 |
| |
|
|
mitch
|
|
So I was watching this 'miniseries event' on the National Geographic Channel called Inside 9/11. Its a very well made, objective documentary about all the events that led to 9/11. Its starts off showing how muslim radicals garnered the support they needed, how they grew to be so powerful, how the ended up establishing al qaeda bases all over the world, and eventually how they planned and executed not only their 9/11 attack (although this is the focus), but most of their other attacks, too.
One of the soundbites that caught my ear was when they were talking about Muslim jihadism and how the Soviet-Afghani war was the main catalyst in uniting the jihadists. Osama bin Laden also apprently first became famous during this conflict. Experts went on to say that the Soviet occupation of their land and the fact that the islamists were able to kick a superpower (in this case the USSR) out of Afghanistan created, fueled, and united the radicals on a level never seen before.
Later on in the series, it is explained that when Saddam Hussein first invaded Kuwait, that Bin laden offered help to the Saudi government to defend the holy land against Iraq. They were refused and instead Saudi Arabia welcomed the help of the US. Seemingly this was what first ignited Bin laden's hatred of the US. He used the fact that "infidels were on the holy land" to renew ferver and support for his cause. Over the next few years the United States becomes the main object of hatred for these radicals (due to the fact that they are stationed in Saudia Arabia).
Fastforward to later on in the program. One of the main goals of OBL is apparently to incite the United States to attack in his holy land so he can have a 'replay' of the soviet-afghani war. Even though the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has grown exponentially since the Soviet-Afghani war, he feels that by fighting the US in his own land will garner even more massive support and unity against the 'infidels' and also an eventual victory.
So with all this said, lets look at post 9/11 and the Iraq war. OBL finally got what he wanted when we retaliated in Afghanistan. But instead of our troops being bogged down and eventually defeated, we were, through the help of a massive coalition, able to swiftly topple the Taliban (who were a source of lot of the violent Islamic extremism), destroy Al-Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan, and install democracy all with massive international support. The war in Afghanistan did not create a huge explosion of islamic extremists willing to flood afghanistan and give up their lives to see the 'infidels' leave the country. By all means the war in Afghanistan has gone well and I feel that it was integral that we responded in the manner we did during that time.
The Iraq war talk starts up outta nowhere. All of a sudden it is imperative that we take action at once against in Iraq. International support starts to dwindle. Bush goes ahead with the plan and the first couple weeks are nothing but a success. Saddam Hussein's government is toppled and we rolled into Baghdad in what can only be called a swift victory against Iraq. But with no international support, what looks like faulty intelligence for the invasion, and a mounting suspiscion (in the ME) of the US, Bin Laden and islamic radicals have everything they need to feul Islamists into a holy war like never before seen.
Does anyone else think that if anything the Iraq war has created more terrorism and hatred for the US? We went from the most sympathized nation in the world immediately after 9/11 to the most hated right now. If people all around Europe and the rest of the world believe we were wrong in invading Iraq, what do you guys think the Islamic world will believe? Do you think that it is destroying their confidence and will and that we will eventually be able to defeat them? Or do you believe they are just gathering more support, strength, and people - kinda like what happened during the Soviet-Afghani war? Personally I believe that it has created more terrorists and terrorism (i don't believe the UK bombings would have happened if it wasn't for Iraq) but I truly don't believe we can pull out at this point. I was against the invasion from the beginning but now that the troops are there we cannot withdraw. It is our duty to ensure that Iraq does not get into the hands of Islamic fundementalists (like it would if we left now) and that we provide all the support we can. If radicals kick us out in Iraq it will only make them stronger and more unified. We made the unfortunate move of going in when we didn't need to, without thinking about the potential consequences. Unfortunetly I really don't see the end at this point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:37
|
|
a dl AND a tedious iraq thread, ain't we the lucky ones tonight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mitch
|
|
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I'm not a DL and I just wanted to hear a discussion about this. Hopefully others can respond to the actual post.
Anyways for those that are interested the second and final part of the minseries is coming on right now on the National geographic Channel and the first part will be replayed at 11pm Eastern.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
I think you lose the plot when you start talking about Iraq. There are many countervailing reasons why Iraq was a good idea, not least because we could exit Saudi Arabia permanently when Saddam is destroyed. Further, we looked weak in the fundies' eyes by not taking out Saddam at the first go. It's a US-Saddam score that had to be settled. Indeed, I would argue that the Gulf War demonstrated a defect in the US national character -- we weren't willing to do what was necessary to finish the job right. We didn't want to occupy Iraq, so we did everything possible to avoid it.
Last edited by DanS on 23-08-2005 at 06:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
I didn't agree with us getting into it with Saddam in Gulf War I. In my mind, it was silly. But we did get into it with him, and so we had a score to settle with him. The US has to show strength to these folks by finishing what we start. Saddam wasn't finished until he was caught in the rathole by our boys and our soldiers were getting their pictures taken smoking his cigars in his palaces.
Last edited by DanS on 23-08-2005 at 07:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mitch
|
|
Thats amazing that you actually believe that we had to go into Iraq for that reason. You didn't believe in a war when one nation unjustly invaded another nation but you believe in this Iraq war just because we have a score to settle?
edit: responding to DanS's post
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mitch
|
|
quote:
I don't view them as separate wars. We were constantly at war with Saddam for more than a decade. |
Regardless of how you view them, they were seperate wars. We could have either waited for more intelligence about the WMDs (which would have eventually shown none) and we would not have gone to war at all because of no public support or we could have gone in all of a sudden like President Bush. Do you remember when the Iraq war started? It was like all of a sudden the whole adminstration made it their main focus. Terrorists weren't on the forefront anymore, Saddam was... and I'm still not exactly sure on the reasons.
Iraq would have never gotten approval without 9/11. Do you believe that had 9/11 not occured that the United States still had to go in and 'finish the job' of the gulf war?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mitch
|
|
Why do you feel his debt had to be paid? Look at what cost we are paying this debt.... the lives, the money, the resources that could be spent on anti terror. Do you feel that this 'debt was that important?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
Yes, I feel that repaying our debts in the ME is of uptmost importance. I feel that OBL has identified a perceived defect in the American national character. He thinks/thought that we are weak because we cut and ran in Iran, Beirut, Gulf War I, Somalia, Sudan, and Taliban Afghanistan (I'm probably missing a few). We don't finish what we start. We didn't punish fully those who stood openly against us. Every president since Carter has a black mark in this regard. Bush Jr has been scrambling trying to correct this perception, but indeed the perception might be true, unfortunately.
Last edited by DanS on 23-08-2005 at 07:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mitch
|
|
quote:
Yes, I feel that repaying our debts in the ME is of uptmost importance. I feel that OBL has identified a perceived defect in the American national character. He thinks/thought that we are weak because we cut and ran in Iran, Beirut, Gulf War I, Somalia, Sudan, and Taliban Afghanistan (I'm probably missing a few). We don't finish what we start. We didn't punish fully those who stood openly against us. Every president since Carter has a black mark in this regard. Bush Jr has been scrambling trying to correct this perception, but indeed the perception might be true, unfortunately. |
Well I have heard a lot of views supporting the invasion of Iraq but this is the first time I've heard this one(I am guessing that we agree, DanS, on keeping the troops in Iraq until it is stable). I know that you feel that OBL perceived this 'start but not finish' attitude of the US was a weakness, but regardless of what you feel, it astounds me that you think just because he regarded this is a weakness that we should have gone to war. I got news for you... OBL did not plan and execute 9/11 because he thought we "don't punish fully those who stood against." He wasn't sitting around thinking, "Oh looky, those americans didn't kill Saddam. Let me see if I can kill 3000 Americans on their soil and they might not do too much."
The Iraq war started after Afghanistan had been a success. We had accomplished the needed objectives and we could have shifted all of our focus on capturing OBL, his leadership, and systematically destroying terror bases around the world (especially the middle east). How do we identify these terror bases? How bout use all the intelligence and a fraction of the resources being used for the Iraq war right now? I guess you can say that you were right. We didn't finish the War on Terror.... instead we got sidetracked with the war in Iraq.
And what Sava said:
quote:
or perhaps bin Laden knows exactly what the US response would be and he wants the US to come to the MidEast and invade a country, not only to train terrorists as they practice attacks on US troops, but to gain a new generation of followers. |
is exactly what they said during the 'Inside 9/11' miniseries. That Bin laden wanted the US to attack and invade so he could fight them on his own soil.
Last edited by mitch on 23-08-2005 at 07:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
What exactly was Carter supposed to do in Iran? Invade it to prop up the Pahlevi regime? |
Good question. I don't have all the answers, but can think of some possibilities, such as retaking the embassy in force and occupying the surrounding area. Failing that, perhaps we could have done a small invasion (much bigger than we did) to extract our diplomats. It would have looked weaker than the former response, I have to admit, but still a lot better for our prestige than what actually happened. Another possibility is that we take a small chunk of Iranian territory as payment in trust until we get our diplos and embassy back. For instance, a port area might have done nicely.
Last edited by DanS on 23-08-2005 at 09:08
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2005 06:04
|