Why is Everyone so Against the War?

[jovial]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Reread what I said. If another 9-11 is gonna happen, it will whether we're in Iraq or not. Yet another person with blinders on who thinks the only terrorist that could do something destructive against the US is currently fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. You could hunt down and find every single solitary person you deem a terrorist in those two countries, and there would still be hundreds more living in Iran, England, France, Italy, Germany, Minnesota, LA, Dallas, and practically every other major city and country in the world. So if your only reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to destroy all terrorists, then you're wasting their time and lives doing it.
Very eloquent way of completely dodging the question. I'll ask the same question again.
What happens when it's your building that gets hit, would you still prefer to do nothing?

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Al Qaeda hit us 7 times during Clinton's administration. That's almost 1 attack per year. They haven't hit us on our soil in 6 years... why is that? You argue they are recruiting more and hate us more, yet attacks on the homeland are down?
I don't see how you can attribute this to the war in Iraq. Have you forgotten that 6 years ago there was this minor thing here in New York and Washington D.C.? Do you think that the events of 9-11 changed our security measures on suspected terrorist targets slightly? Take a look at the events around the globe... terrorist attacks are on the rise. We haven't had any here because security has increased many times over again. How can you overlook something so obvious? Maybe because it helps your argument to suggest that the Iraqi war is wiping out terrorism. Helps your argument but completely untrue....

 

[groupergenius]

Wow, this war is futile. We should leave these people alone. We are only making them madder.
The paragraph above are not my feelings, but what I keep hearing. It absolutely blows me away that some folks think that the world can just "get along".
Wake up. It never has and never will. The same folks that make the above comments think that Islamic Fundamentalists just recently (2002) decided to not like the USA.
Heck it's late at night and I can think of 5 attacks against the USA during Clinton's watch and nothing done. Carter sat back and let Iran keep our Embassy personnel for 400+ days.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by crimzy
I don't see how you can attribute this to the war in Iraq. Have you forgotten that 6 years ago there was this minor thing here in New York and Washington D.C.? Do you think that the events of 9-11 changed our security measures on suspected terrorist targets slightly? Take a look at the events around the globe... terrorist attacks are on the rise. We haven't had any here because security has increased many times over again. How can you overlook something so obvious? Maybe because it helps your argument to suggest that the Iraqi war is wiping out terrorism. Helps your argument but completely untrue....
There I go using color again.
Now, you have made our point. Now we have a Prez who takes the stuff serious. Now we have a Prez who is not afraid to do something about it.

 

[jovial]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
yes, a dead terrorist doesn't kill anymore. Economics concepts do apply. If they don't then we should just close all prisions. Because that isn't a "deturent" either.

So what keeps you from breaking the law? and please dont say because of your moral character, we all know thats a load when you look at the number of laws people break. The thought of going to prison is a very strong deterrent. Why are the prisons they over flowing, one might ask then, easy... the judicial system is too slow to execute them fast enough. It cost the taxpayers millions to incarcerated some dirtbag and most do not reform. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
There I go using color again.
Now, you have made our point. Now we have a Prez who takes the stuff serious. Now we have a Prez who is not afraid to do something about it.
So the war is a response to the 9-11 attacks, according to your post, right? But 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, along with Bin Laden himself. But none of the hijackers were Iraqi and there was no Al Queda in Iraq at that time. Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[jovial]

Originally Posted by crimzy
I don't see how you can attribute this to the war in Iraq. Have you forgotten that 6 years ago there was this minor thing here in New York and Washington D.C.? Do you think that the events of 9-11 changed our security measures on suspected terrorist targets slightly? Take a look at the events around the globe... terrorist attacks are on the rise. We haven't had any here because security has increased many times over again. How can you overlook something so obvious? Maybe because it helps your argument to suggest that the Iraqi war is wiping out terrorism. Helps your argument but completely untrue....
How can you be sure that amongst all of the captives currently being held at Guantanamo bay or insurgents killed in Iraq so far that none of them would have attempted to attack the US if not killed or detained?
If you cant then there stands to be a good chance that at least one amongst all of them would have tried to attack us. From this standpoint then yes the war is wiping out terrorism.
It only took 2 per cockpit to bring down the world trade center.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by crimzy
So the war is a response to the 9-11 attacks, according to your post, right? But 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, along with Bin Laden himself. But none of the hijackers were Iraqi and there was no Al Queda in Iraq at that time. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Huh?? Is that what I said?? Show me where I said that.
Look at the quote I used of yours-and the quote you used on that post.
It was about attacks on US soil. I never said anything about war response for 9-11. But I realize that the talking point tactics you are using is very typical. Put words in other mouths to try to validate your ideaology.
Sounds very MoveOn to me.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Jovial
How can you be sure that amongst all of the captives currently being held at Guantanamo bay or insurgents killed in Iraq so far that none of them would have attempted to attack the US if not killed or detained?
If you cant then there stands to be a good chance that at least one amongst all of them would have tried to attack us. From this standpoint then yes the war is wiping out terrorism.
It only took 2 per cockpit to bring down the world trade center.
By this logic then I could argue that a single terrorist, who was not a terrorist prior to 2003, was made so by the war in Iraq. Pretty speculative argument, don't you think?

 

[jovial]

Originally Posted by crimzy
So the war is a response to the 9-11 attacks, according to your post, right? But 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, along with Bin Laden himself. But none of the hijackers were Iraqi and there was no Al Queda in Iraq at that time. Makes a lot of sense to me.
How do you know that there wasn't any Al Queda in Iraq at the time Crimzy? CNN? When I was there, the threat was very real.

 

[groupergenius]

Why is it that you think the war in Iraq was started becuase of Al Queda and 9-11?
I know for a fact that we did not go to war with Iraq because of Al Queda.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Huh?? Is that what I said?? Show me where I said that.
Look at the quote I used of yours-and the quote you used on that post.
It was about attacks on US soil. I never said anything about war response for 9-11. But I realize that the talking point tactics you are using is very typical. Put words in other mouths to try to validate your ideaology.
Sounds very MoveOn to me.

Wait a minute here... I was talking about the increased security as a result of 9-11 and not the war on Iraq. And you quoted me and stated, "Now we have a Prez who takes the stuff serious. Now we have a Prez who is not afraid to do something about it." Sounds to me like you were talking about a response to 9-11.
Just in the spirit of Ozmar... Grouper the back-peddler.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by crimzy
By this logic then I could argue that a single terrorist, who was not a terrorist prior to 2003, was made so by the war in Iraq. Pretty speculative argument, don't you think?
But you say the terrorists are growing exponentially because of our involvment in Iraq.

Which way is it?

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Jovial
How do you know that there wasn't any Al Queda in Iraq at the time Crimzy? CNN? When I was there, the threat was very real.
Can you verify that Al Queda was in Iraq before the war? All of the reports that I've read have stated otherwise. No one has ever even argued that Al Queda was in Iraq pre-2003. The intel that has come out has stated that Saddam and Al Queda were at odds. Were they all wrong?

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Wait a minute here... I was talking about the increased security as a result of 9-11 and not the war on Iraq. And you quoted me and stated, "Now we have a Prez who takes the stuff serious. Now we have a Prez who is not afraid to do something about it." Sounds to me like you were talking about a response to 9-11.
Just in the spirit of Ozmar... Grouper the back-peddler.
I was talking about National Security here at home. And who is Ozmar???
Show me and everybody else where I referenced 9-11 in that post. Never assume.
No back peddling here amigo.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
I don't see how you can attribute this to the war in Iraq. Have you forgotten that 6 years ago there was this minor thing here in New York and Washington D.C.? Do you think that the events of 9-11 changed our security measures on suspected terrorist targets slightly? Take a look at the events around the globe... terrorist attacks are on the rise. We haven't had any here because security has increased many times over again. How can you overlook something so obvious? Maybe because it helps your argument to suggest that the Iraqi war is wiping out terrorism. Helps your argument but completely untrue....
After 9-11 we changed our National policy. President Bush declared that we were at war. NATO enacted their treaty with us and declared they were under attack. Prime Minister Howard did the same with our Pacific treaty (Aegis, I believe it's called).
I've traveled since 9-11. If you think security at the airport is what is stopping terrorists you're fooling yourself. I've seen it fail.
Now, I think we can all agree that Al Qaeda are human. Humans cant be in 2 places at once; Therefore, if we are fighting and killing them in Iraq that means they aren't all here.
Terrorist attacks are on the rise? Got some numbers to back that up? Take Iraq and Afghanistan out of the equation and post some numbers.

 

[jovial]

Originally Posted by crimzy
By this logic then I could argue that a single terrorist, who was not a terrorist prior to 2003, was made so by the war in Iraq. Pretty speculative argument, don't you think?
Since we cannot go back in time and change what is done, by arguing this you would only substantiate another reason to continue the war on terrorism. The threat created by the addition of more terrorists. Yes I know, we kill one terrorist and two more are created right? The problem with this logic its that it is a huge gamble to assume the insurgency will weaken at all if we leave. This was not the case in Viet Nam and isnt the case in Iraq, Ive said this many times, the fight must be taken to them. We cannot allow them to rest, ever.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
After 9-11 we changed our National policy. President Bush declared that we were at war. NATO enacted their treaty with us and declared they were under attack. Prime Minister Howard did the same with our Pacific treaty (Aegis, I believe it's called).
I've traveled since 9-11. If you think security at the airport is what is stopping terrorists you're fooling yourself. I've seen it fail.
Now, I think we can all agree that Al Qaeda are human. Humans cant be in 2 places at once; Therefore, if we are fighting and killing them in Iraq that means they aren't all here.
Terrorist attacks are on the rise? Got some numbers to back that up? Take Iraq and Afghanistan out of the equation and post some numbers.

A couple quick points before it's bottle time (not for me unfortunately)... (1) I do think that the heightened security has prevented more attacks. If you think that killing a bunch of muslims is keeping you safe, then I think it's you who's fooling yourself. (2) Al Queda is in much more than 2 places at once. They are all around us. Why do you think that an attack cannot occur just because there are Al Queda forces in Iraq? As it's been stated already, it only takes one person to carry out an attack. Are you naive enough to think that every potential terrorist is in Iraq? (3) Finally, I have posted the numbers of terrorist attacks before. If you're interested in seeing them then you could find them easily. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you read my posts before when the verification was given.

 

[jovial]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Can you verify that Al Queda was in Iraq before the war? All of the reports that I've read have stated otherwise. No one has ever even argued that Al Queda was in Iraq pre-2003. The intel that has come out has stated that Saddam and Al Queda were at odds. Were they all wrong?
Can you prove that no part of Alqueda or any faction was there pre-2003?... of course not, your basing this on what? Cmon Crimzy, you know how flawed intellegence can be? WMDs? The public will only see what the man wants us to see, you would not believe what remains classified. If you didn't have the need to know you wont know until it's de-classified, if ever. New sleeper cells and key level Al Queda operatives are discovered every day, they are discovered by actively hunting them down, intelligence never indicated that Saddam was hiding in a hole either, we found him through perserverence.
Have to turn in now, good night.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Jovial
Very eloquent way of completely dodging the question. I'll ask the same question again.
What happens when it's your building that gets hit, would you still prefer to do nothing?

OK. I'll send the question back to you? What do you expect me to do? Spend trillions of dollars fighting one faction in Iraq, when the one that would blow up the building I'm in, lives right around the corner from me? You have a single-minded logic where you think terrorism will end if we just take care of the one's in Iraq. HELLO! MCFLY!! IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!! I don't how to make it any clearer to you. There's no 'dodging' the question. It's a simple answer - wasting our money and troops lives in Iraq will not stop terrorism, nor will it keep one of the fanatical idiots from blowing up the building I'm in. I don't care if you kill 2,500 of them, or 25,000,000. Terrorism as we know it will never go away.