Say you.
I (and most people of the world) disagree.
I think that does it for me…
Say you.
I (and most people of the world) disagree.
I think that does it for me…[/quote]
You and most of the world can believe the moon is made of green cheese… so what?
If the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam and the rebuilding of Iraq are not part of the War Against Terror, as you and most of the world believe, please explain to me why it is that the foreign (non-Iraqi) terrorists keep pouring into Iraq and why it is that they are determined to prevent US reconstruction efforts and democratic reforms in Iraq from succeeding.
I mean, if the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam and the rebuilding of Iraq are not part of the War Against Terror, as you and most of the world believe, then why are the terrorists fighting us there?
Obviously, the terrorists understand that the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam and the rebuilding of Iraq are part of the War Against Terror, even if you and most of the world don’t get it…
People fighting against the US invasion of Iraq shouldn’t blithely be termed terrorists except in the case where such tactics are being used against civilian populations. If some jocker is taking pot shots at coalition forces, well as unsavory as it might be, it’s not terrorism. To say the invasion of Iraq has created a front against terrorism is a stretch on reality. These people are fighting against a foreign invader. The most likely scenario is that many of these groups which are fighting coalition forces now will one day hold power in Iraq of some description. Are they then still terrorists?
[quote=“tigerman”]If the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam and the rebuilding of Iraq are not part of the War Against Terror, as you and most of the world believe, please explain to me why it is that the foreign (non-Iraqi) terrorists keep pouring into Iraq and why it is that they are determined to prevent US reconstruction efforts and democratic reforms in Iraq from succeeding.
I mean, if the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam and the rebuilding of Iraq are not part of the War Against Terror, as you and most of the world believe, then why are the terrorists fighting us there?[/quote]
That one’s far too easy, El Tigre. They’re pouring into Iraq to fight against what’s happening there because they’re incandescent with rage at America’s invasion and occupation of the territory of fellow Arabs and Moslems, and at American attempts to reshape that country’s future in accordance with US interests (which they understandably perceive as anti-Arab, anti-Moslem, and anti-everything that they hold dear).
Why do you jump to the conclusion that it can only be because the US is attacking them as terrorists that are fighting back as so. They’ll fight back as terrorists against any US aggression that threatens the interests of those with whom they identify, whether that aggression is against terrorism or anything else. And in this case, the US aggression was manifestly not directed against terrorism, whatever any of our American friends might wish to believe and try to persuade others to accept.
To spell it out with absolute clarity: The US aggression was against the regime of Saddam Hussein, which was neither part of the al-Qaeda terrorist network nor even giving that network any material support or assistance. But al-Qaeda has, for obvious reasons, taken up the cause of fighting against this aggression and its consequences, and is sending its people (including the large number of new recruits from Moslem populations around the world who the US actions have inflamed to jihadic wrath) to Iraq to fight against the US occupying forces and their allies.
So, the US invasion of Iraq was not an attack against terrorism, but has served to exacerbate the terrorist problem worldwide and bring the hapless Iraqi people within the main orbit of terrorist attacks.
The U.S. is stuck in Iraq now. It can’t withdraw. The power vacuum it’s created in a volatile, strategic part of the world will keep it there far into the foreseeable future.
Iraq is now a magnet for terrorists. They’ll get more and more effective in the sophistication and destructiveness of their attacks against American forces and officials who’ll retreat into bunkers and leave much of Iraq to the bad guys.
Oil exporting facilities will increasingly become a target of choice for terrorists.
Instability will increasingly spread from Iraq into nearby Muslim countries with pro-Western regimes: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey: driving them further towards Islamic fundamentalism.
So, a year from now, the situation will be even more unstable and unsustainable. Most likely, the U.S. will be forced to resort to a draft to maintain the required level of manpower to contain the situation.
Exactly.
75-85% of the smart bombs used in Iraq have hit their target. That’s an improvement over Kosovo (~40%) or the first Gulf War (~50%). But remember, smart bombs are only as smart as the people telling them where and what to hit. 
[/quote]
you mean the same smart bomb that ‘accidentally’ hit the Chinese embassy.
75-85% of the smart bombs used in Iraq have hit their target. That’s an improvement over Kosovo (~40%) or the first Gulf War (~50%). But remember, smart bombs are only as smart as the people telling them where and what to hit. [/quote]
you mean the same smart bomb that ‘accidentally’ hit the Chinese embassy.[/quote]
And maybe the Chinese weren’t so smart aiding the Serbs. 
Tough shit.
No, of course not – he’s already made up his mind; don’t confuse him with facts!
reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=474397
[quote=“Lin Noueihed, Reuters (article has been trimmed down in accordance with Forumosa policy)”]BERQAYEL, Lebanon (Reuters) - Ahmed Abdel Razzaq went to Iraq to fight the Americans and die a martyr. He ended up in a U.S. prison camp after the Iraqis he went to defend captured and sold him for $100 (56 pounds).
“I went to be a martyr in God’s name,” said Razzap, from poor north Lebanon, where Sunni Muslim militancy runs deep.
“I went to jihad (holy war) for the Iraqis but they are all traitors; the people, the army, the Kurds. They say Saddam was bad, but the Iraqis deserve 10 Saddams.”
Motivated by religious zeal or Arab nationalism, busloads of Arab volunteers crossed Syria to go to Iraq before and during the war.
Those who got home alive describe being abandoned by Iraqi minders as U.S. forces reached Baghdad, or escaping Iraqis hostile to interference as the Baath government crumbled into chaos.
A Syrian who fought in the Kurdish-run north said he walked and hitchhiked over 120 km (75 miles) to get back to the border after the Iraqi officers in charge of his cell fled with his passport.
“We fought Kurds. We looked for Americans but found none,” said the fighter, who was of Palestinian origin.
“We only knew Baghdad fell when some Arabs told us to lay down our arms because it was over…One day they were supporting Saddam, the next they were beating his statue with their shoes.”
Those who are back say they endured scorching days and freezing nights living in tents at Camp Bucca.
They said the food was bad and they developed skin and breathing complaints in the hostile climate.
One Jordanian who returned to Amman in January complained “the Americans treated us like animals not like human beings”.
But they got regular meals, were allowed to worship and exercise and had access to news and basic medical care.
Before Baghdad fell in April, Iraqi officials said more than 6,000 volunteers from across the Arab world – half of them would-be suicide bombers – were in the country.
The secular Baath government was traditionally hostile to Muslim militancy, but appealed to fellow Muslims to help it fight the United States, already resented by Arabs for supporting Israel.
The Iraqi embassies in Beirut and Damascus facilitated visa applications for volunteer fighters, bussed across the border to be received with fanfare by Iraqi officials on the other side.
Some volunteers said they were taken to vast camps outside Baghdad for training, before being sent to the northern and southern fronts.
They complained that the Iraqis armed them poorly, sending them into battle with too little ammunition or faulty guns. [/quote]
Who’d’a thunk it – the Iraqis don’t want a bunch of psychotic assholes running around bombing hotels, hospitals, markets, and other public places either.
That argument doesn’t hold, either. Why couldn’t we wait until we had the UN on board?[/quote]
Umm, excuse me, Mr. Dumas, but (1) France made it clear that it would veto any Security Council resolution that would kick off the war in Iraq – despite their promises on 1441; and (2) the U.N. didn’t want to lose Saddam because they were stealing, er, “making” too much money out of the oil-for-bribes program to ever give that up.
Hey, remember George Galloway?? Turns out he was on the bribe list too! So were several French and Russian ministers and groups. Seems like a lot of prominent opponents to the war were being bribed by Saddam. Who would have ever guessed??
You forgot to mention that the majority is “technical” only, somewhere in the 54-58% area according to recent polls - and that it’s less than before (was close to 70%).[/quote]
Ah, I see, a “technical” majority isn’t a majority? So are you going to give up your claim that Bush “stole” the 2000 election??
I guess terrorism does pay.
Al-Qaeda group calls truce in Spain: report
A group claiming to have links with al-Qaeda said today it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, a pan-Arab newspaper said.
In a statement sent today to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations.
“Because of this decision, the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories… until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq,” the statement said.
Of course it’s a majority but hardly an impressive one, i.e. it’s not a clear case as the 90% of Spaniards that opposed the war and I also pointed out that the Americans supporting the war may soon be (in) the minority (judging by the trend).
I do not recall that I ever claimed Bush stole the election, in fact I don’t remember to have commented on this at all. :s
[quote=“spook”]The U.S. is stuck in Iraq now. It can’t withdraw. The power vacuum it’s created in a volatile, strategic part of the world will keep it there far into the foreseeable future.
Iraq is now a magnet for terrorists. They’ll get more and more effective in the sophistication and destructiveness of their attacks against American forces and officials who’ll retreat into bunkers and leave much of Iraq to the bad guys.
Oil exporting facilities will increasingly become a target of choice for terrorists.
Instability will increasingly spread from Iraq into nearby Muslim countries with pro-Western regimes: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey: driving them further towards Islamic fundamentalism.
So, a year from now, the situation will be even more unstable and unsustainable. Most likely, the U.S. will be forced to resort to a draft to maintain the required level of manpower to contain the situation.[/quote]
You actually believe this 
??
Things have been stabilizing for months. The Iraqis are turning in “foreign fighters” by the truckload – even Reuters has reported that the jihadis are having trouble finding Iraqis who will let them organize attacks.
Yes, the Iraqis are definitely fighting against foreign invaders:
reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=474397
[quote=“Lin Noueihed, Reuters”]
Arab fighters say Iraqis sold them out
Fri Mar 12, 2004 01:27 AM ET
BERQAYEL, Lebanon (Reuters) - Ahmed Abdel Razzaq went to Iraq to fight the Americans and die a martyr. He ended up in a U.S. prison camp after the Iraqis he went to defend captured and sold him for $100 (56 pounds).
“I went to be a martyr in God’s name,” said Razzap, from poor north Lebanon, where Sunni Muslim militancy runs deep.
“I went to jihad (holy war) for the Iraqis but they are all traitors; the people, the army, the Kurds. They say Saddam was bad, but the Iraqis deserve 10 Saddams.”
Motivated by religious zeal or Arab nationalism, busloads of Arab volunteers crossed Syria to go to Iraq before and during the war.
Those who got home alive describe being abandoned by Iraqi minders as U.S. forces reached Baghdad, or escaping Iraqis hostile to interference as the Baath government crumbled into chaos.[/quote]
BWAHAHAHA! “Yes, welcome Arab friends! Blow up our markets, kill our women and children to get at the Americans!” The only Iraqis saying crap like that are Saddam’s old buddies and Eurotrash leftists.
Two things:
First of all, no the bombings of US troops, oil installations etc was at the very beginning. The US now has most of those sites secured hence the attacks on Iraqi policemen and when those too became better protected, the terrorists have moved to attacking Iraqi civilians so who is the desperate one here?
Also, this myth that the US would head in and out of Iraq is just that a myth. AGAIN. It was always the plan to leave 35 K to 50K just like we have in Germany (100K) and in Japan and South Korea 40K each. Now, why in the name of all that is holy do we still have 100K troops in Germany. Is it because of the instability in Germany?! The terrorism?! and during the 1970s remember there were many similar events in Germany, Italy and elsewhere from various hard left communist type organizations. Baader Meinhof anyone?
We are winning in Iraq. It is and was the right thing to do and no Muslims are not rushing to join this fight. The existing al Qaeda that were spread out are now heading there. We are sucking the poison from the region precisely to where we have military troops to fight this better rather than policing civilian targets in Western nations.
Au Contraire, there is now a dialogue like never before in the Arab and Muslim world about what’s wrong with them and why it takes the US and outsiders to always help them fix it. Why they ask have we done nothing, remained silent about the atrocities in Iraq under Saddam and others? The dialogue is ongoing. Perhaps, in Europe and in Leftie circles of America you don’t see it or refuse to believe it is happening, but make no mistake that we are winning. The fight is definitely NOT over and there are more serious battles to be fought, but time is finally on our side and the momentum is shifting toward a better world in the Middle East.
This is why I like the Scots.
This was a vote for surrender
How can anyone reason that withdrawing troops and abandoning ordinary Iraqis to this fate is a sensible policy at this moment in time, regardless of what position one took on the overthrow of Saddam? To counsel leaving democratic Iraq - its women, the Kurdish minority, the Marsh Arabs at last returning to their ancient villages, the oppressed Shiites - to their fate is not discretion, it is moral cowardice. To be frank, it is the same moral cowardice and appeasement that led people to abandon Czechoslovakia to Hitler…
Point taken re the term terrorist.
However, given that a great many of these folks are not Iraqis, and have not been invited into Iraq by the Iraqi people, it seems a bit of a stretch to say that they are fighting against a foreign invader when they themselves are foreign invaders.
Spain should keep this point in mind as it ponders its cowardly act to run…
France, which vehemently opposed the war in Iraq, nonetheless yesterday received a fresh threat from Islamic extremists angry about the country’s new law banning the wearing of Muslim head scarves in schools.
Several French newspapers received a letter from an Islamist group that government officials have said is being considered a serious threat.
“They’re basically saying, ‘You thought you were safe because of your stand on Iraq, but France is no longer safe at all since February 10,’” said Jacques Esperandieu, deputy editor of the daily newspaper Le Parisien, which received a copy of the letter.
The head-scarf ban was passed on Feb. 10.
But that won’t be enough, Fred. The poison will continue to flow from those countries harboring or turning a blind eye to terrorism, namely Muslim states.
For any good the occupation of Iraq is doing it is also sowing hatred and distrust. CNN ran a report last night based on some polls undertaken by a third party (I forget the name). Overall people in the West generally thought the situation in Iraq was improving, and that life would be better for people there. Similarly, a BBC survey conducted this week inside Iraq strongly suggested that ordinary Iraqi’s felt that their lives were improving. Now here comes the problem: the poll of Islamic countries around Iraq showed overwhelming hostility toward the new regime in Iraq. Not surprising perhaps. But, most tellingly, when people in those countries were asked if life in Iraq was better for its citizens under a new democratic regime, again the overwhelming response was no. This is worrying.
As much as Bush’s grand vision of a democratic Middle East is noble (though few agree with the approach), unless it can muster at least some equanimity of support across the wider region it will fail; because many will see it as an imposition, not a choice, which is paradoxically the obverse of democracy.
I suppose only time will tell, and Iraq’s neighbor