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

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by jcrim
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.
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying... Our President has made it clear that NO country is to be a harbor for terrorists. We're in the middle of a world war, and just like WW2 it started by a surpise air attack.
You're right about one thing.. our children will be fighting the children of terrorists.. those that survive to have kids, anyways.
One more time.. we didn't start this war, but as long as we have Presidents with the will to do what's best for this country we'll strive to end it.

 

[aw2]

Originally Posted by jcrim
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.
Actually, all I see, from our above posts, are facts, backing our "opinions" and statements. We've posted news articles, etc. but you havent posted anything to support your theory, other than your OPINIONS. I, of course, have no physical evidence, such as papers, reports, etc. nor the willingness/authority to give names, reports, operations, etc. that I was involved in. I can only tell you what I know, FOR A FACT and you can take it at what you will.
Originally Posted by jcrim
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.
If we're getting on the subject of being incompentant, then why hasnt someone brought up the Mogidishu (sp?) incident, that our great Pres. Clinton got us involved in, in 1993? The point is...no matter who the Pres. is, there's always going to be people who disagree with him, ridicule him and chastise him for doing something that they dont like, no matter if it's the right thing to do or not. Pres. Clinton got in more trouble over his "sexual practicies" than he did for dumping aprox. 200 ARMY Rangers and Delta into a city, in the middle of the day, that eventually had to fight off an entire city. I'm also friends with some of those people, that were there. Just because you've seen Black Hawk Down and/or read the book, doesnt mean that everyone knows EXACTLY what went on there.
Originally Posted by jcrim
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.
In my opinion, terrorism will never be "over". No country, on this planet, is capable of stopping every single terrorist, want to be terrorist, terrorist in training or children of terrorists, that want to pick up this fight in 10 years.
Originally Posted by jcrim
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.
Actually...I wasnt "assigned to the detail"...I was head of it. And, the reason we were providing security was because he was visiting American military installations, warships, and the like. There were plenty of Saudi security personel there...we were just helping out. Just like when Prime Minister Tony Blair comes into the country, and other foreign dignitaries, that are allies...they bring their own sercurity, but we also provide additional personel. I've been in security details for many foreign diplomats, dignitaries and families or royaly, from ally countries...not just Saudis. Bush being "in the Saudi's pocket", has nothing to do with this war, if you ask me. If he is, so be it...if he isnt, it doesnt matter to me. The Bush family has had strong ties with the families of Saudi for many, many years...even before Bush Sr. was in office.
Originally Posted by jcrim
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.
I havent heard any of us "easily discount our losses" and I take personal offense to your remark. Statements like that reserves me the right to say to you..."Go join the military tomorrow, go fight for this country, go defend these great freedoms that you're expressing in this thread and then you might have an ounce of experiance to comment on such things as war.".

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by AW2
If we're getting on the subject of being incompentant, then why hasnt someone brought up the Mogidishu (sp?) incident, that our great Pres. Clinton got us involved in, in 1993?
Got ya covered a couple of posts above on that exact incident... my point was that our backing out of Somalia emboldened terrorists.

 

[beth]

Let us hope that once the whole planet is "civilized" that we may enjoy a tad of respect among the various nations. And, yes, hard to believe, but we are still a long way from that happening.

 

[1journeyman]

Sadly, i'm not sure it will ever happen Beth. People seem to be getting more selfish and crazy as the years go by, not less...

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by jcrim
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.

Irrational and silly? That's offensive. The fact you are gone...hardly.
In trying to apply logic to your claim this war will provide more terrorism not less....your position must be we should do nothing and the big bad monsters will leave us alone and play nice.
I have provided evidnece as have others that Iraq supported, provided training facilities, recruited, embraced/promoted terrorism, etc, etc,
In light of all of this evidence you still maintain that Iraq under Sadam was a harmless state.
Sorry to say...that position would fit your terms.."silly" and "irrational".
Of the many folks that do not support the war...I doubt many would agree with your original post reagarding pre-war Iraq and the postion it held regarding terrorism and terrorists.
Your words the war in Iraq is not about terror.......so this implies Iraq is a non-terrorist state.
You can not post such strong positions and not expect folks with opposing views to take issue.
I find it somewhat interesting that you call Bush incompetent for not catching Osama .......yet I do not think you labelled CLinton as he knew exactly where Osama was and missed.
After giving the matter some thought, I have come to the realization that your post claiming to be neiither Republican or Democrat was just to throw me off.
I finally realized you are Hillary CLinton.......

 

[lovethesea]

Originally Posted by jcrim
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. .

and you allowed to say that because you live in a free country

 

[lovethesea]

Originally Posted by jcrim
. He has failed to capture Osama, failed to find the weapons, .

No one else has either, and look to Syria for the wepons.

 

[scubadoo]

Brother can you spare a country...I mean dime?.....

 

[aw2]

I kinda like this one too...

 

[scubadoo]

Salman Pak / Al Salman
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
The Salman Pak biological warfare facility was located on a peninsula caused by a bend in the Tigris river, approximately five kilometers (km) from the arch located in the town of Salman Pak. The facility area comprised more than 20 square km, and might have been known as a farmers (or agricultural) experimentation center. The peninsula was fenced off and patrolled by a large guard force. Immediately inside and to the east of the fence line were two opulent villas: the larger built for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the other for his half-brother, Barazan al-Tikriti. A main paved road ran through the center of the Salman Pak facility/peninsula. [GulfLINK]
Plans were made in the mid-1980's to develop the Salman Pak site into a secure biological warfare research facility. Dr Rihab Taha, head of a small biological weapons research team, continued to work with her team at al-Muthanna until 1987 when it moved to Salman Pak, which was under the control of the Directorate of General Intelligence.
Located at the facility are several buildings. The probable main research building at the site is a modern building, composed of twenty four rooms, housing a major BW research facility. Using current technology the research area alone had sufficient floor space to accommodate several continuous-flow or batch fermenters that could produce daily sufficient anthrax bacteria to lethally assault hundreds of square kilometers. Adjacent to the research building is a storage area which contains four munitions type storage bunkers with lightning arrestors. Two of these bunkers have facilities for storage of temperature sensitive biological material. Approximately a mile down the road from the research area is a complex US intelligence believed to be an engineering area. One building in this complex was thought to contain a fermentation pilot plant capable of scale up production of BW agents. A construction project comprising several buildings was begun in early 1989 adjacent to the engineering area, and was near completion in 1990. This new complex was assessed as a pharmaceutical production plant. As such, this facility would have an extensive capability for biological agent production. [GulfLINK]
Salman Pak, located 30-40 km SE of Baghdad, engaged in laboratory scale research on Anthrax, Botulinum toxin, Clostridium, perfringens (gas gangrene), mycotoxins, aflatoxins, and Ricin. Researchers at this site carried out toxicity evaluations of these agents and examined their growth characteristics and survivability.
Equipment-moving trucks and refrigerated trucks were observed at the Salman Pak BW facility prior to the onset of bombing, suggesting that Iraq was moving equipment or material into or out of the facility. Information obtained after the conflict revealed that Iraq had moved BW agent production equipment from Salman Pak to the Al Hakam suspect BW facility.
The Qadisiya State Establishment [aka Al-Qadsia], involved in the program to produce Al Hussein class missiles, is apparently located nearby, along with the Al-Yarmouk facility which according to some reports was associated with the chemical munitions program [and which other reports place at Yusufiyah.
Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp. The camp is divided into distinct sections. On one side of the camp young, Iraqis who were members of Fedayeen Saddam are trained in espionage, assassination techniques and sabotage. The Islamic militants trained on the other side of the camp, in an area separated by a small lake, trees and barbed wire. The militants reportedly spent time training, usually in groups of five or six, around the fuselage of the airplane. There were rarely more than 40 or 50 Islamic radicals in the camp at one time.

 

[reefraff]

Now that is funny.
I was hoping we were actually going to have a reasonable debate here. Seems like the majority of the hate Bush crowd just take their toys and go home when you provide facts and credible sources to back up your argument.
Fact is I am not a big fan of Bush. There is a lot he needs to answer for but resuming the Gulf War isn't one of them.

 

[beth]

You know this is weird, but of all the horrible things that Saddam has done, one of things that bothers me the most is offering to pay the families of suicide bombers for the sacrifice of their child who "martyred" themselves.
What a sad, sad, sad thing. The mind of a barbarian.
I do not like Bush, myself, and I don't trust him...but come on, you have to see the forest from the trees on some issues. Just because Bush is involved, doesn't mean you "have to" think/do the opposite of what he wants!

 

[scubadoo]

I also do not feel Bush has done an overall good job as president. However, he is the first presidnet to get tough when it comes to terorists.
I often wonder why politicians and citizen beleive it is possible to use dilpomacy with the terrorists rats, roaches and fleas.
it is hard to debate factual evidence to the contrary of a postion one holds. Some folks simply do not like Bush so thay will grasp at anything and everything.
personally, I do not care which party controls the White House, I totally support the war on terror and the action taken in Iraq.
One continues to calim fact ....yet there is factual evidence to the contrary.
Not surprising that a cut and run was done here...isn't that what the otiginal poster proposed?
What I find interesting about SAlman Pak is they had an airplane where hijacking was taught. I find it laughable that UN inspectors were told this was an anti-terrorist facility in a known terrorist state. . I guess they simply beleveed them and moved on? Makes you question the validity of the pre-war work/inspections performed in Iraq .

 

[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 decvide 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 the 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.

 

[scubadoo]

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 decvide 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 the 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.
I was wondering how long it would be before you got here...what took you so long?

 

[caomt]

heres what i think..the iraqi people were under someone just similar to communist.. those people were helpless over a ruler like that.. they needed help. we needed a reason to go in.. that was our reason.. how they are under a new government ... and we get oil... which we need in every day life cuz obviously that supply is limited due to the big amount of esclades rolling around.. aha jeeze its really a money and oil thing..and if they did have nuclear weapons they wouldnt be laying out in the middle ofthe streets.. think about it..it would be underground stuff.. with so much land they have it has to be underground only located and entered by long and lat..and we would only know if we have insidiers.. just like an area 51..but its really not easy to have insiders that work under him.. they are really loyal enough to go blow them selves up.. it would be hard to get an inisider...only way is to hve someone that hates the ruler or else have someone planted way long before this thing even started

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I was wondering how long it would be before you got here...what took you so long?

Busy weekend as usual. I never seem to find time to get on the site on the weekends. Nice job holding down the "fort" though. It amazes me how quick people are to ignore facts. Nice job Scuba.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by Darth Tang
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.
As a retired military veteran I concur with your dad's analogy. I have my own though:
The politicians should do everything in their power to avoid war. Wether they did or not in this case is now irrelevant. I did not want us to go to war, I wrote many letters to my representatives to let them know, without a doubt, what I wanted from them. I see all of these people against the war, now, that were not against the war before. Shame on you. I think of the US military as a guided missle. Once you push the button it's gone. You guide it to the target to accomplish the goal. You cannot recall it, you cannot stop it, you can only give it slight nudges to keep on target.
Once Congress authorized this war they pushed the "button". Politics failed according to Congress, the resolution to use military force against Iraq passed with an overwhelming vote of 296-133. With that vote the American people spoke. We decided to go to war. At that time politics should have ceased and the Generals should have been handed the ball because the "button" was pushed. The time to be against the war was before they pushed the button. Now is the time to support what our troops are doing with everything we have. This bickering against the war is making the enemy stronger and putting more troops in harms way. If you want to point fingers you have every right to but where were you before the vote? I looked to my left and to my right and I didn't see a lot of support for not going to war before the vote. Now that the "button" is pushed please keep your negative anti-war dribbel to yourself until our troops have accomplished the mission we all sent them for. Please support the troops instead of supporting their opponents and they will get the job done safer and they will be able to return sooner.

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
As a retired military veteran I concur with your dad's analogy. I have my own though:
The politicians should do everything in their power to avoid war. Wether they did or not in this case is now irrelevant. I did not want us to go to war, I wrote many letters to my representatives to let them know, without a doubt, what I wanted from them. I see all of these people against the war, now, that were not against the war before. Shame on you. I think of the US military as a guided missle. Once you push the button it's gone. You guide it to the target to accomplish the goal. You cannot recall it, you cannot stop it, you can only give it slight nudges to keep on target.
Once Congress authorized this war they pushed the "button". Politics failed according to Congress, the resolution to use military force against Iraq passed with an overwhelming vote of 296-133. With that vote the American people spoke. We decided to go to war. At that time politics should have ceased and the Generals should have been handed the ball because the "button" was pushed. The time to be against the war was before they pushed the button. Now is the time to support what our troops are doing with everything we have. This bickering against the war is making the enemy stronger and putting more troops in harms way. If you want to point fingers you have every right to but where were you before the vote? I looked to my left and to my right and I didn't see a lot of support for not going to war before the vote. Now that the "button" is pushed please keep your negative anti-war dribbel to yourself until our troops have accomplished the mission we all sent them for. Please support the troops instead of supporting their opponents and they will get the job done safer and they will be able to return sooner.

Bang you hit the nail on the head. I and my father held your same sentiments. As did my father-in-law, uncles, and cousins. All military or ex. War is never a pretty thing to deal with. We felt Hussein and Iraq needed dealt with...but at that moment we had to much going on from a military standpoint. My family also believed this country wasn't ready for a true war from a psychological standpoint. A few of us wrote our congressmen. To no availe. Now a few of those same congressmen are backing out of their original stance. Which irritates us further. 75-80% of the country was ready and willing to go to war at that time. I feel though even if we found the Large amounts of WMDS we were suppossed to, if the public wouldn't be acting the same way now. I am sure they would.