Is Iraq a battle front in the war on terror?

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by oddfellow4870, Aug 13, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    I agree with DaveNJ, again. Iran is now a major threat to U.S. interests.

    Thanks to ridiculous foreign policy and a mantra in the Bush White House to never, ever talk to anyone they don't like.

    Fine, don't talk to them. Too bad a whole lot of other folks are doing just that.
  2. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    All that seems like a very complicated way of ignoring the fact that what they have done by aiding our enemies in Iraq is an act of war. When Hezbollah attacked the US in Lebanon during the 1980s and we did nothing except pack up and leave, all we did was encourage the terrorists. AQ admits to having drawn inspiration from Hezbollah's success. Not to mention the fact that out of the two countries (Iraq and Iran), the case for war against Iran has been a better arguement for a long time. Also, when AQ attacked US soldiers, citizens, and interests abroad several times during the 90s we had more than enough reason to take the fight to them. Waiting only encouraged them to attack us at home again.

    So how does any of that not support the case for war against Iran? Or are we just too bogged down in Iraq to be consistent?
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2007
  3. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    This is all a matter of definition and focus

    We are in Iran's backyard. You can see the war as one thing (we are crusading to rid the world of terror as a method)

    OR

    You can accept what Bush originally said, which is that the war on terror is a war against all terrorists of international reach. This is a far more limited focus. Iran's supply of weapons to insurgents in Iraq is not an attack on our homeland. It is not an international attack.

    So if the war is to keep them from spreading their methodology to other nations and to keep them satisfied with their own theater of operations, I would hesitate to even be bombing Iran if they don't show signs of international designs. UBL issued a world wide Fatwa.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Iran said anything remotely close to this?
  4. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    Yup, it seems Iran has adopted the tactic: "Let's fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

    For the cheap price of a few thousand guns, grenades and artillery shells, Iran has not only tied down the world's mightiest military, it's made U.S. generals fearful to send U.S. troops out on regular neighborhood patrols.

    It's also certainly given the Bush administration pause to consider the horrendous casualties an invasion and occupation of Iran would generate.
  5. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Apparently Iran missed more than one day of class




    And I think someone forgot to give them the notes they missed on the object lessons of Iraq.

    (bolding added to Oddfellow's quote above and the text below for emphasis)

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070807/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


    [SNIP]

    The Iranian talks come as the U.S. military steps up accusations that Tehran is arming and training Shiite militants to attack American forces in Iraq.

    Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. second-in-command, said Sunday that rogue Shiite militiamen with Iranian weapons and training launched 73 percent of the attacks that killed or wounded American forces last month in Baghdad, nearly double the figure six months earlier.

    [SNIP]
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2007
  6. benisbig

    benisbig

    Messages:
    501
    Iran had their proxy, Hezbollah attack Isreal (basically America's proxy) last year. According to the NIE, if it's to be trusted, Hezbollah might be launching an attack against America. We'll see how that goes.

    The President's Iraq policy is a failure on so many levels. It's obvious we won't be able to quell the violence in Iraq and it's fledgeling democracy won't get off the ground. Iran, Syria and N. Korea got away with doing anything they wanted. AQ has had successful attacks in Europe and have rebuilt to there pre-9/11 capabilities.

    The message that is being recieved by America's enemies is one of weakness and inefficiency.
  7. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    No, they are not. But they are pretty obviously and actively assisting our attackers in Iraq. They are also defying the world community and developing nuclear weapons. Seems to me that if Iraq was intended for other countries to get the message "Don't screw with us" then Iran must have cut class that day.
  8. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Iran has not, to my knowledge, dispatched a terror cell to attack the United States. To some degree, I am sympathetic to their desire to be a world power as long as they behave and realize that if somebody sponsored by them attacks us, we will be dealing with a nation, not an underground movement and we will attack them as a nation.

    I am supportive of the Bush doctrine that we must go after terrorists of international reach, but it's a tricky call. The problem with Sadaam was always his ambition and his boldness, not necessarily his current military status. Iran is not a dictatorship, so their leaders are somewhat responsible to their people.

    The "don't screw with us" message applies to international operations and even if we withdraw from Iraq and the Shia from Iran wipe out every Sunni in the country and form a tight bond with Iraq, that's not a problem, unless they attack Isreal, one of our other allies or us. They may be willing to behave considering we have dispatched one of their long term foes.

    I think the idea of building a democracy In Iraq is on shaky ground. The best option may be to let the Shia do their thing. AQ is a Sunni based operation and funny thing is the Sunni in Iraq are starting to see the handwriting on the wall. If they are smart, they will support the existing government and throw AQ out.
  9. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    NP, and thanks for answering.

    The only problem I see is that the more you clamp down with a heavy hand, the more resentment and discontent grows, to the point where a fringe-group of revolutionaries (AQ) can morph into a very popular movement. The American Revolution probably wouldn't have happened (or wouldn't have happened when it did and the way it did) if England didn't clamp down so hard on the colonies. I mean, the last thing we need to be doing is confirming what everyone in the ME fears already, which is what they perceive as our imperialistic intentions.

    It would have been better to advocate reforms in the ME, to stop propping up the tinpots who wouldn't exist without our support. Put some leverage on them and tell them if they don't play ball with us and make some concessions for the good of their people they are finished. Yes, its a softer approach but it doesn't mean we can't carry the big stick too.

    Combine that with effective targeting of AQ cells, disrupting their plots and you cut out the cancer without destroying the body. Think surgical precision as opposed to blunt force.

    And do you really think the "Don't screw with us" message is getting through? Look at Iran. If anything they've become bolder.
  10. benisbig

    benisbig

    Messages:
    501
    Oddfellow, I'm corrected in my belief that it was President Bush who first linked Saddam with 9/11 in the minds of the sheeple of America. I knew most Americans were dumb but that poll shows the numbers are even more mind numbing than I thought.

    President Bush has stated why he attacked Iraq, he felt Saddam tried to kill his daddy!

    The problem with sending a message to the middle eastern, or any radicals, by invading Iraq is that we're going to lose there and the message is America won't win. Yeah Saddam is gone and if that was the only measure of success we'd have won. The idea that we're going to stop extremists by toppling a government is not going to work with those guys. People of European descent don't understand the mentality of the people of the middle east and even less so the extremists. The use of force has historically cowed the people of Europe but it motivates the middle-eastern people. With that in mind we can topple the regimes of Iran, Syria, knock out the Saudi's and the rulers of the UAE but we wouldn't be able to stop the spread of extremist ideologies.

    If the Administration's goal is to establish a base of operations away from America and Europe only to give the terrorists local targets in American military uniforms so they can say we haven't had an attack on the continental U.S. than that's just evil. Using American service members as targets to make a personal political gain is tantamount to treason.
  11. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    I have been to a number of political discussion sites where solutions to the war on terror have been sought. The most popular choice among those who trend left on most issues is that we just should not be in arab lands and that if we were not they would leave us alone.

    That doesn't mean my sample is representative.

    I'm pleading the 5th on naming anyone.
  12. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923

    Fair enough, now name those bloggers.
  13. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Common every day bloggers. Nobody prominent that I know of.
  14. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    You may be right. I think Bush attacked Iraq because it was left over business from the 90s and because we wanted to take an ME prize that would permanently alter the face of the ME. Who knows how serious the administration is about democracy? I think they want a permanent base.

    Afghanistan is a fine place to fight terror, but it doesn't make the point with all the tinpots in the ME that Iraq does. "Don't screw with us. You may be next" is a good message. Afghanistan doesn't do the job. I know that sounds frivolous, but the leaders of the nations of the ME must control their own terror elements. And they only respect power.

    Sorry about the quick subject change. Jut wanted to do a quick hit and run. Kinda busy right now. Not like the days when I could come here 6-8 times a day.
  15. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Sorry Crisco, but this worn out saw of the left is easily dispersed. This poll was taken 2 days after 9/11. The fact that the question was even on the poll shows the public's perception. The 78% number of those connecting Sadaam to 911 has never been higher than it was on that day, before Bush made ANY statements on the subject

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174941,00.html

    America Is In a Military Mood - TIME


    Friday, Sep. 14, 2001

    These are among the results of a telephone survey of 1,082 adult Americans taken September 13 for TIME and CNN by Harris Interactive.

    A near-consensus has developed that Osama bin Laden is personally involved in Tuesday's terrorist attacks. Seventy-eight percent believe this is very likely; 14% somewhat likely.

    A majority also associate Saddam Hussein with the attacks. 34% of those polled believe his involvement is very likely and 44% somewhat likely.

    Public support for military action is high — including the assassination of the responsible leaders (presumably bin Laden), air strikes, and a ground invasion. Only when it comes to massive bombings that might kill civilians is the public more divided in its views.

    85% favor strategic air strikes against isolated military targets.
    81% support assassinations of leaders responsible for the terrorism.
    55% favor a ground invasion "that would result in the loss of U.S. lives" (38% are opposed).
  16. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Not so fast. You are changing the subject awefully quick.

    I'm not concerned right now about what most people think. Do you agree with what I said? If not, why?
  17. benisbig

    benisbig

    Messages:
    501
    The public had no idea before President Bush linked AQ and Iraq in their minds. The general American public, sheeple, were led to that erroneous idea by the Bush Administration. The sad part is Vice President Cheney even reinforced it several times, at least once after the 9/11 Commission said they weren't linked.

    Many people don't see that invading these Middle Eastern countries isn't the solution. The Russians saw it in Afganistan. There's no way these guys are going to back down to force. You have to disarm their ability to recruit. We can invade Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Jordan. We're not going to be able to occupy them and rebuild them. When we leave the extremists are going to step up again.

    President Bush Sr. saw this and made the right choice in not toppling Saddam. President Bush Jr. didn't have this foresight or didn't have the advisors who told him there is no viable plan after Saddam falls. We're giving AQ and other Islamic terrorists a chance to do whatever they want. Look at Hezbollah's actions recently and Hamas. There is no fear of America's military because they know we can't do any more than tread water in Iraq.
  18. Wowie69

    Wowie69

    Messages:
    788
    I had said:

    You mean that war on terrorists that we created? You mean those terrorists that did not exist in Iraq before we attacked?

    Well according to the latest NIE, which is comprised of 16 intelligence agencies, YES, the war in Iraq is responsible for creating the AQ terrorist force that now exists in Iraq.

    So, YES, we did create the terrorist threat in Iraq.

    YES, our president has failed America in every way with this war:

    1) From it's needless start by the war-mongers that are leading this country: They WANTED this war. I can think of nothing more immoral than starting a war that was not needed.

    2) From failing to protect our soldiers with proper resources. We have the mightiest armed forces in the world and we are getting our asses kicked because our leaders have no brains. When our leaders say SUPPORT THE TROOPS it should go down as one of the greatest BS lines in history. They have destroyed our troops with their lack of support, their lack of compassion, their lack of intelligence. No soldier in WWII had to endure what our troops are suffering!

    3) We have created generations of kids that will give serious thought to becoming radicals to destroy us. Why? Because Bush wanted war with Iraq. We have fueled the fire that promotes hate. Remember, after 911, worldwide terror attacks were on the decline. After the start of the war with Iraq, the numbers have climbed steadily and quickly.

    4) Which means we are less safe than we were before the war started. Our fucking a-hole president is a criminal. He has betrayed America. He has returned to barbarism instead of using diplomacy to solve problems.
  19. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923

    Name some of those many liberals.
  20. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Most would agree with you. My current policy opinion is a re-deployment to whatever ME countries will take us with a sizable force left in Iraq. But btw, many liberals think we should just withdraw from all Arab lands and then, they will leave us alone.

    Think that would work?