Rollinredcavi wrote:
So someone said the "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs". Your damn right. Except for the fact that the war on drugs doesnt blow up a building. If that is not enough to make you want to seek out every terrorist, then your not worth the time of day for anyone to protect you, it is unamerican to protect someone who does not believe in the goal of freedom. Take it or leave it. Our fouding fathers did not know about nuclear weapons (which saddam could have made in like 5 years, yes they found tons of Uranium in Iraq) that could destroy a city the size of the country at their time.
Rollinredcavi wrote:
So someone said the "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs". Your damn right. Except for the fact that the war on drugs doesnt blow up a building. If that is not enough to make you want to seek out every terrorist, then your not worth the time of day for anyone to protect you, it is unamerican to protect someone who does not believe in the goal of freedom. Take it or leave it. Our fouding fathers did not know about nuclear weapons (which saddam could have made in like 5 years, yes they found tons of Uranium in Iraq) that could destroy a city the size of the country at their time.
Rollinredcavi wrote:
And are you saying that because an Army General says somthing dumb like that, it means Bush believes that? And more than likely the gerneral was saying so in a sarcastic manner because the cause for the war was so great. I dont buy for a second that the general meant it literaly in any form. And yes the terrorists are facists.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:They're flustered?
*thinks back about Iraq*
*thinks back about London Bombings*
*thinks back about Madrid Bombings*
*thinks back about Afghanistan*
Yeah... they're flustered... They're still getting money, their leadership is more or less in tact, and they're gaining new recruits.
What's your definition of "Defeated"?
Rollinredcavi wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:They're flustered?
*thinks back about Iraq*
*thinks back about London Bombings*
*thinks back about Madrid Bombings*
*thinks back about Afghanistan*
Yeah... they're flustered... They're still getting money, their leadership is more or less in tact, and they're gaining new recruits.
What's your definition of "Defeated"?
*Thinks back about Iraq* If the Terrorists were organized you would see more than a road side bombing. A road side bombing is more an act of despiration than anything.
*thinks back about London Bombings* Yeah, back when they were still quite organized
*thinks about Madrid Bombings* Same as above
*Thinks back about Afghanistan* Yup we have many terrorist interests here, unfortunatly Afghanistan has more allies than Iraq. So invade afghanitan and we have worldly enemys. Invade Iraq and we are where we are not. People saying oh you shouldnt be there, but doing nothing more to us than that. Iraq is the perfect base of covert operations against the middle east. Thank God we took it over.
Bastardking3000 wrote:Rollinredcavi wrote:Thats why we need to stay there for another....IDK 10, 20 ,45 years. We have set the middle east into somthing they never thought they would see. Not only that, if we stay there, Iraq will be the biggest target for terrorists, not the US.
A few problems with that idea -
1. Iraq being a target for terrorist does not mean that the US is no longer a target - or even a lessor target than before. That aside - I'd say that Israel has been, and still is, the biggest target for terrorist by a large margin - a concept which has failed to spare the US, Spain, and the United Kingdom from terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks in Spain and the UK happened DURING OUR OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. Consider that notion a myth.
2. Iraq is unstable - very unstable. It may not be long before there is a full scale civil war(really it already kinda is a small scale civil war). If there is we really won't be able to stop it and the current "Government" there will mean nothing. There is at least a decent chance that this civil war may spread to other countries in the region too. Forget the high oil prices this will cause - we'll be really up a creek without a paddle when we have to ration gas(you can only purchase "X" gallons a month etc) or even better when most of your local gas stations are flat out of gas.
3. The Iraq government cannot handle being a high priority terrorist target in the long term. Hell it isn't handling things so well with the greatest military in the world backing them up - how are they gonna do when we leave or even when we start reducing troop counts?! As is - what are they gonna do if the insurgency grows any larger?!
4. For many many years - many in the middle east believed that the US wanted to conquer the region. Then we attacked Afghanistan - and rightfully so - but that aroused a little more suspicion in a few. The fact that we had a right to go there made it not that bad though - most people didn't buy the idea. THEN - we invaded Iraq. What used to sound like conspiracy theory talk before started looking alot more like reality - and honestly I can see where they would get that impression to some extent. Hell I'm not so sure that wasn't Bush's plan - to use Afghanistan and Iraq as a staging ground for taking over more countries - Syria, Iran, etc - in fact there has been plenty of talk by us on potentially using military force against them - while we're still not even done in Iraq or Afghanistan!!
5. See reason 4. Iraq is a major source of inspiration in radical young and uneducated Islamic men. Sure most of the middle east hated us before - but there is a difference between hating someone and actively trying to kill someone. For many - Iraq IS that difference.
6. If we fail in Iraq - no matter if the government collapses or if there is a full scale civil war there that we're powerless to stop - terrorist WILL claim this as a victory of "the soldiers of God over the forces of evil"(that is how they see it anyways). This will greatly multiply problem 5.
7. This sham of a war is costing our soldiers dearly - and this is I price I would never have asked them too pay. The cost is too high. The juice(assuming we EVER see any "juice" out of this) is not worth the squeeze.
Fact is - now there are a lot more terrorist than there used to be - and more terrorist means that they can more easily strike anywhere across the globe - they don't have to "focus attacks" on Israel, Iraq, the US, or anywhere in particular. They generally launch rouge cells - the leadership isn't even that important outside of backrolling it all(why OSB still is dangerous). Kill all their leaders and they can still launch attacks against everyone - esp. with the additional recruits they have gotten out of this. Iraq has made us safer?! I think not. Iraq has made the entire world a more dangerous place to live.
I'm sure some of you still think that it has made us safer - and will point to the lack of any more sucessful attacks against us as the "proof" of this. People may feel the same way about Bush too and will use the same "proof." Well I have a rock that keeps tigers out of my yard. I can prove it too - look in my yard... no tigers anywhere around - that proves that it works If fact I don't even see tigers anywhere in my neighborhood!! Wait a minute - no terrorist in my neighborhood either... THIS ROCK IS AWESOME!!
Rollinredcavi wrote:
*Thinks back about Iraq* If the Terrorists were organized you would see more than a road side bombing. A road side bombing is more an act of despiration than anything.
Quote:What's this "Back When" ? More on this:
*thinks back about London Bombings* Yeah, back when they were still quite organized
*thinks about Madrid Bombings* Same as above
Quote:
*Thinks back about Afghanistan* Yup we have many terrorist interests here, unfortunatly Afghanistan has more allies than Iraq. So invade afghanitan and we have worldly enemys. Invade Iraq and we are where we are not. People saying oh you shouldnt be there, but doing nothing more to us than that. Iraq is the perfect base of covert operations against the middle east. Thank God we took it over.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Rollinredcavi wrote:
*Thinks back about Iraq* If the Terrorists were organized you would see more than a road side bombing. A road side bombing is more an act of despiration than anything.
Seems to me they're doing A LOT more than just IEDs.
TODAY 3 DAYS AGO Over the last 3 years HERE. Also, you have to understand that there are 2 distinct terror groups there: Fedayeen Hussein (Home grown forces) and Islamic terrorists.
Quote:What's this "Back When" ? More on this:
*thinks back about London Bombings* Yeah, back when they were still quite organized
*thinks about Madrid Bombings* Same as above
Quote:
*Thinks back about Afghanistan* Yup we have many terrorist interests here, unfortunatly Afghanistan has more allies than Iraq. So invade afghanitan and we have worldly enemys. Invade Iraq and we are where we are not. People saying oh you shouldnt be there, but doing nothing more to us than that. Iraq is the perfect base of covert operations against the middle east. Thank God we took it over.
Okay let's recap this:
- Afghanistan: Still LOADS of Al-quaeda in the country, still TONS of warlords, it's still a borderline state, and still tons of open territory. It's the highest producer of opium.
- Iraq pre-invasion: Not a friendly place, but it had no terrorism links, no WMDs or CBRN program. There was a lot of hot air from Hussein about paying suicide bombers' families (that never materialized into anything concrete either).
Afghanistan is where Bin Laden and company was (possibly IS after a sojourn into Pakistan), and still have bases and have been spotted training people. Iraq hadn't made a real aggressive move against any country for over 4 years, and had no links to international terrorism.
Your President orders your troops to pretty much cut and run before the job is done, and what is happening there? The same thing. The US basically left a token force in Afghanistan compared to what was in there before Iraq became prime.
The job still isn't done in Afghanistan. How can you support a President that no interest whatsoever in getting the job done?
Rollinredcavi wrote:
Well... you actually hit quite a couple of topics that even the biggest anti-war people have begun to agree with GWB on. WMD's, most of our country seems to think WMD's are nuclear weapons. So Bush said "no we didnt find WMD's" thats where his lack in public speaking caught up with him. WMD's are classified as chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. We found thousands of gallons of gases used to make WMD's in Iraq.
Quote:
Yeah, Saddam even launched some on Kuwait. GAM, your a guy that pays attention to stuff, you know that he launched chemical weapons on his own people. And you have also seen the report about the "missing weapons" just before 2004 presidential elections that democrats tried using as an election tool. Well they even stated in news reports that this included gasses and liquids used to created chemical weapons. The whole WMD's thing, I would think someone as smart as you would know is true.
Quote:
So your saying that there is no concrete evidence that Saddam paid terrorists? Well, there is no concrete evidence that Osama was the 9/11 attacks head honcho. All we had was his word and links to extremist groups. But obviously our government had much more information than the general public, as it should be. I actually find it kind of funny that people question Bush on topics like the war on Iraq because of lack of info. Back in WWII times, think D-Day, no one in the whole country would have supported attacking main land Europe. They did it because the government, no matter who is in power knows more than the general populace.
Quote:
Now, GAM for the last two paragraphs of your statement, you really lost me on your elitist mentality, honestly; you are probably the only person that I have agued with on this site that I respect in the political topic, but you must not see what is really going on. It actually makes me laugh that you would say things 100% opposite of what Bush has said and is doing. The demmies are the ones that want to cut and run, we didnt pursue afghanistan because it is more of a respected nation around the world than Iraq. If we invade Afghanistan we not only have the terrorist attacking us but the rebel allies that are fighting for us would, for lack of better words, be pissed.
Quote:
Then your worst statement, "The job still isn't done in Afghanistan. How can you support a President that no interest whatsoever in getting the job done? "
Quote:
Then what interest does he have? Just having men and women of our military killed? well John Kerry would care, because according to him they are the low life of our country. But you seriously must have been thinking among the demmies side. Your whole last two paragraphs is exactly what he demmies were running on in the current elections.
Quote:
So that is completely opposite of Bush's stance. Otherwise they would have supported Bush if that is what he was and wanted to do.
Quote:
Iraq was the perfect country to take over,
Quote:
it had WMD's,
Quote:
its leadership was a child of the Nazi's,
Quote:A realistic foreign policy would help more than another client state.
and it supplies the perfect base for carrying out the opperations that are critical to defeating terrorism.
Quote:At what cost?
Whether it happens soon or not, we need that base.
Quote:Hrmm... Fedayeen Hussein are defending it because... oh yeah, THEY LIVE THERE. Al-Queda is in there because it's a failed state and therefore is a place where they can set up shop and recruit, recruit, recruit... well, that and attack the infidel.
Why do you think the terrorists are defending is so harshly?
Quote:No because while they're keeping your military tied up there, they're also pushing into other failing states, and consolidating their power base in larger Muslim countries like Indonesia. Ever notice why there isn't any talk about an Iran-al-Qaeda link? It's because there's no connection between the Iranian Gov't and Bin Laden.
because they know how critical it would be if the US has control in Iraq.