News on a war on terror that doesn't reduce terror

[grandpa]

Leak Case Focusing on War's Rationale:
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/nyt017.html
"WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 - The legal and political stakes are of the highest order, but the investigation into the disclosure of a covert C.I.A. officer's identity is also just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq."

Secret UK Poll: Iraqis Support Attacks on Troops:
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...portaltop.html
"Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.
The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country."

Top US Diplomat Slams Neocons for Iraq Debacle:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051022...p/usiraqraphel
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - A veteran US diplomat who served as a government adviser in Iraq says US policy in the country at the initial stage of the occupation was driven by neoconservative ideology rather than careful preparation and clear understanding of issues."

US: Zarqawi's Terror Network Growing:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w094637D55.DTL
"U.S. intelligence officials say Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has expanded his terrorism campaign in Iraq to extremists in two dozen terror groups scattered across almost 40 countries, creating a network that rivals Osama bin Laden's."

Islamists and Mujahedeen Secure Victory in Afghan Vote:
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/nyt019.html
"KABUL, Afghanistan, Oct. 21 - More than a month after the elections, nearly all provisional results have finally been released for Afghanistan's Parliament and provincial assemblies, cementing a victory for Islamic conservatives and the jihad fighters involved in the wars of the past two decades."

[RickSp]

I think the second news item is the most revealing and probably deserves a thread of its own.

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals: • Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province; • 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops; • less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security; • 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation; • 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened; • 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces. The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

Is there any wonder that we are losing the war when 82 per cent of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops and 45% believe attacks against British and American troops are justified?

The War Party's rose colored glasses are too covered in blood to see the truth. Almost 65% of all Americans think the war in Iraq is not worth it. Time to begin the phased withdrawal and let the Iraqis tend to their own affairs.

[grandpa]

Quote by: RickSp The War Party's rose colored glasses are too covered in blood to see the truth.

That's a great quote. If you want, you can start a new thread with just the one news item. It is a big one.

Grandpa h.

[mathurin]

Quote by: RickSp I think the second news item is the most revealing and probably deserves a thread of its own. Is there any wonder that we are losing the war when 82 per cent of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops and 45% believe attacks against British and American troops are justified? The War Party's rose colored glasses are too covered in blood to see the truth. Almost 65% of all Americans think the war in Iraq is not worth it. Time to begin the phased withdrawal and let the Iraqis tend to their own affairs.

and then when the iraqis fall to yet another oppressive regime you can call it a pointless war and scream at the republicans for pulling out and leaving them defensless

been there done that

we are staying in this one much like we did korea, the people will come around once things start improving, the koreans didnt want us there at first, neither did the japanese

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: mathurin and then when the iraqis fall to yet another oppressive regime you can call it a pointless war and scream at the republicans for pulling out and leaving them defensless been there done that we are staying in this one much like we did korea, the people will come around once things start improving, the koreans didnt want us there at first, neither did the japanese

So, like Korea, you're advocating that we keep thousands of troops in Iraq for the next 50 years or so??

[Sonart]

Quote by: mathurin we are staying in this one much like we did korea, the people will come around once things start improving, the koreans didn't want us there at first, neither did the japanese

Bad analogy, mathurin. South Korea was like Kuwait, the victim of aggression from across their borders. We went in not to take over their country but to defend it from invasion and overthrow. Once the conflict was over, we promptly handed control of both countries back to the same governments who had asked us for help. Had we occupied, say, North Korea, I daresay we'd still be fighting a guerilla war there to this day.

The better example is Somalia. We went in for decent, idealistic reasons, but it became obvious that the warlords intended to exact a price that we were unwilling as a nation to pay for a mission that was, at bottom, not really all that important to our national interests. So we pulled out, knowing full well we would be leaving the Somali people defenseless.

Same in Iraq. Had this been about WMD and ties to al-Qaeda, the American people would certainly have been willing to pay a high price to defeat such a threat. But we found out it wasn't about those things and watched the administration flounder around for an alternative rationalization. Saving the poor Iraqis from a horrible, repressive regime and bringing democracy to the mideast are certainly worthy goals... up to a point. But beyond that point the American people have decided it's simply not worth it. Personally, after a great deal of introspection, I'm still convinced we should stick it out a while longer, but not for much longer and my conviction to that end is wafer thin.

As to screaming at the Republicans for pulling out and leaving the Iraqis defenseless, the only screaming I'm going to engage in is for the heads of all those who got us into this debacle in the first place... not the least of whom would be Dear Leader, who should be impeached for Gross Criminal Negligence.

.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: RickSp probably deserves a thread of its own

Quote by: grandpa If you want, you can start a new thread with just the one news item

I already started a thread on that news item/poll its in Latest News section: Secret MoD Poll: Iraqis Support Attacks on British Troops

[mathurin]

Quote by: Sonart Bad analogy, mathurin. South Korea was like Kuwait, the victim of aggression from across their borders. We went in not to take over their country but to defend it from invasion and overthrow. Once the conflict was over, we promptly handed control of both countries back to the same governments who had asked us for help. Had we occupied, say, North Korea, I daresay we'd still be fighting a guerilla war there to this day.

ok, i would accuse you of editing history but like most americans, you prolly dont know much about this war, i was amazed at my own ignorance before i took the class im currently in (test over the first year of korea is tomorrow morning, i should be studying, after the first year it became a more defined war)

after WWII korea (formerly owned by japan) was broken in half at the arbitrary 38th parralel (arbitrary because there was no river, mountain, or any force multiplier to increase defensive ability) because it was a hop skip and a jump away from japan, the north was pretty much a soviet satelite, and they put a guy named kim il sung in charge, or, they murdered every party except the communist party, then held elections, whichever version you like. in the south the US pretty much manipulated Singman Rhee into power, so south korea was under indirect control of the US. our sec. state madethe mistake of publicly stating that korea was outside of our area of interest, which led the soviets and chinese to believe that if they supported (unofficially) the norths invasion of the south, the US would not help defend, so the north got tons of supplies, including 120 T34s, possibly the best tank of its day, and the north rolled through the south (which we had armed without anti-tank capability, because much like Kim, Rhee made no bones about his wish to "reunite the peninsula" by force) to shorten the story, the UN labeled north korea an agressor nation and we went to war, getting horrid losses, then the tables turned and we cut off the norths supplies by taking inchon, then seoul, and the routing reversed and it was the north getting its butt kicked horridly, we chased their ass all the way to the Yalu river, then china decided it didnt want capitalists that close and entered the war, pushing the US back to more or less where the whole thing began, least to a more defensible position near the 38th (this next bit i havent learned much about, but am going by what the book has been revealing about the rest of the war) where they pretty much fought back and forth like it was WWI

Quote by: Sonart The better example is Somalia. We went in for decent, idealistic reasons, but it became obvious that the warlords intended to exact a price that we were unwilling as a nation to pay for a mission that was, at bottom, not really all that important to our national interests. So we pulled out, knowing full well we would be leaving the Somali people defenseless.

oh yeah, pulling out of somalia was a great idea, rofl, thats been a black eye on us for a long time, damn, we lost like 8 soldiers and ran, it makes rattling the sword in future negotiations useless

america, the paper tiger no more

Quote by: Sonart Same in Iraq. Had this been about WMD and ties to al-Qaeda, the American people would certainly have been willing to pay a high price to defeat such a threat. But we found out it wasn't about those things and watched the administration flounder around for an alternative rationalization. Saving the poor Iraqis from a horrible, repressive regime and bringing democracy to the mideast are certainly worthy goals... up to a point. But beyond that point the American people have decided it's simply not worth it. Personally, after a great deal of introspection, I'm still convinced we should stick it out a while longer, but not for much longer and my conviction to that end is wafer thin.

he had plenty of other reasons, for some stupid reason he relied on poor intel

i say in another 5 years the attacks will heavily decrease as life gains a normality it never had under saddam, and the people stop supporting the terrorists

Quote by: Sonart As to screaming at the Republicans for pulling out and leaving the Iraqis defenseless, the only screaming I'm going to engage in is for the heads of all those who got us into this debacle in the first place... not the least of whom would be Dear Leader, who should be impeached for Gross Criminal Negligence. .

so what about all those who voted to go to war in iraq, do they get a free ride because they float with the political climate like the pussies they are
even if the initial reasons proved to be incorrect, we already have the country, it would be stupidity to give it back once we have gained a foothold


and yes, we will have to maintain a force in iraq for a very long time, if only to show our resolve to stay, we keep people in korea not to defend it, because the forces we have there are minor, they could not hold off a attack for long, but they are americans, and if an attack comes and american blood is spilt we will jump into action, instead of hmming and hawing over whether our treaty requires us to act on the allied nations behalf or not
i am guessing that in 30 years we will be able to leave if we wish, however the current level of attacks shouldnt continue beyond the 8 year mark, but its just a guess

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: mathurin i am guessing that in 30 years we will be able to leave if we wish

Do you pay a nickle of taxes, college boy?

Well, I hope you get to pay your fair share later, as the military presence of the US Empire grinds on and on, sucking your bank account dry.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Do you pay a nickle of taxes, college boy? Well, I hope you get to pay your fair share later, as the military presence of the US Empire grinds on and on, sucking your bank account dry.

Well, by wishing it on him, you jjust wished on me as well smart guy... :eek:


I hope your wishes aren't any beter than mine have proven to be. In other words, we're talking about a zero percent chance.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: mathurin so what about all those who voted to go to war in iraq, do they get a free ride because they float with the political climate like the pussies they are even if the initial reasons proved to be incorrect, we already have the country, it would be stupidity to give it back once we have gained a foothold

Perhaps you could give us a few names of those who " voted to go to war in iraq". Seems to me that Congress voted to "authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions." No one voted to go to war, Bush made that decision on his own. Not exactly the same thing, since saddam didn't have any WMD's.

"Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq. "

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

[mathurin]

so your giving them a pass since they hid behind wordplay, they handed bush a loaded pistol, and now that the political wind has changed they can hide behind "but we only voted to let him"

an OK is an OK

do you remember why we pulled the inspectors out?
cause saddam was yanking us around, doing nothing but stalling

and havent you heard about the trucks rolling over the border? or do you think they were carrying milk
we spent months getting support, you dont think that in that wasteland of a country they could be properly hidden so they wont be found



all of this is irrelevant however since it doesnt pertain to the here and now of leaving, doesnt matter how or why we got there, what matters is that we have a chance to bring democracy to the middle east, in time the iraqis will experience freedoms they never though of, and the idea will spread

the past we cannot change, and we can complain about it with our 20/20 hindsight, but it wont change squat, and merely serves as a tool to divide the country more


yes i pay taxes, its interesting you call me college boy as an insult, since in general the colleges are full of liberals of the anti-war position, which im sure you refer to in much different ways, in fact my going to college will allow me to pay more taxes
i dont mind spending money on something like this, because the stop-gap measures we have employed in the past havent worked worth a crap, sometimes direct action must be taken

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: mathurin so your giving them a pass since they hid behind wordplay, they handed bush a loaded pistol, and now that the political wind has changed they can hide behind "but we only voted to let him"

I agree. I think that if we go to war, Congress should live up to their responsibilities and openly vote for it. That they didn't do, so I don't understand how it can be claimed that congress voted to go to war.

Quote by: mathurin do you remember why we pulled the inspectors out? cause saddam was yanking us around, doing nothing but stalling

Then perhaps you could provide some evidence of any site that the inspectors were not allowed to go to? saddam said he didn't have WMD's, is it stalling when he can't show what he did with something he didn't have?

Quote by: mathurin and havent you heard about the trucks rolling over the border? or do you think they were carrying milk

No, I haven't heard about them, could you provide some proof of that claim? And exactly how would you move "thousands of tons" of WMD's in a few trucks anyway? Read Bush's speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html), can you find any facts in it at all?

Quote by: mathurin we spent months getting support, you dont think that in that wasteland of a country they could be properly hidden so they wont be found

Well, we've had several years now to find them, isn't it reasonable to expect to have some concrete evidence of them by now?

Quote by: mathurin all of this is irrelevant however since it doesnt pertain to the here and now of leaving, doesnt matter how or why we got there, what matters is that we have a chance to bring democracy to the middle east, in time the iraqis will experience freedoms they never though of, and the idea will spread

Sorry, but I don't think it's my responsibility to "bring democracy to the middle east". If they want it, they can get it themselves, like the people of Romania did. If you want it for them, then YOU go over and fight for it, using YOUR money.

Quote by: mathurin the past we cannot change, and we can complain about it with our 20/20 hindsight, but it wont change squat, and merely serves as a tool to divide the country more

It's not me that's dividing the country, it's the doofus in Washington that's doing that with his asinine war.

Quote by: mathurin yes i pay taxes, its interesting you call me college boy as an insult, since in general the colleges are full of liberals of the anti-war position, which im sure you refer to in much different ways, in fact my going to college will allow me to pay more taxes i dont mind spending money on something like this, because the stop-gap measures we have employed in the past havent worked worth a crap, sometimes direct action must be taken

I didn't call you anything, least of all college boy. And it seems to me that the "stop-gap measures" we had been emplying were working pretty good. saddam couldn't even mount the least defense of his country, they had no WMD's, and they had no way to deliver any of them even if they had.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: grandpa News on a war on terror that doesn't reduce terror

Do you suggest that there is a substance, matter, occurrence, ect. that no counter-mean(s) applies at all ?
If "yes", then that is a syllogism, since everything that exists and/or occurs within the world we reside-in, must have its opposite side, field, party, ect. Otherwise, such thing does not exist.

However, I agree that a war does bring very negative and tragic outcomes, and people die as the result of a war.

Off Topic
I bet if nobody dies as a result of a war, you will post nothing :-)))
Are you a pacifist ? or a sort of ?

[grandpa]

Quote by: mathurin so your giving them a pass since they hid behind wordplay, they handed bush a loaded pistol, and now that the political wind has changed they can hide behind "but we only voted to let him" an OK is an OK

Actually, it is important to look at the actual vote. I believe it involved veryfying that Saddam had WMD's.

Quote by: mathurin do you remember why we pulled the inspectors out? cause saddam was yanking us around, doing nothing but stalling and havent you heard about the trucks rolling over the border? or do you think they were carrying milk

You would have to be incredibly stupid to purchase weapons and not use them when attacked. I'm not saying Saddam was a genius, but come on!

Grandpa h.