War on Terror

R

randersonabq

New member
Perhaps I am missing something, indeed I hope I am, but
I fail to see any link between our involvement in Iraq and a war on terror.
I sometimes think that our involvement in Iraq is producing more terrorists rather than controlling terrorism.
Our action in Afghanistan against Al Queda is another story and is entirely appropriate.
We are all influenced by our experiences. I am of the Vietnam generation,I spent two years off the coast of Vietnam in the South China Sea as a young naval officer. I fear we are entering a war that will be seen in the future as a waste of lives and resources; another Vietnam.
I would like to believe we are in Iraq for a good reason and I am willing to be convinced. But I need logic, not emotion.
 
There were three possible rationales for Iraq:

1. WMDs - oh, well. Some folks still think they are there somewhere.

2. Bush had some Freudian crappola going on with his dad over Gulf War I - perhaps.

3. A geopolitical theory that goes as follows, based on a need to stop future 9/11s:

a. The Middle East produces terrorists because of a failed Islamic culture and tyrannical religious and/or autocratic goverments.

b. Iraq seemed to be a relatively secular place that if freed from Saddam would welcome our type of democracy and become with just a little difficulty a free and stable country.

c. That would be a role model for the rest of the Middle East and lessen terrorism. It was assumed that democracy naturally spreads - a theory without proof in nonwestern cultures.

d. There is a fixed pool of terrorists and that by drawing them to Iraq and killing them, we deplete them. Or we can kill at a rate that exceeds production.

The countervailing theory is that:

a. Iraq was not waiting for our democracy but just a bunch of local groupings that were suppressed by Saddam. We totally missed the cultural nuances

b. On their own, they value Sharia and Islam more than democratic ideals.

c. The drive of Islamic terrorists is to get us out the Middle East and we being in Iraq is more of an incentive than not to produce more terrorists.

d. The production of terrorists across the Middle East is spurred by Iraq and exceeds our ability to deplete them. The increased number will spread to the rest of the world as happened with the Afghan fighters after the Russians split.

What is going to happen is just an unknown.
 
I fail to see any link between our involvement in Iraq and a war on terror.
Click to expand...
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. ..."
gwb 9-21-01
Probably just because our CinC needed to keep kicking terror-sponsor/harborers thereof types booty and felt that Iraq was next in line after the Taliban.
I really think that our Pres has/had Iran in his sights as well and if we would have stabalized Iraq sooner we'd be in Tehran now, doing the thing we're doing in Baghdad instead... but who really knows?
If it would have worked, and quickly, we'd all being singing his praises... well maybe not all... ;)
If he would have done nothing and another terror attack occured here within the US, his vilification would know no bounds... but wait... never mind :rolleyes:
 
Obviously, President Bush pushed for it to Congress and the American people some time after 9/11... But, at least from what I have read, inside the cabinet, Paul Wolfowitz was one of the big drivers, and had been advocating for preemptive attacks on Iraq prior to 9/11 (for years). Then when 9/11 came along this provided some cover for the desire to do that.

Wolfowitz was in the Bush I cabinet as well, and was always upset that we didn't invade Iraq and depose Saddam in Gulf War I. He is also a staunch advocate for Israel, and believed Saddam was a threat to Israel. He is the archtypical NeoCon, and wrote papers advocating a new doctrine of preemptive war long before we did it. Apparently, he is also very clever and influential. I suspect nowadays, he's a little less influential though. I don't think Wolfowitz was the only reason we went in... I do think his presence was a key influence in the decision though - it's what he always wanted.
 
Quote:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Quote:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Quote:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Quote:
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Quote:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Quote:
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
 
ah, the Persian Incursion. can't get enough of this issue

This is how I see it: Saddam is a nasty guy. Very mean, very bad, all around douchebag. Big Bush kicked his rear on live TV but didn't finish the job. Little Bush wanted to finish the job Daddy couldn't pull off.

Bin Laden is still out there. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq...that's all I hear about in the news. Where's Osama? I know there are still people stationed in Afghanistan but I don't believe we should've started anything until that job was finished. Bush failed.

WMDs. Whoop de frakkin' do. They have WMDs, they have WMDs, they have WMDs. We're sure they have WMDs. We have proof they have WMDs. Or not...

There's still no proof, there's still nothing to show for it. Why are we there? If they wanted a democracy they would've fought for it themselves. Rumsfeld himself told us in June (or was it July?) that out of the 107 Iraqi units being trained only three had meet the level one standards.

Now whether or bringing "democracy" to Iraq was a good thing has yet to be seen. But I highly doubt the right people are running this thing if that's the kind of progress being made. I think the problem is that for some reason our government thought they could resolve two thousand years of religious conflict in the matter of a couple months. :confused: o_O


I just wish they would've finished the job they told us they were going to do. Where are the "evil doers" that hijacked the planes? Did the Patriot Act help in any way? Why the hell are we helping Israel?

I dunno, maybe this was the right thing and maybe it wasn't. I guess we'll find out in a few years when we can look back on it with 20/20 hindsight. But I still think the wrong guy is in charge. Why do we have troops in other countries when the whole point of the military is to defend our country?
 
Last edited:
Little Bush wanted to finish the job Daddy couldn't pull off.
Click to expand...
Well, the Iraqis never stopped us militarily - they weren't up to that - the US leadership at the time decided it wasn't wise to continue.

Here is an excerpt discussing that decision from a book coauthored by George Bush senior and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep', and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... Would have have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome.
Click to expand...

At least at that time, I think we would have had a stronger justification for doing it than we did in 2003.
 
My history is a little hazy so correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to be giving out false info. One difference between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq is that Ho Chi Minh asked the U.S. for help in overthrowing a government that was bad for the people of Vietnam. We declined b/c it didn't fit with our political agenda in defeating communism. The U.S created that enemy, much like Fidel Castro. However Sadam is more like Hilter than Ho Chi Minh. He was a ruthless dictator, not a freedom fighter trying to save his country. We may or may not have been warranted in invading. But most soldiers that have actually toured in Iraq would say that most Iraqies are glad that we are there.
 
I would imagine that Iraq will be a republic not a democracy. The United States of America is not even a democracy, technically. Because the citizens don't actually get together and make laws ect. We elect representative to do the governing for us, that's a Republic. The problem is that this type of government spends alot of time spinning its wheels bc the bicameral legislation branch is constantly arguing with eachother. I would imagine they will use the British Parlamentry Unitary system bc the represenatives are solely responsible for their actions (nobody to blame). Thats why 95% of the worlds 147 countries use this system, not the American Federal system.
 
I actually contradicted myself. First I said Iraq would be a Republic then I said it would be a Partimentry Unitary system. What I meant was if they adopt the American Federal system they would be a Republic, not a Democracy. However they will probably abopt the Parlimentry Unitary system.
 
well lets just say 3 months or so ago I was bashing the crap out of Bush. But after much research ive realized the war is worth it. Im being serious and revenge is a good enough reason for me. I don't like the idea of having been lied to in order to get revenge but im assuming the rotten democrats would have put up a hissy fit about going there for revenge.


Im democrat btw. But the party is going down the drains pretty quickly.
 
Revenge for what? If you say 9/11 - have we really gone into the places in the Middle East more responsible? Afghanistan was hit but Iraq was not were the hijackers were from or the source of most of the fundamentalist Islamic movement.
 
I don't like the idea of having been lied to in order to get revenge...
Click to expand...
Andrew, please re-read Wildcard's quotes on all the stuff the Dems were saying, and had said about Iraq and WMD. Both parties were singing the same song, dude. The UN was singing the same song. Hussein was either lying out his kazoots, making himself look formidable to the remainder of the Arab world for defying US/UN... or he had them. Moot point now. He was also doing other mean rotten things and saying mean rotten things, they were shooting at Coalition aircraft in the no-fly zones, etc. I heard GWB say (and I think he really meant it) that "He thought we'd find WMD there".

Revenge? Payback? Harboring known terrorists? Financing known terrorists?

These may or may not be justifiable reasons to invade and be forced to deal with the aftermath however we are able, or to PO our valuable allies France, Germany, China and Russia (The reason we sided against Ho Chi by the way, was due to our valuable ally France) but it is what happened.

How would you fight a War on Terror? Sit around peacefully, talking about what you'd do, throw a few cruise missles here and there and wait for more acts against your nation? Or take the fight to their neighborhood and see who crawls out of the woodpile lookin' for trouble?
Clinton took one approach. GWB is takin' the other.
 
There has not been a definitive link between Iraq and Al Queda. Al Queada was in Afghanistan. Definite link there. Think we should have cleaned up there first.....and taken more time to prepare for Iraq.

"The report, issued yesterday by the bipartisan commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, said that all relevant classified information that it reviewed showed that the contacts that took place between Iraq and al Qaeda officials never led to actual cooperation.

In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top