Yes or No

[aseepish]

Sorry, my bad - I meant that the Iraqi insurgents are nationalistic. The foreign fighters certainly are ideological!

[Garland]

Well, you never know 'till you try. Git goin!

You've got a real big mouth...I bet it would make an interesting urinal.

[jubaji]

piss off, loser!

You've got a real big mouth...I bet it would make an interesting urinal.

I think you have the wrong forum, Mr. Kelly.

[Makkhatter]

The more focus terrorists place on fighting troops in Iraq, the less they're focused on attacking us at home. With their operational cycles shortened to current levels, these groups are dumping money, personnel, and resources into the fight in Iraq. That's money, personnel, and resources that won't show up here on US soil. The more costly it is for them over there, the less they have to work with over here.
Mike

This is why I support the war. I'll stay over here and fight insurgents as long as I have to, to keep them over here. I'm a soldier - I'm a much harder target than my family, and all the other people back home. Hell, the longer we can keep terrorists attacking us somewhere else, the better.

[jubaji]

This is why I support the war. I'll stay over here and fight insurgents as long as I have to, to keep them over here. I'm a soldier - I'm a much harder target than my family, and all the other people back home. Hell, the longer we can keep terrorists attacking us somewhere else, the better.

Thank you very much.

[cam427]

Cam, sanctions against a country are designed to create hardship so that the leaders of that country will start complying and end the hardship. Saddam was the one who didn't care about the Iraqi people, because rather than use his government money to take care of his people, or comply with the restrictions and conditions established by the UN, he simply redirected any and all aid to his elite class and let the rest of the people suffer.

I agree that Saddam did keep what little money was available for himself and the rich elite but this is just evidence that sanctions against dictatorships are ineffective at lowering their resolve. They were kept in place even when this became obvious for several reasons. The first is that a starving population is far more likely to try and overthrow the government and secondly keeping the country poor made it more difficult (if not impossible) for them to mass produce weapons or produce WMD (which are very expensive).

Also, as far as European cities being breeding grounds, they are. You're a few hours from the Edgeware Road section of London, yes? Next time you take a trip to London, take a look around the newsstands there. You may need an Arabic speaker to understand them. There are shelves and shelves of books preaching radical Islam, there are newspapers that back terror groups, and there are bookstores littered with anti-Western violent idealism. None of these books list publisher's offices. None list authors. And the various British Intelligence services have no idea (or no inclination to share with us) who's running the propaganda machines. It's a large scale movement, this terrorism against the West, and it happens right under your noses. I am vehemently against support for any organization like that, including the idiots who sent money to the IRA in your country. But don't try to deny that it doesn't happen there as well.

I agree that there are muslim extremists in London but muslim extremist groups also exist in the US, Australia, the Phillipines. They are everywhere. I think the statement "the EU is a breeding ground for terrorists" is unfair not because we do not have any, but because everyone has them. As to no one taking any action, the British government has started deporting non-british muslims if they are seen as extremists. The only fault I see is that they did nothing until they were attacked themselves (just like the US). Most people dont really care about things until it starts to effect them directly (sad but true).

As for invading other countries with horrible dictators at their helms, I agree, there are a lot of them out there who need their asses kicked. But America is already being criticized for trying to be the world's police, so what good would it do? Why doesn't the UK step up and go help some of those countries? I don't see them rushing in either, so before you label us as uncaring, look at your own as well. Some of us aren't swayed by the media assertion that we are at war for purely ethical reasons. I think we're doing the right thing by being there, but I know that's not the underlying cause of the war. We are at war for our national security, and for resources our country depends on (and yours too). I also do not think it is wrong to go to war over resources vital to your nation's survival. The UK has done it throughout history, even being the aggressor in many cases. Hell, they tried it here in "the Colonies." If you don't think that was a war for money, you're sadly mistaken. I do not believe it is wrong to go to war to protect your nation's interests abroad if diplomacy has failed - which it clearly had with Saddam. Saddam WAS indeed a supporter of terrorism, allowing safe haven to terrorists from both Syria and Iran, he provided money to terror organizations (which we've both already said we're against), and he provided weapons to terrorists fighting against Israel. He wasn't just a bad guy. He was a bona fide threat to our national interests and security abroad. Maybe he didn't have missiles that could reach us, but he had missiles that could reach our bases in the region. He supported many of the groups that liked to blow us up through material, financial, and political means. He allowed Syrians to cross through into Iran and vice versa, and he allowed them to run weapons and drugs between them. Not to mention the fact that we all (including your government and intelligence services) knew (not thought) he had chemical and biological weapons. The fact that we've found so few of them frankly worries me a lot more than if we had found them all. I suspect a great deal of them made it out of Iraq through Syria, and into the hands of God knows who. So to answer the question you posed to Jubaji, he was a threat to the US.

Firstly I am not saying that you are uncaring and should invade every country on earth. I am saying that it is not an honest argument to say you were trying to rescue the Iraqi's because you either do it or you dont rather than only doing it in one case.

I like your honesty about why you think you are there (I agree with you) and I also think that historically you have many precedents. For all of civilisation we have been invading weaker nations to steal their resources like the US is doing now. Do I see this as an issue, yes, I dont really like it as I thought we had moved on but I accept that it has hapenned and will continue to happen forever.

You say that you do not believe that it is wrong to protect your countries interests abroad (like the british tried to do in America). That is an interesting statement.

As to the Israel statement, as we all know, until recently it did not exist. It's creation was a disaster that have caused a never ending conflict. It was like me deciding to give the US to the Mexicans and them starting to evict you from your house so a mexican could have it. Do you think that would upset you? Do not read this as an anti-semetic statement. It is just fact.

I agree that we ought to keep discussing this stuff, because it's great for understanding different points of view. Jubaji is up to his normal tricks, getting everyone pissed off so they forget he's a poor neglected circus creature, but that's okay. Even though he's not putting up too many solid arguments for his side here, I have a feeling we agree on this topic. Please don't use that as evidence that I am wrong.

I will forget that you ever said this

Cam

PS: I had to edit out your smilies because there were too many on my post but that is all I edited (I dont like to edit "Quotes")

[cam427]

Actually, we weren't trying to drive the mainstream populace into overthrowing Saddam. We were working the coup angle with the Kurds, and no one had to starve them to do it. We might have avoided this whole war had Clinton had the backbone to follow through on ANYTHING he did regarding Iraq.

As for the moral and ethical "rescue" argument, does the fact that we have other national intersts in the area really take that much away from the fact that we did indeed liberate an oppressed people? I don't see anything at all wrong with saying "We're doing the right thing for the good of the Iraqi people" if it's true. So what if other reasons are equally true? I also don't see it as a criteria obligating us to go and wage wars for liberation in areas where we have no interests. In Iraq, we are fighting for things that make both America and Iraq stronger. We are building schools, hospitals, power plants, stock exchanges, and businesses. We have improved their economy to unbelievable levels. And we got rid of a guy who killed off over half a million Iraqi citizens simply because they didn't like him. Those are good, moral, ethical, and just things, right? How does achieving them take away from the national interests we're protecting for ourselves?

I guess it's like saying:

You're on the side of a pool when fifteen kids fall in. None can swim, and they all start to drown. You know all of the kids, but three of them are your own children. You only have time to save three people from drowning. Who do you save first?

I think anyone would save their own kids first, and then do everything they can to save the rest. No one wants to see any of them drown, but your concern for your own children is higher, right? Same with nations. If we adequately insure our own interests, then we'll have the money and the alliances needed to go and fight for "other people's kids." But you gotta start by strengthening the home front.

From my limited knowledge of the subject I know the Kurds had a stronghold in the north but there was never a question of them overthrowing Saddam. The Sunni's from teh south almost did but the insurrection was not supported by Bush Sr so it was quelled.

The Kids in the pool analogy was an interesting one. Yes I would save my own kids first (as everyone would) and I agree that you need to make yourself safe before you can worry about the safety of others (just like in the emergency instructions on an aircraft).

I agree that you (we) did liberate an oppressed people which is why I voted "Yes" on this poll, but I just think everyone needs to be more honest about the reasons (like you are doing).

[medic06]

Actually, we weren't trying to drive the mainstream populace into overthrowing Saddam. We were working the coup angle with the Kurds, and no one had to starve them to do it. We might have avoided this whole war had Clinton had the backbone to follow through on ANYTHING he did regarding Iraq.

As for the moral and ethical "rescue" argument, does the fact that we have other national intersts in the area really take that much away from the fact that we did indeed liberate an oppressed people? I don't see anything at all wrong with saying "We're doing the right thing for the good of the Iraqi people" if it's true. So what if other reasons are equally true? I also don't see it as a criteria obligating us to go and wage wars for liberation in areas where we have no interests. In Iraq, we are fighting for things that make both America and Iraq stronger. We are building schools, hospitals, power plants, stock exchanges, and businesses. We have improved their economy to unbelievable levels. And we got rid of a guy who killed off over half a million Iraqi citizens simply because they didn't like him. Those are good, moral, ethical, and just things, right? How does achieving them take away from the national interests we're protecting for ourselves?

I guess it's like saying:

You're on the side of a pool when fifteen kids fall in. None can swim, and they all start to drown. You know all of the kids, but three of them are your own children. You only have time to save three people from drowning. Who do you save first?

I think anyone would save their own kids first, and then do everything they can to save the rest. No one wants to see any of them drown, but your concern for your own children is higher, right? Same with nations. If we adequately insure our own interests, then we'll have the money and the alliances needed to go and fight for "other people's kids." But you gotta start by strengthening the home front.

Quite a few of our kids drowned right here in our backyard while our fearless leader enjoyed another 3 days of fun on his ranch.

[medic06]

Oh, I forgot. Brownie sure did a heck of a job . . . . .
Sorry but I didn't drink from that batch of Koolaid.

And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I heard that he is a nice guy with a good sense of humor. I"m sure he's the life of the party once he gets a few drinks in him. As far as all those duties, he's suppose to handle them or find competent people who can. He's the president and leader of this country

[BoarSpear]

Oh, I forgot. Brownie sure did a heck of a job . . . . .
Sorry but I didn't drink from that batch of Koolaid.

And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I heard that he is a nice guy with a good sense of humor. I"m sure he's the life of the party once he gets a few drinks in him. As far as all those duties, he's suppose to handle them or find competent people who can. He's the president and leader of this country

amen Bro If Bush is doing a good job, Id hate to see what they consider a bad job

[BoarSpear]

The Saigon-style pullout is something I mentioned in another thread, but BoarSpear told me I was full of it.

AAAIIIYYyyy....I said we should tell the UN we are pulling out in 90 days We removed the dickhead...we aint here to occupy...get some peace keepers in here and keep the peace or there will be civil war when we leave...then by god pullout...tell the UN do it or count us out of your little country club from now on...

I dont think we should have ever went in to IRAQ in the first place...now that we are there WE HAVE TO SEE IT THROUGH

If we cut and run we reinforce terrorist behavior...if we turn it over the UN, it takes the focus off the US, and puts it on the terrorist...

[BoarSpear]

And in the hands of the UN - a body which has already proven incapable of dealing with Iraq in any capacity. Bad call.

so the UN is a toothless tiger and isny good for anything? Then why are we members? If the ONLY teeth the UN has are American whats the point? I was a member of a UN multi national "peace keeping " taskforce in Beriut...

Two things we werent, toothless or UN controlled...but it made a nice excuse...hey we aint the USA..were UN

Oh yeah, Brewer and Bushs whole contention that fighting them over there was keeping us safe has been PROVEN to be bushlip...

Yes it seems Bush's little war on terror has made America more vulnerable...good job asswipe. (and all you asswipe Bush fans who supported the idiot are just as guilty)

Report: Intelligence assessment says Iraq war has worsened terrorist threat
Updated 9/24/2006 11:07 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print |
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Iraq war has contributed to an increased threat of terrorism, according to an intelligence assessment that has not lessened the Senate majority leader's defense of the U.S.-led invasion three years ago and occupation.

The classified assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, an intelligence official said Sunday. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is classified.

The report found that the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn. said he had not seen the classified report, which was completed in April, but said Americans understand the United States must continue to fight terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

"Either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it's going to be right here in this country," Frist said on ABC's This Week, echoing an argument that President Bush frequently makes.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement that the assessment "should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war."

"How many more independent reports, how many more deaths, how much deeper into civil war will Iraq need to fall for the White House to wake up and change its strategy in Iraq?"

Frist said Kennedy wants to "cut and run."

"I think — and the majority of the American people think — what it shows is that we've got to win," Frist said. "We've got to win this war on terror, wherever it is, and it's going to be fought overseas, or if we don't win there, it's going to be fought here in the United States."

As part of the overall strategy of combating terrorism, Frist also said he expects Congress to pass legislation this week that would set rules for the interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists. The president has pressured lawmakers to put it into law before adjourning for the midterm elections.

The legislation is the result of a compromise between the White House and holdout Republican senators who had disagreed over how far the U.S. should be allowed to go to get information from suspected terrorists. The bill lists acts that would constitute a war crime, including torture, rape, biological experiments and cruel and inhuman treatment.

Frist would not say whether the legislation would ban techniques that U.S. agents reportedly have used in the past, such as simulated drowning, cold cells, prolonged standing and sleep deprivation. He also said he did not know whether the bill would prevent prosecution of North Koreans, for example, if they captured Americans and simulated drowning, a technique known as "water boarding."

"I'm not going to comment on individual techniques," Frist said. "It helps the terrorists and the reason why it helps the terrorists who are going to come and try to assassinate us and people listening to us right now."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-24-us-iraq_x.htm?csp=34

[BoarSpear]

In my opinion, the UN us an outdated machine that we don't need anymore. They are toothless, and I think the only reason we're still members is because we helped in its early stages and people would throw unmitigated fits if we were to pull out. If they had any teeth, why didn't they slap us with some sanctions for our unilateral action against Iraq that they so vehemently disapproved of? They are a body of beaureacrats that not only needs the US but utterly depends on the US for their very exstence is why.

well then we should clean house ehh? kick those anti-gun commies right out of our perfect god loving nation...we wouldnt want the French to throw a fit would we? We already made them throw fits...we stay because were gonna need those UN troops to handle unruly American citizens in the future...True?...you know it is

[jubaji]

...we stay because were gonna need those UN troops to handle unruly American citizens in the future...True?...you know it is

Captain Spaceman rides again!

[BoarSpear]

Captain Spaceman rides again!

hello to you as well, dude love seen any more of your invisible aliens?