Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
Finally, do you honestly think AQ can be "defeated" with the force of arms, or within the next 20 years?

Absolutely yes.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by The diplomat

. I was saying that we need to persevere in Iraq despite our losses just as we persevered in WW2 despire our losses there. We did not cut and run in WW2. We should not cut and run in Iraq either.

Lets see WW2 began for the US when a nation-state openly attacked. The US faced high losses at points in the war but generally were advancing and winning. They never faced the war/not war situation that US troops face in Iraq.

Personally I don't advocate the US cutting and running. While I question if the Iraq war was a smart move, the US has to deal with the current reality. THat reality MUST be at least an attempt to leave a stable country behind. My problem is I don't realistically see how that will be accomplished.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
If you have such greater backing for your position, you ought not to need insults to make your point, especially when they were being civil, as Diplomat was. But you respond to him with content such as:

This of course is an illogical statment-civility and having better information are unrelated issues-that is one of style

That's an unprovoked ad hominem attack, and you show yourself to be an uncivil person by using it.

I am selectively civil.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Absolutely yes.

Lets break that down: By force of arms OR within the next 20 years.

I would say no to either of those, but certainly one is more plausible than the other.

[Pax]

Re: Re: Re: Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

Originally posted by The diplomat


In my opinion, the means you use to resist occupation determines if you are a terrorist. If you bomb a military intallation, you are not a terrorist. When you take a school hostage like the Chechen terrorists did in Russia, then you are a terrorists. When you take some civilian worker or missionary hostage and slice his head off, you are a terrorist.



Zarqawi has ties to Al Queda. There have been several reports of high ranking Iraqi intelligence officers and Al Queda members meeting in Baghdad prior to the war. We know terrorists were practicising highjacking airplanes at Salman Pak in nothern Iraq. We know Saddam was funding Palestinian suicide bombers. We know Saddam had WMD before Gulf War I, and the UN never fully accounted that all were destroyed. We know Saddam built missiles that exceeded the allowed range as detailed in 1991 Cease fire.

It is simply not possible to say that Iraq is not part of the war on terror. Saddam clearly played a role in terrorism eventhough he was not responsible for 9-11.

1. The Coalition has killed and maimed many innocents in the war in Iraq. Coalition forces have also been responsible for torture. By your logic that would make the Coalition terrorists. Not too mention the fact that the legality of the war in Iraq is being questioned.

2. What decision making position in the Iraqi government did Zarqawi and the other Iraqi's you are referring to occupy prior to the war. President? Vice-President?

3. AQ members met in several countries. They have members of many nationalities. A war against AQ is a war against AQ. Why are we not taking over S. Arabia since OBL is SA.

4. Palestinian suicide bombers do not constitute a direct threat to the security of the U.S. since they generally confine themselves to the areas they are fighting for. Also, why attack Iraq and not Isreal since they spy on us, compromising our security.

5. No WMD's found!! No missiles that can reach the East Coast, West Coast or Hawaii. IE NO THREAT.

6. I agree that the current Iraq is apart of the war on terror because we have made enemies of the Iraqi people. What does a weaker force do when facing overwhelming firepower. They resort to unconventional warfare to balance the equation.

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

Originally posted by Pax

1. The Coalition has killed and maimed many innocents in the war in Iraq. Coalition forces have also been responsible for torture. By your logic that would make the Coalition terrorists. Not too mention the fact that the legality of the war in Iraq is being questioned.

I think his logic for discriminating terrorists from other kinds of combatants is sound. Remember those who took part in torture are going to be jailed for it. If torture were SOP there would be no punishment. Just because the torturers are terrorists doesn't mean that all the rest of the coalition, such as those who are testifying against and jailing the torturers are themselves terrorists as well. That doesn't make any sense. Also, if the terrorists attacked our military and civilian bystanders were injured I don't think it's clear that he would regard them as terrorists in that case, so again, his logic seems to allow for the exclusion of the coalition as a terrorist group.

Originally posted by Pax
2. What decision making position in the Iraqi government did Zarqawi and the other Iraqi's you are referring to occupy prior to the war. President? Vice-President?

3. AQ members met in several countries. They have members of many nationalities. A war against AQ is a war against AQ. Why are we not taking over S. Arabia since OBL is SA.

4. Palestinian suicide bombers do not constitute a direct threat to the security of the U.S. since they generally confine themselves to the areas they are fighting for. Also, why attack Iraq and not Isreal since they spy on us, compromising our security.

5. No WMD's found!! No missiles that can reach the East Coast, West Coast or Hawaii. IE NO THREAT.

6. I agree that the current Iraq is apart of the war on terror because we have made enemies of the Iraqi people. What does a weaker force do when facing overwhelming firepower. They resort to unconventional warfare to balance the equation.

I more or less agree with the points in the rest of your post except 6. Unconventional warfare is excusable but it doesn't mean that targeted attacks on non combatant and grossly non military targets could possibly be justified. Those actions don't even facilitate the ejection of the occupiers. They are clearly just acts of spite and calculated terror. If you are going to condemn the administration for needless violence you should not endeavor to excuse the terrorists for doing the same.

[Sava]

this thread is hilarious

[The diplomat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

Originally posted by Pax
1. The Coalition has killed and maimed many innocents in the war in Iraq. Coalition forces have also been responsible for torture. By your logic that would make the Coalition terrorists. Not too mention the fact that the legality of the war in Iraq is being questioned.

When Coalition forces kill and maim innocents, it is accidental. When terrorists kill innocents, it's deliberate. Big difference.

2. What decision making position in the Iraqi government did Zarqawi and the other Iraqi's you are referring to occupy prior to the war. President? Vice-President?

So unless someone is vice president or president, their ties to terrorism don't count?

3. AQ members met in several countries. They have members of many nationalities. A war against AQ is a war against AQ. Why are we not taking over S. Arabia since OBL is SA.

And we look at the roles those countries may have in harboring or aiding AQ.

4. Palestinian suicide bombers do not constitute a direct threat to the security of the U.S. since they generally confine themselves to the areas they are fighting for. Also, why attack Iraq and not Isreal since they spy on us, compromising our security.

There is a thing called a "regional threat". Just because the Palestinian bombers don't do their attacks in the US, does not mean that they are not a threat to US interests. Their attacks in Israel affect US interests indirectly because the US needs a stable middle east.

5. No WMD's found!! No missiles that can reach the East Coast, West Coast or Hawaii. IE NO THREAT.

Again, regional threat. Iraq had missiles that could target Israel and Iraq's neighbors. That is a serious concern to the US.

6. I agree that the current Iraq is apart of the war on terror because we have made enemies of the Iraqi people. What does a weaker force do when facing overwhelming firepower. They resort to unconventional warfare to balance the equation.

The truth is that most Iraqis are not involved in the violence against US troops. That is another reason why Iraq is not a quagmire. The violence is caused by a small group of insurgents, Baathists and foreign terrorists.

[Arrian]

When Coalition forces kill and maim innocents, it is accidental. When terrorists kill innocents, it's deliberate. Big difference.

You and I can make that distinction. I actually agree there is one. However, it seems that the majority of Iraqis don't see it that way. Is their view simplistic & irrational? Maybe. But that doesn't make it easier for us to change, does it?

The issue at hand is whether or not Iraq is a "quagmire" (translation: is it Vietnam yet?). The relative morality of Coalition-inflicted "collateral damage" and militant/terrorist execution of hostages is not particularly relevant to that question, is it?

-Arrian

[monkspider]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
I probably have a higher IQ than most the people on this board, but I don't use it as an arguing point...

A good thing, since the quality of your posts indicates your intelligence falls somewhere between Fez and a grapefruit.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MikeH
"Are we willing to die for freedom?"

Personally? No.

This is quite understandable, since you are on the other side.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun
Could it be that one of the reasons so many question this war, is because Bush and the advisors in his administration cannot even admit that there are serious problems in Iraq that they need to address?

Not in an election year. OTOH, I'm sure Kerry is more than willing to do so except if he was the incumbant come 2008.

[Tattila the Hun]

I'd rather live for freedom.

(And women, liquor and song)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
I'd rather live for freedom.

(And women, liquor and song)

living for Freedom!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Not in an election year. OTOH, I'm sure Kerry is more than willing to do so except if he was the incumbant come 2008.

So the Bush administration will let more Americans get their heads sawed off because it's election year?