Why is Everyone so Against the War?

[groupergenius]

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?
Isn't that the same Intel gathering group that said Saddam had WMD's? You didn't believe that part.
And I believe your right. Saddam did not like Al Queda because he couldn't control them.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Thought you might enjoy this..
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official. [...] [NYT permalkink]
The Washington Post on the NIE and the threat of terrorist attacks:
The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.
Cool. Thanks. This makes a lot of sense. When you kick over an anthill, you get an immediate surge of ants. It makes sense that our agressive tactics would initially cause a surge of resistance among the islamic world. Over time, though, we'll hopefully see this tendency reduce.
One should keep in mind, also, that our intelligence service isn't always correct in their reading of the global situation. We should learn from the past 6 years that our intelligence services are not nearly as competent as we would like (and should expect) them to be.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Now I need to know - which drugs are you takin, cause I want some just like it! You are living a hugh fantasy if you honestly think you can completely wipe out every terrorist (read: islamofascismist) in the world. The Nazis were easy to quell because they lived essentially in one part of the world (Europe, Germany specifically). These terrorists you fantasize about making extinct, are located in virtually every little country in the world (mainly in every Middle East country). You say they are "radical fundamental muslims (fortunately not representative of the majority of muslims) who seek to impose their view of sharia on the world, through force more often than not." Why do you feel this belief is what caused a group of them to crash 4 planes into US soil? I think your definition of a terrorists is quite vague and incomplete. There's more to it than just a disdain for anyone that doesn't believe in their 'sharia'. If that were the case, they wouldn't just be targeting Democratic-based countries (US, England, Germany, Italy). Why don't you hear of terroristic attacks by these groups in China, Korea, or Russia? I doubt they follow sharia or whatever you think that drives them to do what they do. You can just keep "killing al the terrorists you can find", but I guarantee it's impossible to find them all.
Thank you,
Rudedog40 the Realist
Read: The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright.
Study our enemy and learn what they believe and what motivates them. That will help you understand what we're up against.
Ozmar the Scholar

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Sounds to me you need to pack your bags and join MSGMAC47 on his illustrious trip to the Muslimland. Go get em' Patton! By the way, what is a "murderous anti-liberal ideology."? You talking about me, or the terrorists you blindly believe you can erradicate completely? Be a Muslim? So you think if we bail out of Iraq tomorrow, we'll all be wearing turbans and riding camels the next week? LOLOL. Just make sure your 'collective resources' don't include me or my kids. And sorry, but you're far from the majority in this argument.
Good idea. I would if I could. I deeply honor and am grateful to those men and women who can and do serve in our military.
A "murderous anti-liberal ideology" is one which denies the tenets of Wester liberalism (i.e., freedom of conscience, pluralism, tolerance) and promotes murder to achieve its domination. I'm talking about the terrorists. The ones that I rationally believe we can ultimately defeat and marginalize. I don't blindly believe we can erradicate them completely, any more than we have completely erradicated nazism or racism.
The islamists want me to be a muslim, or die. (And even more to the point, to submit to their vision of islam - they wouldn't be happy with moderate, mainstream muslims in Western society either.) I don't want to do either, so I oppose them.
I think that if we bail out of Iraq, we'll witness unconscionable tragedy and human suffering. Terrorists and enemies of America will be emboldened by their victory, and America's prestige and influence in the world will be diminished. Our allies will be demoralized, and less likely to help us or trust us in the future. Our nation will be reduced; we'll become less powerful and less able to secure the rights and freedoms of our own citizens.
If you're an American, than our collective resources do include you and your kids. And I am in the majority - at least I was as of the last election. Nov 2008 we'll find out if I still am. I hope, for all our sakes, that I am.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Racism isn't as pronounced as it once was but it is certainly still an issue in our country.
I do agree that the children are the ones we need to try to change but that change is hard when we are killing the fathers, uncles, brothers and friends. On top of that, there are now so many channels for terrorist organizations to use to recruit new members and I think we are at a serious disadvantage. This is a world wide problem and you can not confine it to the middle-east anymore, especially when we are waging what the rest of the world would consider an unjust act of war.
Many of the ones we are fighting are teenagers and children...

 

[ozmar]

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.
Fortunately, our "only reason for keeping American troops in Iraq" is not to kill "all" terrorists.
The pro-war side seems to have a much more realistic and nuanced understanding of the issue. Its a complex situation, and no one (that I've seen) is arguing that "the only terrorist that could do something destructive against the US is currently fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan". We certainly recognize that "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", but that doesn't mean that hunting them down is a bad idea.
Think about capturing criminals. We can't possibly catch 'em all. Yet we still try to do it. Why? Because we realize that getting as many as we can is better than none at all. Because we realize that it has a deterrant effect. Because we believe (correctly, in my opinion) that we have less crime overall when we agressively police and punish criminal behavior.
The same applies globally for terrorism.

 

[darthtang aw]

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.
Hmmmm...interesting. I can rephrase history as well and reach the same conclusions as you.
There were no Germans in those planes that hit Pearl Harbor. 100% of the kamikazes were Japanese along with the emperor of Japan himself. There were no Japanese in Germany at that time or even in Europe.

 

[rylan1]

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?
This is what I was saying, because Al Queda is/was a threat to him. He did not want them trying to come in and take him out of power, because he was not a hard core radical. There were many attempts by people there to take him out, and he eliminated them even if it was only water cooler talk. Saddam had a grip over this country, now that he is no longer there... look at all the violence that has occured that is directed towards the Iraqi people. There are 2 situations going on there... the battle b/w Sunni and Shi'ite and the battle with Al Queda vs Iraqi people and USA.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Economic principles do not apply here. Sure, you can kill the one terrorist but through his death he can become a martyr to many more and his death can have a much larger impact...this individual died for their religious convictions.
I am happy to help any terrorist die for their religious convictions.

Originally Posted by Jmick
Also, with technology today it is soo much easier for them to spread their messages to the young people of the middle-east and the other Muslim areas of the world and using these martyrs can be a powerful tool.
In addition, when people see their family, friends, neighbors, ect die they tend to get angry, not scared (at least that would be my reaction, not sure what kind of person you are).
Glad you mentioned that: state-run television in Palestine features children's programs aimed at brainwashing children into hating the Jews. We need to be aware of this and do what we can to oppose that kind of religious and ethnic bigotry.
Originally Posted by Jmick
Mark my words, as long as they have the funds they will NEVER run out of new recruits.
Then we should also try to cut off their funds.
Originally Posted by Jmick
I think that a lot of the people here who are pro-war and harp on our need to be there do so because it really creates a false sense of security for them. They see us killing the enemy and taking action and this gives them a false sense of security.
It does give me a sense of security, but I don't think it is false.
Originally Posted by Jmick
Then, there are others who are able to grasp a more full scope of the situation and see it at a larger scale and not as a black and white issue. Inevitably, we are doing far more harm then good. This is a war we can not win; we are losing our most precious resource (the young people of our country) to a futile effort that is doomed to fail. We are creating more hatred, more terrorists, more funding for the terrorist groups and a less stable region. How long till Americans are completely despised by the rest of the Western World?
BTW, do people commit crimes in the name of Jesus before they go to prison or do they go to prison because they are criminals? Your analogy is terrible.
What? What does that have to do with it? Very few people commit crimes in the name of Jesus. And when they do, we punish them. They do go to prison because they are criminals. What the heck are you talking about?
Ozmar the Confused

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Just in the spirit of Ozmar... Grouper the back-peddler.
Where have I back-peddled? Please enlighten me. All of my posts are saved here, so you should be able to easily provide an example if I have contradicted myself or backed away from my previous arguments.
I would really appreciate the correction. I am not aware of any contradictions so far... But I am, of course, human and may have made some mistakes. If I did, I would love to be corrected so I can fix 'em.
Ozmar the Lover of Correction

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
This is what I was saying, because Al Queda is/was a threat to him. He did not want them trying to come in and take him out of power, because he was not a hard core radical. There were many attempts by people there to take him out, and he eliminated them even if it was only water cooler talk. Saddam had a grip over this country, now that he is no longer there... look at all the violence that has occured that is directed towards the Iraqi people. There are 2 situations going on there... the battle b/w Sunni and Shi'ite and the battle with Al Queda vs Iraqi people and USA.
Saddam was a good guy???? He killed his own people indiscriminatly.
Heck he gassed and killed at least 100,000 Kurds in one day. If Bush started killing off everyone who opposes him, we would all get along better, right?

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Saddam was a good guy???? He killed his own people indiscriminatly.
Heck he gassed and killed at least 100,000 Kurds in one day. If Bush started killing off everyone who opposes him, we would all get along better, right?
True. Fewer people have died in Iraq during the chaos of our invasion than died in Iraq under the stability of Saddam's regime.
And many (hopefully most) of the deaths in our war have been of bad guys: we shouldn't count them in casualty figures, except as benefits. We want to raise their body count! Undoubtedly most of the casualties of Saddam's regime were innocent - certainly we presume their deaths were unjustified.
Would you like a reductionist argument? Here's what I tell my daughter (she's 6): Killing the bad guys is a good thing. Your uncle serves in our military. They're the good guys. They go over to Iraq to kill the bad guys and make sure they can't do bad things to us over here.
Its simplistic, but true.

Ozmar the Good Daddy

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Ozmar
True. Fewer people have died in Iraq during the chaos of our invasion than died in Iraq under the stability of Saddam's regime.
And many (hopefully most) of the deaths in our war have been of bad guys: we shouldn't count them in casualty figures, except as benefits. We want to raise their body count! Undoubtedly most of the casualties of Saddam's regime were innocent - certainly we presume their deaths were unjustified.
Would you like a reductionist argument? Here's what I tell my daughter (she's 6): Killing the bad guys is a good thing. Your uncle serves in our military. They're the good guys. They go over to Iraq to kill the bad guys and make sure they can't do bad things to us over here.
Its simplistic, but true.

Ozmar the Good Daddy
Didn't you just say in a post above how poor our intel is? How can you be certain that there are not a lot of bad guys here and we are safe? Lol, what about our own home grown nut jobs, Imo, they are the ones that pose the greatest threat.
Again, you are deluded into a false sense of security...

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Saddam was a good guy???? He killed his own people indiscriminatly.
Heck he gassed and killed at least 100,000 Kurds in one day. If Bush started killing off everyone who opposes him, we would all get along better, right?
I never said this, and I don't believe that to be the case... All I am saying here is that his actions demostrate that there was purpose behind his killings, they were not just for the "fun of it" he did this to keep himself in power... regardless of the reasoning it is evil. But my point is to show that he and Al Queda has different agendas and their very presence in his country would be reason for him to kill them also because they would jeopardize his authority.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Ozmar
True. Fewer people have died in Iraq during the chaos of our invasion than died in Iraq under the stability of Saddam's regime.
And many (hopefully most) of the deaths in our war have been of bad guys: we shouldn't count them in casualty figures, except as benefits. We want to raise their body count! Undoubtedly most of the casualties of Saddam's regime were innocent - certainly we presume their deaths were unjustified.
Would you like a reductionist argument? Here's what I tell my daughter (she's 6): Killing the bad guys is a good thing. Your uncle serves in our military. They're the good guys. They go over to Iraq to kill the bad guys and make sure they can't do bad things to us over here.
Its simplistic, but true.

Ozmar the Good Daddy
Didnt these mass killings happen in the 80's? which was a long time ago... why now overthrow his gov't... We should have completed the job in 1990 if this was our reasoning for going after him...
And I hear everyday about mass killings in Iraq... 75 dead, 12 dead, recent mass graves found, 36 dead, 45 dead, etc...etc...
Then I hear the police are not doing the job,
Government is dysfuntional
Gov't on vacation for 30 days
Leaders assinanted
Police station bombed
etc..

 

[rylan1]

The Presidential Address.... didn't listen... but heard critiques...
Sounds like Bush is trying to pass/authorize new orders in regards to this conflict that would place our military in Iraq just like we are in Korea and Germany... so that any president afterward can not bring them home... We've been in those places for 40-60 years. Do we want our soilders and the goverenment commited to Iraq for the next 40 years?

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Ozmar
Where have I back-peddled?
Ozmar the Lover of Correction
I didn't say you back peddled, I was talking about Grouper.
Ozmar the ... should have read the post a little more carefully (doesn't seem to fit).

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Didn't you just say in a post above how poor our intel is? How can you be certain that there are not a lot of bad guys here and we are safe? Lol, what about our own home grown nut jobs, Imo, they are the ones that pose the greatest threat.
Again, you are deluded into a false sense of security...
I do agree that our intel is poor, and not as good as we should like it to be. I think we ought to try to fix it. (We need creative leaders who are willing and able to tackle this problem.)
I can't be certain that there are not a lot of bad guys here, and I don't think we're truly safe. I do think we're safer, mostly because we're keeping the enemy more focused on their troubles in the mid-east. Our increased security measures certainly contribute (although some of them seem less helpful), but there are things we could be doing better there as well. (For example, profiling for likely terrorist suspects: it serves no one to frisk Al Gore on a commercial flight.) I think the relative rarity of successful attacks in the US points to our increased safety: it wouldn't be hard for a determined villain to blow up a crowded graduation ceremony or mall, yet it hasn't happened. We must be doing something right (or have been very lucky) (or both).
Our home grown nut jobs are not nearly as concerning as nut jobs (home grown or not) with a worldwide network of support and an ideological basis for their terrorism.
I believe that you are deluded concerning the threat levels of different groups of anti-social criminals. Islamofascist terrorists are the biggest problem in the world today.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Didnt [Saddam's] mass killings happen in the 80's? which was a long time ago... why now overthrow his gov't... We should have completed the job in 1990 if this was our reasoning for going after him...
1. That we didn't do it in 1990 is not an argument for not correcting that past mistake in 2003.
2. Saddam's atrocities is not our only (or even primary) reasoning for the 2003 invasion. It certainly was part of the calculus, but so were many other factors.
Originally Posted by Rylan1
And I hear everyday about mass killings in Iraq... 75 dead, 12 dead, recent mass graves found, 36 dead, 45 dead, etc...etc...
Then I hear the police are not doing the job,
Government is dysfuntional
Gov't on vacation for 30 days
Leaders assinanted
Police station bombed
etc..
No one is saying it's easy. It is a very difficult job, and we've made mistakes and suffered setbacks. We are saying that it is necessary, worthwhile, and possible.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
The Presidential Address.... didn't listen... but heard critiques...
Sounds like Bush is trying to pass/authorize new orders in regards to this conflict that would place our military in Iraq just like we are in Korea and Germany... so that any president afterward can not bring them home... We've been in those places for 40-60 years. Do we want our soilders and the goverenment commited to Iraq for the next 40 years?
Yes, I think we do. It would protect our allies agains the gutless whims of possible Democratic administrations who might bow to elite world opinion rather than sticking with our national commitments.