Why we are losing the war in Iraq...

[crimzy]

Just to reiterate again, for those who feel that we are safer now that the war is going on in Iraq... our National Intelligence seems to disagree:
From http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...el-chief-.html
U.S. Intel Chief: Tall Buildings and Mass Casualties Top AQ's Hit List
Share July 20, 2007 1:56 PM
Krista Kjellman Reports:
Chicago's Sears Tower and other iconic buildings in Seattle, Dallas and Los Angeles still top al Qaeda's target list in the U.S., according to the top U.S. intelligence official.
"Their intentions are mass casualties larger than 9/11 inside the United States," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said in an interview with the D.C. radio station WTOP. "A very large building. The Sears Tower, or some large building in Seattle or L.A. or Dallas."
McConnell also confirmed publicly what senior officials had told ABC News privately.
"In some cases they've got people positioned, more in Europe -- we suspect here in the United States, but we have no clear and compelling evidence they're in the United States," McConnell told WTOP.
ABCNews.com reported last week that senior law enforcement and intelligence officials had "multiple and credible" reports that an al Qaeda terror cell may be on its way to the United States or could already be in the country.

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Just to reiterate again, for those who feel that we are safer now that the war is going on in Iraq... our National Intelligence seems to disagree:
From http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...el-chief-.html
U.S. Intel Chief: Tall Buildings and Mass Casualties Top AQ's Hit List
Share July 20, 2007 1:56 PM
Krista Kjellman Reports:
Chicago's Sears Tower and other iconic buildings in Seattle, Dallas and Los Angeles still top al Qaeda's target list in the U.S., according to the top U.S. intelligence official.
"Their intentions are mass casualties larger than 9/11 inside the United States," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said in an interview with the D.C. radio station WTOP. "A very large building. The Sears Tower, or some large building in Seattle or L.A. or Dallas."
McConnell also confirmed publicly what senior officials had told ABC News privately.
"In some cases they've got people positioned, more in Europe -- we suspect here in the United States, but we have no clear and compelling evidence they're in the United States," McConnell told WTOP.
ABCNews.com reported last week that senior law enforcement and intelligence officials had "multiple and credible" reports that an al Qaeda terror cell may be on its way to the United States or could already be in the country.
That's all well and good, but you have to remember that every agency has an agenda of some sort (usually to increase their budget or influence). No one is going to come out and say that there are zero threats. And at this point, all they are is threats. Personally, I'm somewhat comforted that intelligence information like that is being obtained, which means that something can be done about it.
None of this really supports your argument against the war, either. Obviously, Al Queda attacked a large building before we were ever in Iraq, and as far as we know that target list has been around for a very long time. There's no way to conclude that any of that is a result of the war in Iraq.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
None of this really supports your argument against the war, either. Obviously, Al Queda attacked a large building before we were ever in Iraq, and as far as we know that target list has been around for a very long time. There's no way to conclude that any of that is a result of the war in Iraq.
Not exactly. You see the American people have been sold this bill of goods that we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism. However, the past several references that I've sited show that we are in as great, if not greater risk of terror attack since we started this war on terror. Ergo, we are losing this war.
Not only this, but now we are actually fighting against several different nations in Iraq, one of whom we know has nuclear capabilities, and was a sworn enemy of Iraq before we got there.

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Not exactly. You see the American people have been sold this bill of goods that we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism. However, the past several references that I've sited show that we are in as great, if not greater risk of terror attack since we started this war on terror. Ergo, we are losing this war.
Not only this, but now we are actually fighting against several different nations in Iraq, one of whom we know has nuclear capabilities, and was a sworn enemy of Iraq before we got there.
Then I have to go back to a question I asked earlier. What would you do about terrorism? The threat existed before 9/11, that's obvious. You make it sound like we should do nothing, because by your logic anything we do is going to create more terrorists and more hate. So, what would you do?
I haven't wanted to say this, but in a way you're right; we are losing. Losing because we're not fighting the real enemy: Religion. The sooner religion dies, the sooner the world will be a safer place. But until we decide to deal with the real problem, I'll settle for killing as many terrorists as possible.

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Not exactly. You see the American people have been sold this bill of goods that we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism. However, the past several references that I've sited show that we are in as great, if not greater risk of terror attack since we started this war on terror. Ergo, we are losing this war.
Not only this, but now we are actually fighting against several different nations in Iraq, one of whom we know has nuclear capabilities, and was a sworn enemy of Iraq before we got there.
I forget to add... Just because a government agency says we're at greater risk (like I said, they usually say these sorts of things to increase their budget and influnce) doesn't mean we really are. For proof of that, some of these suspected attacks are going to have to actually be carried out.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
...
Additionally, to your point that Al Queda are primarily in Iraq so we are safer everywhere else, you are ignoring the fact that our invasion of Iraq has created thousands of additional Al Queda members. Granted I can't verify this supposition. However to answer your question, I think the rise in Anti-American sentiment and sympathy for the fundamentalists has caused groups such as Al Queda to grow so much in numbers that they are much more of a threat now than they were pre-Iraq invasion.
Do you see a difference in attacks Pre 9-11 and post 9-11?
How can Al Qeada be more of a threat??? They are trying to wipe us out.
As you said, the recruiting claim is pure supposition. I propose people hate us. The Madrasas are cranking out terrorists... not our presence in Iraq.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
I found some interesting information...
Here is a list of terrorist attacks outside of Iraq in the PAST 1 WEEK ONLY!!! So we are winning the war on terrorism, huh? In fact there have been over 8000 terrorist attacks since 9/11..........
Crimzy, come on. Look at that list... Like we have anything to do with it? That proves nothing except that we live in a chaotic world.
Thailand, Somalia, India, Pakistan.. Can you name a decade when they didn't have civil unrest? Interestingly though, look at the mindset behind those attacks. Notice any similarities?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
This is not what Bush told the American public about this war. He was selling this "War on Terror" before there was any Al Queda in Iraq.
It's already been shown Saddam did support terrorists. It's also proven that Saddam failed to comply with UN resolutions.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by wanabebell
Bush had his mind made up before the inspectors were up
You say we are dodging questions
HOW do you feel with your rights being taken away???
You havent answered that have just dodged with another excuse
Bush probably was inclined to take out Iraq. After all, the former President had already bombed them to try to take out their "nuclear, chemical and biological" weapons.
If the only sacrifice I have to make in the war against terror is to have my phone calls to afghan caves monitored.... I think I can live with it.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Just to reiterate again, for those who feel that we are safer now that the war is going on in Iraq... our National Intelligence seems to disagree:....
Again Crimzy.. would they not want to attack those targets if we weren't in Iraq?
Also, I wonder if the Patriot Act or captured Intel in Iraq gave our Intel service this info.......

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
...
Not only this, but now we are actually fighting against several different nations in Iraq, one of whom we know has nuclear capabilities, and was a sworn enemy of Iraq before we got there.
Wait... what nations are we fighting in Iraq?
Careful how you answer here, as attacking our forces is an act of war and justifies military action against them...

 

[reefraff]

"The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:
Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.
Then, the connection:
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.
The senior intelligence officials who briefed reporters laid out the collaboration. "We knew there were fuzzy ties between [bin Laden] and the plant but strong ties between him and Sudan and strong ties between the plant and Sudan and strong ties between the plant and Iraq." Although this official was careful not to oversell bin Laden's ties to the plant, other Clinton officials told reporters that the plant's general manager lived in a villa owned by bin Laden."
"Ambassador Bill Richardson, at the time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, echoed those sentiments in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," on August 30, 1998. He called the targeting "one of the finest hours of our intelligence people."
"We know for a fact, physical evidence, soil samples of VX precursor--chemical precursor at the site," said Richardson. "Secondly, Wolf, direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation--the al Shifa factory was part of that. This is an operation--a collection of buildings that does a lot of this dirty munitions stuff. And, thirdly, there is no evidence that this precursor has a commercial application. So, you combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear cut case."
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintvon.htm

 

[reefraff]

Iraq al Qaeda Ties
Even after gaining full access to the country following the invasion of Iraq the best the 911 commission could say was that known contacts between government agents of Iraq and members of al Qaeda "didn't appear to have resulted in a collabrative relatsionship" Even having full access they weren't willing to say there was absolutly no relationship.
Iraq known to be looking for ways to make terrorist style attacks on US intrerests after the 9-11 attacks
"MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.
The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday"
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...ussia.warning/
Iraq openly supported terrorists
"CBS) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in505316.shtml
It's common knowledge that Iraq was openly paying the families of successfull Palestenian suicide bombers But there was more behind the scenes.
"WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...iraq-wtc_x.htm
"Saddam Hussein attempted to manipulate the typical oil allocation process in order to gain influence throughout the world," Mark L. Greenblatt, a counsel for the Senate panel's permanent subcommittee on investigations, said in prepared testimony.
"Rather than giving allocations to traditional oil purchasers, Hussein gave oil allocations to foreign officials, journalists, and even terrorist entities, who then sold their allocations to the traditional oil companies in return for a sizable commission."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...ime_made_213b/
How much more was going on we didn't know about?
So before the war:
We knew Iraq had at a minimun the ability to make Chemical weapons, NOBODY DOUBTS THAT. They produced and used the weapons in the past. They couldn't unlearn how to make them.
We knew Iraq had contacts with the terrorist group that hit us on 9-11.
We had intellegence that was even backed up by anti war Russian president Vladmir Putin that Iraq was looking for ways to make terrorist style strikes on the US.
Iraq was both openly and secretly supporting terrorists
I think it was pretty reasonable to consider Iraq a serious threat to the United States.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
1. Our economy is stronger than ever. The deficit is an issue, but let's not forget that it was a Republican Congess that balanced the budget. Also let's not foget that we were in a recession in 2000. We also were not at war.
2. Israel is a Democracy. They are in the same region. I'm fairl certain Turkey also has a Democratic form of government.
3. My argument in this thread is that we're winning and we're keeping Al Qeada's collective foot nailed to the floor. The can't win in Iraq and they can't afford to withdraw for fear of Democracy succeeding. Al Qeada has not won a single battle in Iraq. The tribal leaders are beginning to turn against them. Many areas of Iraq are stable and even prospering.
The direction, in my mind, is simple. Keep killing Al Qeada. What is the
alternative? Bring all of our troops home and wait for the next attack?
Our economy is not stronger than ever.
For starters, you can not include Israel as an example because everyone in the middle east dislikes Israel. Second, Turkey is not a good example either because I believe they have like a 50/50 Christian and Muslim population.
We can continue to kill Al Queda, however they will continue to recruit soilders...killing is not the solution... it fuels their fire and hatred for us more. I don't think war is the answer to this problem because as long as they view us as their enemy, they will continue to fight us.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by wanabebell
Bush had his mind made up before the inspectors were up
You say we are dodging questions
HOW do you feel with your rights being taken away???
You havent answered that have just dodged with another excuse
What rights? Personally, I haven't seen any of My rights taken away. Sure if I want to have a private conversation with a terrorist in Iran. But I haven't had any problems. I look very arab. I had people following me around asking where was from after 9-11. I have flown a dozen times since then, and haven't even been randomly taken out of line and searched.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Our economy is not stronger than ever.
.
As this happens to be my area of study, It isn't the strongest economy ever, it is still very robust. There are some indicators that would indicate that it is no longer going to continue its rapid growth. But I would say that it is still better than when the media was declaring it a few years ago.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Just out of curiousity, what makes you think you know what the people there want, think or need?
I doubt that a majority of Germans and Japanese in 1940 wanted us in their countries, but by 1945 we were. And now they are far better off for it.
What makes you think you know what they want? Regardless if its better for them or not, they have to accept the idea, which they are not willing to do. The middle east (Islam in that part of the world) is against anything western. They believe our ideals and morality are evil. So why would they want a "western government", which in many ways perpetrates the things they are against. Despite our possible good intentions, why do we think we can change a way of life that is 1000's of years old? Why do we always try to change people/regions to make them more like us? I don't think our style of government is essentially the best way to do things, is it possible that there could be a better way?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
For starters, you can not include Israel as an example because everyone in the middle east dislikes Israel. Second, Turkey is not a good example either because I believe they have like a 50/50 Christian and Muslim population.
.
So what you are saying is that muslims are unable to have a form of self-government?
Why not?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
What makes you think you know what they want? Regardless if its better for them or not, they have to accept the idea, which they are not willing to do. The middle east (Islam in that part of the world) is against anything western. They believe our ideals and morality are evil. So why would they want a "western government", which in many ways perpetrates the things they are against. Despite our possible good intentions, why do we think we can change a way of life that is 1000's of years old? Why do we always try to change people/regions to make them more like us? I don't think our style of government is essentially the best way to do things, is it possible that there could be a better way?
Once again, if they were soooo against this notion why would soooo many of them have voted? In the face of the danger involved?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
It's already been shown Saddam did support terrorists. It's also proven that Saddam failed to comply with UN resolutions.
Well, shouldn't we have followed proper protocal and let the UN go in?