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

scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
Interesting... a couple questions I have... What nationality were the arrested terrorists? Aside from the government's speculation that this was Iraq (because they don't have a great history of honesty), was there any objective connection found between those arrested and Iraq?
Anyway, we could debate forever. I actually find your arguments intelligent and competent but I think we'll agree to disagree. It's getting late. Maybe we'll argue a little more tomorrow.

BTW you still haven't explained why we haven't truly gone after those who attacked us.
The war in Afghan and Iraq differs. We were searching for rats hiding in caves. This called for special forces trained in smoking out and detecting rats and roaches that like to hide and move under the cover of darkness. The terrain also dictated convetional means may not be successfull.
Iraq had a more convetional army which called for a more conventional style deployment in greater numbers.
It is up for debate as to if the forces deployed to Afghan was adequate or inadequate. To say we did not look for the head rat and the rest of his band of fleas would be inaccuarate.
Arrested nationality ....
On April 13, 1993, several Iraqi nationals were arrested in Kuwait and charged with plotting an assassination attempt against former President Bush as he visited Kuwait that month. In June of that year, President Clinton retaliated for the attempted assassination by authorizing air strikes against Iraq.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Let's for a second pretend that there were not ever WMDs in Iraq (That of course means that all of those Iranians drank Kool Aid in the 1980's, Saddam bought his troops gas masks for Halloween, and Clinton Lied when he sent troops to attack Iraq: "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors..." CNN, Dec. 16, 1998).
The current President messed up when he mentioned WMDs. We've been at war with Iraq for over 10 years. Iraq has been firing weapons at Allied planes ever since the end of the First Gulf War. To me, that's an act of war. Clinton was too busy "befriending" Monica (and comitting Felony Perjury) to do anything about it... so terrorists got more an more bold.
"Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel. Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques." taken from BBC march 13, 2003.... kind of looks like supporting terrorism to me...
I love our military. They are the best in the world. They are trained to fight. Our police, fire, and emergency service personnel are not. If those terrorists weren't fighting (and dying) in Iraq, they'd be fighting and dying in New York, Miami, Dallas, LA, etc.
Don't forget our USS kole, our Embassy's in Africa, the first attack on the Trade Center.. We've been at war with terrorism for a long time, and we didn't do anything about it. Now we have. Sorry if you don't like that.
Finally, quit mentioning oil... I for one am paying more now than ever before to fill up my car. You can argue a lot of things.. but that we attacked Iraq for oil ain't one of them...
 
r22wink

r22wink

Member
jcrim. Are you running for presidency? That sucks that you know where Bin Laden is, and The CIA doesnt know. geesh.. Bush and Rumsfield need to get on the SWF.com Message boards and the worlds problems would go away.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
jcrim, you do realize that those "articles" are not really news stories, but editorials, right? ie: someone's opinion.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Bush and Rumsfield need to get on the SWF.com Message boards and the worlds problems would go away.
I agree.....LOL
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
I beleive I have provided proof the Iraq is a known terrorist state that supports, finances, provides training and is invloved in terrorism.
I will simply point to the words of Hillary Rodham Clinton in her speech supporting the war as to why we took him out. I could not have said it better myself.
The war on terror seeks to find those involved in 9/11...plus prevent others from committing another act against this country and/or our allies.
To this extent, Iraq fits this definition and has been a proven aggressor in the past to other nations.
I understand Democrats would like to make any and all issues regarding the war on terror as elections are around the corner.
Even Hillary Clinton...the 2008 Democratic nominee wannabe has now changed her mind and would like to change her vote (gee, didn't know that was possible).
Once war starts, I fully support out troops, President (Democrat or Rpeublican) and country. it is the military sacrifices that allows those that seek to undermine and jeopardize the safety of troops to do so freely.
This is not a democratic war on terror or a republican war on terror...it is a US led war on terror along with our allies that have the stomach and committment to do something.
The orignal poster claimed Iraq has nothing to do with terror...I beleive I have provided evidence that they are a terrorist state.
Again, we seek to find, destroy or bring to justice those repsonsible for 9/11 ...as well as preventing another 9/11 from happening. I beleive the future prevention is what some folks either ignore, do not comprehend, do not care, or simply do not like the fact that a republican president has addressed the growing problem.
had we been more aggressive in the mid to late 90's perhaps 9/11 would not have happened.
 
aw2

aw2

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Let's for a second pretend that there were not ever WMDs in Iraq (That of course means that all of those Iranians drank Kool Aid in the 1980's, Saddam bought his troops gas masks for Halloween, and Clinton Lied when he sent troops to attack Iraq: "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors..." CNN, Dec. 16, 1998).
The current President messed up when he mentioned WMDs. We've been at war with Iraq for over 10 years. Iraq has been firing weapons at Allied planes ever since the end of the First Gulf War. To me, that's an act of war. Clinton was too busy "befriending" Monica (and comitting Felony Perjury) to do anything about it... so terrorists got more an more bold.
"Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel. Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques." taken from BBC march 13, 2003.... kind of looks like supporting terrorism to me...
I love our military. They are the best in the world. They are trained to fight. Our police, fire, and emergency service personnel are not. If those terrorists weren't fighting (and dying) in Iraq, they'd be fighting and dying in New York, Miami, Dallas, LA, etc.
Don't forget our USS kole, our Embassy's in Africa, the first attack on the Trade Center.. We've been at war with terrorism for a long time, and we didn't do anything about it. Now we have. Sorry if you don't like that.
Finally, quit mentioning oil... I for one am paying more now than ever before to fill up my car. You can argue a lot of things.. but that we attacked Iraq for oil ain't one of them...

That's one thing that most Americans forgot....we NEVER stopped being at war with Iraq. As you stated...they were firing on American war planes since the first Gulf War.
I was involved in operations in Iraq from June 1999 - 2000, where we were sending in recon troops, special forces troops, etc. and had been for years, when we werent at "war". So, just because the newspapers didnt print it and the nightly news didnt report it, it doesnt mean it wasnt happening.
There were WOMD is Iraq, as well as terrorist training camps. I've seen BOTH with my very own eyes. They were (what was left of them) smuggled out, before the war started because we screwed around, "saber rattling" for 6 months before we started bombing operations. That gave the Iraqi government plenty of time to get rid of them. They also said they didnt have any airforce, but what did we find???....hundreds of Iraqi war planes, buried out in the desert....some that we just months old, including the Mig 25 Foxbat and the Mig 31 Foxhound, both of which are newer Russian fighters.
Most people are just looking at the World Trade Center attacks, on 9/11. They're not taking into account such things as what 1journeyman stated above...the Kole attack, the African Embassy and many others.
Saddam Hussein was a major supporter of terrorism...hiding them, training them and financing them. If we hadnt gone to war with Iraq, again and if we werent still doing what we're doing, it wouldve only have been a matter of time before we had a nuclear bomb set off, right here on American soil.
I saw someone said above that we're not fighting Afganistan anymore, because of Iraq. Tell that to some of my Special Forces buddies that have been there for over 2 years....2 YEARS...searching for terrorists and fighting on a daily basis. The war is Afganistan is long from over, but you never hear about it anymore because the media is so set on talking badly about Bush and the war with Iraq. They're gonna cover what gets the most attention...not what's the more important of the 2.
 
J

jcrim

Guest
I cannot spend too much time on this discussion today because I have too much other things to do but I feel compelled to respond.
I stand by my original statement that no Iraqi has ever carried out a terrorist act/threat against the US. Scuba, there is a difference between an alleged military operation against our President and a terrorist act targeting innocent women and children. My real anger is that we have not made anyone pay for the terrorist acts that have already victimized us. AW2, you talk about our forces in Afghanistan but they are approximately 1/10 of what we have in Iraq.
No one has explained, if this is truly a war against terrorism, why we haven't targeted Saudi Arabia, where most of the terrorists have come from. Bush and his supporters cannot go after Saudi because of their economic allegience to this country. Also what about Syria, Jordan, etc?
I don't think I'll convince anybody to change their views and I know you won't change mine. Personally, I think that our troops are sitting ducks at this point. There are no more missions for them to carry out in Iraq. They are just waiting and trying to maintain security. Waiting for the next suicide bomber.
And all the while we are there, we are increasing the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Do you think that our presence makes the terrorists less likely to attack us? I don't.
I do think that many people blindly support our president. I am not a Republican or Democrat because I have different opinions on different issues. But I do think our President is a liar and is recklessly gambling with young American lives. I don't have the faith in what he says that many here seem to.
All the while, I can't get the thoughts out of my head that we've already gotten Saddam and that the animal who killed almost 3000 Americans on 9/11 is free without much concern from our President.
Feel free to disagree... it's a free country.
 
J

jcrim

Guest
And by the way, I do believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There again, Bush failed miserably in getting the job done.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
I cannot spend too much time on this discussion today because I have too much other things to do but I feel compelled to respond.
Fair enough.. but that doesn't de-legitimize the arguments against your points.
Originally Posted by jcrim
I stand by my original statement that no Iraqi has ever carried out a terrorist act/threat against the US.
Israeli citizens, and Americans visitng Israel would certainly disagree.
Originally Posted by jcrim
Scuba, there is a difference between an alleged military operation against our President and a terrorist act targeting innocent women and children
Based on that logic we can sleep peacefully knowing that our troops "allegedly" in Iraq are on a "military" operation.
Originally Posted by jcrim
My real anger is that we have not made anyone pay for the terrorist acts that have already victimized us.
there's a few thousand dead Taliban that serve as mute testimony to how inaccurate that statement is.
Originally Posted by jcrim
No one has explained, if this is truly a war against terrorism, why we haven't targeted Saudi Arabia, where most of the terrorists have come from. Bush and his supporters cannot go after Saudi because of their economic allegience to this country. Also what about Syria, Jordan, etc?
Ok, I'll explain... many people, including government funded organizations in SA are anti-American. So? The ruling party of SA wet themselves when Saddam invaded Iraq. They know the only reason they sit on their cushioned thrones is because we back them... they are walking a fine line... too much support for the US would lead to a revolt. Also, if you don't think we've got operatives crawling the streets of SA on a regular basis rooting out terrorists you're fooling yourself. As for Jordan, Iran, Syria.. we're coming.
Originally Posted by jcrim
e">I don't think I'll convince anybody to change their views
Not until you start listing facts and quit quoting editorials...
Originally Posted by jcrim
and I know you won't change mine.
Dangerous thinking... you're so sure about your opinion that you're willing to state that you won't change it? That means any evidence brought against your point of view will be ignored.....
Originally Posted by jcrim
Personally, I think that our troops are sitting ducks at this point. There are no more missions for them to carry out in Iraq. They are just waiting and trying to maintain security. Waiting for the next suicide bomber.
Say that to an active military member serving in Iraq and you're likely to get your teeth bashed in... They are proud of their missions..
Originally Posted by jcrim
And all the while we are there, we are increasing the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.
True.. someday they may hate us so much they'll hijack commercial planes, slit the throats of the cockpit and flight attendants, and then crash said planes full of men, women and children into buildings in a big city like New York... Oh, wait... They have, and always will hate us.. they don't need "reasons"
Originally Posted by jcrim
Do you think that our presence makes the terrorists less likely to attack us? I don't.
yes.. I do. See my previous post.. we're fighting "foreign fighters" in Iraq instead of the streets of our homeland cities...
Originally Posted by jcrim
I do think that many people blindly support our president.
I agree. Just as many blindly hate him. It doesn't take long until the conspiracies of oil and "dark Saudi alliances" pop up anytime a President hater speaks.
Originally Posted by jcrim
">I am not a Republican or Democrat because I have different opinions on different issues. But I do think our President is a liar and is recklessly gambling with young American lives. I don't have the faith in what he says that many here seem to.
Again, see my earlier post... was Clinton a liar when he attacked Iraq's Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in 1998? While we're speaking of Clinton.. the "Blackhawk Down" incident probably endangered more US military than anything else President Bush could ever do... We were attacked, lost troops, and Clinton ordered the military to "cut and run". Terrorists were able to make the assumption that we would "cut and run" anytime we suffered casualties after that fiasco...
Originally Posted by jcrim
All the while, I can't get the thoughts out of my head that we've already gotten Saddam
Thanks to the US military and their anti terrorism War in Iraq..
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
and that the animal who killed almost 3000 Americans on 9/11 is free without much concern from our President.
Really? When was the last time Osama showed his face in public? Lol, his network is being decimated... Al Queda is a shadow of what they were 4 years ago... Unless you've spoken to Osama recently I'd argu that he's quite scared...
Originally Posted by jcrim
Feel free to disagree... it's a free country.
Yes it is, but "freedom" shouldn't be used as an excuse for lazy thinking. At your leisure, please address the points from my previous post.
 
aw2

aw2

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
I stand by my original statement that no Iraqi has ever carried out a terrorist act/threat against the US. Scuba, there is a difference between an alleged military operation against our President and a terrorist act targeting innocent women and children. AW2, you talk about our forces in Afghanistan but they are approximately 1/10 of what we have in Iraq.
As I said before, just because it isnt on the news or in the paper, doesnt mean it's not going on. We have a huge contingency of troops, mainly special forces and support troops, in Afganistan, still hunting terrorists, shutting down camps, etc.
No one has explained, if this is truly a war against terrorism, why we haven't targeted Saudi Arabia, where most of the terrorists have come from. Bush and his supporters cannot go after Saudi because of their economic allegience to this country. Also what about Syria, Jordan, etc?
We havent targeted Saudi Arabi because we dont need to. These terrorists that have come from Saudi Arabia have been exhiled and are no longer welcome in their country long before the war started. We're not targeting Saudi Arabia because they're not funding/training other terrorists, such as Iraq was. The government in Saudi Arabia is just as much against Iraq and Osama Bin Laden as the US and it's other allys are. I ran a security force for the Prince of Saudi Arabia, in 2000 and from talking to him and his entourage, if they had their way, they'd just find them and assisinate them on the spot, where as Bush is trying taking them "back to the people" like he did Saddam Hussein, where they can be brought to trial in their own country, in front of their own people.
I don't think I'll convince anybody to change their views and I know you won't change mine. Personally, I think that our troops are sitting ducks at this point. There are no more missions for them to carry out in Iraq. They are just waiting and trying to maintain security. Waiting for the next suicide bomber.
There are plenty of missions to keep carrying out, in Iraq. Security and whiping insurgents is the main one. The Iraqi government isnt back up to par, let alone their military. If we left now, it would end up the same way it did after we pulled out of the first Gulf War. The people that want democracy (the majority of them) would get whiped out and parties like the Baath Party would get back in control and we'd start the process all over again. That's exactly what happened in the first war. We pulled out before capturing/killing Saddam Hussein and the minute he was back in power, what did he do???...he murdered tens of thousands of his own people that had turned against his tyranical ways.
And all the while we are there, we are increasing the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Do you think that our presence makes the terrorists less likely to attack us? I don't.
iv>
The Middle Eastern countries, such as Iraq and Iran, have ALWAYS hated the United States. There's nothing that we've done to them to make them hate us...they just do. They've been brainwashed for so many years, by dictatorships like Saddam Hussein, that all we want to do is take over their land, steal their oil and make them convert to the US way and give up their God. I spent over 2 years in various countries in the Middle East...I know exactly how it is.
I do think that many people blindly support our president. I am not a Republican or Democrat because I have different opinions on different issues. But I do think our President is a liar and is recklessly gambling with young American lives. I don't have the faith in what he says that many here seem to.
I dont think people are blindly supporting him. I think that the people that actually know what's going on (especially veterans) are following him because they know it needs to be done. I'm not a Republican or Democrat either, but I will say this...if Bush could run for another term, I'd still vote for him. He's been a great leader of this country, that hasnt always done the right thing, but who has???
All the while, I can't get the thoughts out of my head that we've already gotten Saddam and that the animal who killed almost 3000 Americans on 9/11 is free without much concern from our President.
"Without much concern..."??? Remember a few months ago when the CH-47 Chinook helicopter went down, in Afganistan, and killed 8 member of a Special Forces team??...I knew every single one of those men, along with another 13 that have died within the 1.5 years in that hell hole. I seriously doubt it's "without much concern".
Feel free to disagree... it's a free country.
And, it's free because we have kids dying on a daily basis to protect this country from tyranical lunatics.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Umm, for the record, AW2 and I aren't the same person, even though we posted almost identical threads at almost the same time..
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
JCRIM
Check out these links when you get a few minutes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ine/062793.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm
http://csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p01s03-woap.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html
What all that shows is before we invaded Iraq they had attempted to assasinate a former president, they did have contacts with Al Qeada members, They were interested in making terrorist style attacks on the US and had WMD material. Without the bennefit of hindsight do you think it would have been reasonable to have seen Iraq as a major threat?
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
The original post claims that the war with Iraq has nothing to do with terror I beleive many have posted facts regarding the history of this country and the connection with terror activity.
If you really beleive that Iraq is a boy scout state...honrable, noble, has seen the light, would not ever consider launching an attack against US interests or our friends...then your statement is correct.
Since Iraq pre-war was such a great place...and posed no threat to the US home or abroad....and according to you is not a threat past or present regarding terrorism...the Iraqi government should release Sadam, return him to power...and say sorry ...my bad. What a swell guy..........
I am surprised that many simply do not understand the term proactive.....reactive means you do something after the fact...proactive means you hopefully prevent something from happening. Analyze the potential/risk (potential means it ain't been done yet) and prevent it...take it out...decrease the probability of it happening.....disrupt the process....send a message to others...etc. etc. etc.
 
aw2

aw2

Active Member
Of all the classified material that I had access to, while I was in the miltary, I have no doubt WHAT-SO-EVER that if we wouldnt have hit Iraq when we did and ousted Saddam Hussein, there would've been a terrorist attack on US soil within 5 years, funded and supported by Iraq...and it most likely would've been nuclear.
My views are not just "opinion". They're based off of hundreds of pages of classified material, videos, etc. that I was privvy to, while in the Navy.
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
The original post claims that the war with Iraq has nothing to do with terror I beleive many have posted facts regarding the history of this country and the connection with terror activity.
If you really beleive that Iraq is a boy scout state...honrable, noble, has seen the light, would not ever consider launching an attack against US interests or our friends...then your statement is correct.
Since Iraq pre-war was such a great place...and posed no threat to the US home or abroad....and according to you is not a threat past or present regarding terrorism...the Iraqi government should release Sadam, return him to power...and say sorry ...my bad. What a swell guy..........
I am surprised that many simply do not understand the term proactive.....reactive means you do something after the fact...proactive means you hopefully prevent something from happening. Analyze the potential/risk (potential means it ain't been done yet) and prevent it...take it out...decrease the probability of it happening.....disrupt the process....send a message to others...etc. etc. etc.
Fellas, I'm done with this debate. The above post represents the irrationality and silliness that this discussion has taken. I started this thread out of frustration and my frustration over this war has not subsided because there have been more American deaths today.
I realize that you gentlemen have great faith in our President and that's ok... I don't. Even if he's not a liar, then he is woefully incompetent. He has failed to capture Osama, failed to find the weapons, failed to assess the international support for this war and was dead wrong when he suggested the war was over.
Unfortunately, this debate is not over opinions but over facts. That fact being whether this is actually a war against terrorism. If I'm wrong then at the end of this mess, terrorism will be dead. If you're wrong then terrorism will be worse than ever. You can try to predict the future as well as I can but only time will tell.
Finally, regarding the other terrorist countries such as Saudi, Iran, Syria, etc. To suggest that we are currently in control and Saudi is not a terrorist threat is also wrong. You people claim to be so well informed so I'm sure you're aware of the millions of dollars that Saudi has invested in Bush's failed business enterprises. AW2, isn't it interesting that you were assigned to a security detail for Bendhar (Prince of Saudi). Why the hell is that the job of American military. Bush is in Saudi's back pocket... believe it or not. Also, Journeyman you suggested that the other countries are coming next. Is that to say you believe that we are going to be waging war against all of the middle eastern arab countries... I hope not.
You may disagree but IMO this war will create more terrorism not less. What do you think will happen to the children of Iraq who will now grow up parentless? I think our children will be fighting the same fight all over again in a few years.
It may be so easy for so many people to discount our losses. I don't. If you think that Bush doesn't have personal reasons for this war then, in simplest terms, I disagree. I cannot support the sacrifice of young americans when I don't trust the cause or our leader.
Time will tell whether this war actually will destroy terrorism. I hope you're right. I know you're not. Let's bring up this debate again in 10 years and see how much good comes from all this death. At least by then maybe Osama will contract the bird flu and die. That will be a real victory over terrorism.
So don't be offended if I stop responding but I'm going out for the night and this discussion has run its course. See you guys on another thread.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
No offense, but that's typical of these kind of posts.. someone goes off at the hip about how bad the President is, how he's "in the pocket of the Saudis", he's an idiot, we're causing more harm than good blah, blah blah...
Then, some reasonable people say "here are some facts..."
And then the original poster says "You all are all wrong, I'm through trying to argue.."
Jcrim, for the record, this wasn't a "debate" as you called it. This was you shooting your mouth off and getting your tail handed to you.
We've repeatedly pointed out a few things to you that you refused to "debate" regarding Iraq supporting terrorism... we pointed out that hostilities never ended after the first war, we've pointed out your boy Clinton attacked "nuclear, chemical and biological" sites in Iraq in 1998. We pointed out sources (from liberal media sources) supporting Iraq's support of terrorism...
Where was the debate again??? I seem to have missed a thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top