iraq as a haven.
Before Saddam's overthrow, terrorists did not operate from within Iraq. But ever since our intervention, terrorists have found Iraq to be a new base of operations.
If we withdraw prematurely, we will only be cutting our own throats in fighting terrorism. The incompetence of the Bush administration has created more chaos in parts of Iraq than necessary -- which of course, resulted in higher casualties, and a greater number of hostages.
If Kerry was deciding on our policy towards the new Iraq, would there be no casualties? No -- you would have to be talking out of your ass if everything would fine and hunky-dory because no matter who is in charge, there will be casualties.
But the incompetence, duplicity, and arrogance of the Bush administration has magnified the terrible problems for not only Americans in Iraq, but for Iraqis themselves, who are victims of terrorist attacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
I wonder if it is too late to improve the cooperation of the Iraqis in rebuilding Iraq and to solicit more help in maintaing peace there by handing control of the occupation over to the UN? Sure, there's no way Bush would ever do that, but maybe Kerry could pursue that route? Or would such a change in policy have little effect by the time Kerry took office?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-09-2004 23:02
this thread is hilarious
.
.
|