News flash: the war in Iraq is NOT a war against terror

J

jcrim

Guest
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
No hogging, just good conversation since the original poster cut and ran.
Don't worry buddy, I'm still keeping an eye on things. I've said my peace... for now.
 

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
It seems to me after reading through this thread the basis of the arguement against the war in Iraq is that not one single terrorist has come from Iraqi decent till recently and directly attacked a U.S. citizen.
That is the whole basis for being against the war for Jcrim.
Say I am of Irish decent. I decide I want to needlessly kill Americans. I live in Iraq at the moment. I received funding to my family from the old Iraqi Government. I launch an attack against a US embassy in south Africa. Should Our government then retaliate against Ireland because I was born there? Or should they go after the government that aids and provides for me to pull off such an attack. Using Jcrim's view point we would attack Ireland.....because I am from there and Ireland must be the problem that needs dealt with. That is asinine.
Also, regarding the troops. My family has a long military history on all sides. The one thing they all feel now or felt (during Vietnam) is the politicians, activists , and media do not support them by these recent actions because it shows a lack of faith in our military to do their jobs adequatly. Basically saying they are incompetant.
My dad has a real good analogy that simplifys it.
The military is like a child playing football in the peewee league. The citizens, media, and politicians are the parent. The kid will play a few games. The child may do well. Or the child may loss a game due to a fumble or missed tackle. The child may get hurt. But the child wants to continue on. As a parent do you show confidence and support of your child by taking them out of the game and never letting them continue? Are you supportting them in what they want to do and what they want to accomplish? No, you hinder them and show you have a lack of confidence in their ability.
That is an ex-military retiree's point of view. Maybe that will shed some light on our military's outlook.
Jcrim, since you are still reading this thread will you answer the first part of my post?
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
Jcrim, since you are still reading this thread will you answer the first part of my post?
Take a look at my posts on P1-2 of this thread. I have a lot of criticisms of Bush as well as this war and the way foreign policy is currently being run.
 

darth tang

Active Member
Your dodging. I myself have Bush criticisms...but the war isn't one. You started this about the war and stated we should be in Saudi Arabi because terrorists originated there and not Iraq. You stated Iraq has no terrorist links. I presented a question about this only....not your other positions on Bush, just the war. So I ask again....will you answer the question. Or will you avoid it?
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Honestly, I'm not trying to avoid anything but you're oversimplifying my opinions. My criticisms of the war are based on many factors all of which were argued for about 2 straight days. Your question is based on the premise that I'm against this war ONLY because no Iraqi has ever been a terrorist threat against the US. This premise is inaccurate. I can't get into this again because I may be having a child in the next 12 hours (or I may not be) but if you need a refresher... here are my opinions whether they are popular or not:
1) Iraqi's have never been terrorist threats against the US
2) The terrorists who have actually killed innocent americans have not been caught
3) We are losing too many idealistic young men and women without making any more progress
4) There are many other countries that have closer ties to terrorism
5) We are less safe from terrorists today than we were prewar. I know people will bring up 9/11 to argue against this point. IMO, 9/11 was a once in a lifetime tragedy in the US. Now, I believe we will see many more attacks, both on a large and smaller scale. As I stated previously, if I am wrong then the US should be safe from terrorism for the indefinite future.
6) To publicize this war as a "War against Terror" is a lie... this started as a war against Iraq to locate and dispose of the weapons. That changed into a war against terror because our original agenda failed and Bush needed to maintain public support.
If this was publicized as a "War against Saddam" or "War against Iraq", the representations would be more accurate. I also believe that to truly support our troops and their families, we should demand their immediate and safe return home.
So Darth, which question have I dodged? I have already argued each of these points and now have just repeated them.
 

jones

Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
I can not fathom how you get some of your views. You are willing to completely disregard the terrorist actions against Isreal that went on a daily basis, yet you want the us to work with the world community and have their aid? Guess what? We have had Isreal's aid for a very longtime. They are one oif our closest allies. Yet you want us to disregard their terrorist problem that was funded by Hussein as well. That is hypocritical. You want help and to work with other countries, but only if the terrorist threat is immediate to our homeland. Well guess what. That is a threat to our people. Our embassy and an embassy convoy for the US has been attacked or bombed by palestinine terrorists. So it is NOT a regional problem.
You're right, the middle east situation is a big problem for the entire world. But the Isreali - Palestinian fighting isnt a part of the war on terror that we cut from and disregarded to fight in Iraq. We did NOT go to war in Iraq to help Isreal. there would have been much more plausable and direct ways to help Isreal if that were the case. We did NOT go to war in Iraq for humanitarian reasons to free the people from a bad dictator. There are many countries around the world in just as bad shape or worse shape. The U.S. was not acting selflessly in this war. We did NOT go to war in Iraq because they had WMDs. There were countries who were closer to having more WMDs who are definately a threat. What happened to our strong talk ith North Korea. We did NOT go to war in Iraq because they were linkied to AL-Qeada. And no matter how much people want to deny it now, that was one of the reasons this administration tried to give in the beginning. The truth is, we still haven't even been told why we went to war. This administration is constantly trying make up reasons to fight in Iraq. We shouldn't have to even argue about this, we should have known the reasons from the beginning. Talk about flip-floping, I've never seen more flip-floping than about all the supposed reasons to be in Iraq. As soon as one is found not to be true, another reason is made up. I'm sure when this is done we'll find a few more reasons.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
jcrim, I'd have to disagree about Iraq never being a threat to the US. There was a direct threat when Saddam plotted to kill Bush1. Now that is a fact. Assignation of previous leader of this country is pretty serious, I think. This was not an attempted murder by nobodies. This was a leader of a country trying to kill a former leader. How does that not qualify as a threat? He solves his problems via assignation.
Additionally, US is not an isolated island. One of our most important allies we have are the Israelis, who were constantly being threatened by Saddam. Should we just say, that it is your problem, Israel, you handle it? The USA have DEMANDED that Israel keep a lid on retailing against the attacks they receive from every side of the Arab World. So, keep a lid on it Israel and we don't plan on supporting your either? Is that really what we are? No. Israel is not going to keep a lid on it for very long under those circumstances.
Nothing that happens in the Middle East is a local issue. The world depends on the oil and we have important allies in that part of the world as well.
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
Dude, stop respoinding and go have that baby!!!! Much more important.
I'll try but this may not be the real thing. We were at the hospital for 4 hours last night with a false alarm. It's kind of hard to know if you've never done it before. We do know that when things start to happen, they'll move fast. So instead of continuing with this, I'm going to take my wife out for some spicy food and go for a drive over the bumpiest road I can find.
 

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by jones
You're right, the middle east situation is a big problem for the entire world. But the Isreali - Palestinian fighting isnt a part of the war on terror that we cut from and disregarded to fight in Iraq. We did NOT go to war in Iraq to help Isreal. there would have been much more plausable and direct ways to help Isreal if that were the case. We did NOT go to war in Iraq for humanitarian reasons to free the people from a bad dictator. There are many countries around the world in just as bad shape or worse shape. The U.S. was not acting selflessly in this war. We did NOT go to war in Iraq because they had WMDs. There were countries who were closer to having more WMDs who are definately a threat. What happened to our strong talk ith North Korea. We did NOT go to war in Iraq because they were linkied to AL-Qeada. And no matter how much people want to deny it now, that was one of the reasons this administration tried to give in the beginning. The truth is, we still haven't even been told why we went to war. This administration is constantly trying make up reasons to fight in Iraq. We shouldn't have to even argue about this, we should have known the reasons from the beginning. Talk about flip-floping, I've never seen more flip-floping than about all the supposed reasons to be in Iraq. As soon as one is found not to be true, another reason is made up. I'm sure when this is done we'll find a few more reasons.
Read GWB's first speech about going into Iraq. He listed the many reasons you hear now. The thing that changed is WMDs were "not" found in "substantial" quantities. That is what many latched onto. I can't help it if some didn't listen completely at the beginning. You sound like one that didn't listen.
By the way, Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization. I wish that would stop being used so much.
 

jones

Member
Cheney had long distrusted the apparatchiks who sat in offices at the CIA, FBI and Pentagon. He regarded them as dim, timid timeservers who would always choose inaction over action. Instead, the vice president relied on the counsel of a small number of advisers. The group included Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and two Wolfowitz proteges: I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, and Douglas Feith, Rumsfeld's under secretary for policy. Together, the group largely despised the on-the-one-hand/on-the-other analyses handed up by the intelligence bureaucracy. Instead, **they went in search of intel that helped to advance their case for war.**Central to that case was the belief that Saddam was determined to get nukes—a claim helped by the Niger story, which the White House doggedly pushed. A prideful man who enjoys the spotlight, Joseph Wilson grew increasingly agitated that the White House had not come clean about how the African-uranium claim made it into George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. In June, Condoleezza Rice went on TV and **denied she knew that documents underlying the uranium story were, in fact, crude forgeries: **"Maybe somebody in the bowels of the agency knew something about this," she said, "but nobody in my circles." For Wilson, that was it. "That was a slap in the face," he told NEWSWEEK. "She was saying 'F--- you, Washington, we don't care.' Or rather 'F--- you, America'." On July 6, Wilson went public about his Niger trip in his landmark New York Times op-ed piece.
 

jones

Member
Soon after 9/11, Libby began routinely calling intelligence officials, high and low, to pump them for any scraps of information on Iraq. He would read obscure, unvetted intelligence reports and grill analysts about them, but always in a courtly manner. The intel officials were often more than a little surprised. It was unusual for the vice president's office to step so far outside of channels and make personal appeals to mere analysts. "He was deep into the raw intel," says one government official who didn't want to be named for fear of retribution. (Cheney's office declined to comment on specific questions for this story, beyond saying that the vice president and his staff are cooperating with Fitzgerald's probe.)Behind their backs, their detractors dubbed Cheney and his minions "the commissars." The vice president and Libby made three or four trips to CIA headquarters, where they questioned analysts about their findings. Agency officials say they welcomed the visits, and insist that no one felt pressured, though some analysts complained that **they suspected Cheney was subtly sending them the message to get in line or keep their mouths shut.**
**Cheney and the commissars seemed especially determined to prove a now discredited claim: that Muhammad Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, had secretly met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001. **If true, it would have backed administration assertions of a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, one of Bush and Cheney's arguments justifying an invasion. The story fell apart on serious examination by the FBI and CIA—Atta was apparently in the United States at the time of the alleged visit. **But Cheney continued to repeat the story in speeches and interviews, even after the 9/11 Commission found no evidence to support it.**
 

jones

Member
Behind the scenes, no one pushed the terror link harder than Libby. He urged Colin Powell's staff to include the Prague meeting in the secretary of State's speech to the United Nations. But Powell wanted no part of it. After one long session debating the evidence before the speech, **Libby turned to a Powell aide. "Don't worry about any of this," he said, according to someone who was in the room. "We'll get back in what you take out." **They didn't. Powell refused to use the line, but Libby's audacity stunned everyone at the table. "The notion that they've become a gang has some merit," says a longtime colleague of Libby's who requested anonymity to preserve the friendship. "A small group who only talk to each other ... You pay a price for that."
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
1) Iraqi's have never been terrorist threats against the US
Not true. As Beth stated there was a threat against our former President. American citizens have been killed in Israel.
Originally Posted by jcrim
2) The terrorists who have actually killed innocent americans have not been caught
Not true. Many of al qaeda's top planners, recruiters, and financeers are now dead.
Originally Posted by jcrim
3) We are losing too many idealistic young men and women without making any more progress
Every live lost is a loss to our country. Having said that, who says we aren't making progress? The soldiers? The media? The democrats?
Originally Posted by jcrim
4) There are many other countries that have closer ties to terrorism
And we are dealing which each one uniquely.
Originally Posted by jcrim

5) We are less safe from terrorists today than we were prewar.
Not true. "Unsafe" implies we are in danger. War was declared on us, now we are fighting on foreign soil. We are safer.
Originally Posted by jcrim

I know people will bring up 9/11 to argue against this point. IMO, 9/11 was a once in a lifetime tragedy in the US.
? Why, did the terrorists begin to feel sorry for us? Do they hate us less today?
Originally Posted by jcrim

Now, I believe we will see many more attacks, both on a large and smaller scale. As I stated previously, if I am wrong then the US should be safe from terrorism for the indefinite future./div>
Every day is a new day in the war. We will win battles and lose battles. Again I point to the number of foriegn fighters dying in Iraq. Why are they fighting our military? What do they hope to do? A functioning Democracy in Iraq terrifies al qaeda.
Originally Posted by jcrim
6) To publicize this war as a "War against Terror" is a lie... this started as a war against Iraq to locate and dispose of the weapons. That changed into a war against terror because our original agenda failed and Bush needed to maintain public support.
Not true. The fear all along was that Iraq would give WMDs to terrorists. The war is one in the same.
Originally Posted by jcrim

If this was publicized as a "War against Saddam" or "War against Iraq", the representations would be more accurate. I also believe that to truly support our troops and their families, we should demand their immediate and safe return home.
That didn't work in Vietnam or Mogadishu, and it won't work now.
 

hagfish

Active Member
As for people wanting timeline, outlines, strategies, etc. You do understand that when we do that it is about the same as calling Osama into the White House for a meeting and telling him our plans. I can't even believe the info we make public now and you want to make more of it public.
Since we are such big fans of making this all public, we should at least charge for the info. The govt. could open a website with a monthly fee or something. We could let the terrorists pay our taxes.
 

aw2

Active Member

I seriously doubt Osama is sitting around, doing his weekly water change, on his salt tank, reading about national secrets on this board.
There's nothing classified or "not-known" that has been posted here....in fact, there's nothing that COULD be posted, that would be considered "sensitive" information, unless some member is active duty military, right now and has access to such information. But, if that were the case, I think they'd know better....as I've said in my previous posts "I cannot provide reports, articles, or any other information about the things I know".
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Journeyman, all you do is take each point I make and disagree with it. Wouldn't it just save time to say "I disagree" and be done.
It'd be more persuasive if you broke out the "la-la-la I'm not listening to you" argument.

BTW the spicy food and bumpy roads apparently didn't work.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
Journeyman, all you do is take each point I make and disagree with it. Wouldn't it just save time to say "I disagree" and be done.
It'd be more persuasive if you broke out the "la-la-la I'm not listening to you" argument.

BTW the spicy food and bumpy roads apparently didn't work.

Nothing personal...
I guess what I'm asking for is "proof" that what we did (and are doing) is wrong. That's why I try to make a counterpoint to yours posts.
I respect your opinion too much to sing the "I'm not listening" song. In fact, I'm listening closely. I WANTED you to come back to this thread.. you started it, after all

I simply don't understand your logic, so by going point to point I'm hoping to learn more. I am also always willing to be "wrong", but I'm going to need more than your (so far) generic posts and opinions to change my mind.
Hope that clears up the confusion. Like I said, I value your opinion (as well as anyone else that I disagree with).
Now hurry up and post something else so I can tell you you're wrong! :hilarious
 
Top