Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[SlowwHand]

Such bull****. You ignore so many facts surrounding war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Not too long ago they sent the Red Army packing in a military confrontation.

Next.

They did so because of billiosn of dollars in military aid from the US and millions more from KSA< all funneled in by the Pakistani dictatorship.

Iraq is fundamentally different from Afghanistan for a few reasons which you ignore utterly, perhaps willfully, perhaps because of ignorance:

1. Afghanistan is marginal. The same is true for Chechnya and Bosnia. Those are regions that have never played a significant role in Islamic history or Islamic thought. They are Islamic lands at the edge. Iraq is in the center of Islam. Baghdad is a very important place for Islamic history and thought, and certainly at least for Shiite Muslims Iraq holds key religios sites.

2. Afghanistan is not Arab. The Muslim world is certainly vast and most Muslims aren't Arabs, but the Arab world is were Islam originated and remains, along with Persian Iran, the vanguard of Islamic thought. Iraq is an Arab state, and therefore far more of a cause celebre within the Arab street than a country inhabited by differing Turkick tribes and who knows what else that inhabit Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the war help radicalize Pakistan. The first Afghan war did, so does this one. Iraq radicalizes the 22 states in the Arab league. Last time I checked 22>1.

3. Afghanistan is backwards. Especailly after the Soviets and then the warlords bombed most of Afghanistan back to the stone age, the place is a dump, no wealth, not many prospects. While the sanctions regime impoverished various parts of Iraq, it remains a country of significant possible wealth, with the remants of a middle class that had connection to other Arab middle classes. As such, what happens in Iraq is far more influential and seen by the Arab world in particular and the general Muslim world then, far more than whatever is happing in some god-forsake mountain village in the middle of Central Asia.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Muslims from all over the world went to Afghanistan to fight. You think people like that would have stayed home just because it was the US and NATO this time?

Oh, and yeah, after the Soviet Union fell, Muslims with a grudge over other places have done things like blow up entire apartment blocks in Moscow.

So you think that had the Russians not invaded Afghanistan these people who ended up going there would not have been radicals? You ****ting me? The Muslims that went were radicals. Osama bin Laden was a Wahabbist before he left Saudi Arabia. I didn't recall many new radicals being born as a result of the USSR invading Afghanistan. On the other hand, this Iraq invasion has created more radicals. The people joining up wouldn't have before the invasion of Iraq. After all, they didn't after the US invaded Afghanistan.

I will say, though, that the US invasion of Afghanistan was a bit different in that it was well supported throughout the Muslim world by almost every leader of a Muslim country. Iraq's invasion most definately was not, not even close. So pardon me for finding it strange that many Muslims would have become radicalized when even the radical leaders supported the US action in Afghanistan. Only those who backed the 9/11 bombings and believed the US deserved to be destroyed rallied to Afghanistan against the US.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Not the best justification, but one that applies to this discussion.

And Saddam might have thought about it before handing out cheques to suicide bombers on international news after 9/11. Talk about painting a target on yourself.

Saddam didn't need to bother with all that. Bush was out to get him before 9/11, and he just found his justification.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Such bull****. You ignore so many facts surrounding war.

Indeed NYE does. Thanks for coming over to the right side, Sloww .

[SlowwHand]

I've been on the right side on most things, you just haven't recognized it.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I've been on the right side on most things, you just haven't recognized it.

Yes, but the right side has seldom been the correct side in the last few years

[SlowwHand]

Grrr.

Let me ask you something. Does that dancing avatar have anything on under that frock?

Didn't think of that, did you?

[Barnabas]

"The USA is so powerful that even if their president screwes up really bad, nothing happens"

discuss

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

And this justifies invading a sovereign nation We want better terrain to fight people. Oh... sorry about your houses, guess they got in the way.

Did I say that?

The discussion is whether Iraq has made us better or worse off wrt to Muslim radicals, yes?

If radicals are going to Iraq and getting shot, that would be better for 'us' than going to New York and blowing up a subway, yes?

And we've shown no resilience. One massive attack, and Bush was ready to give them just what they wanted. Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? No... everyone's either with us or against us. I guess Jesus was with the terrorists, eh?

Uhmmm. It was all of NATO, and most citizens of NATO countries that wanted Afghanistan taken apart to get rid of the people who used it as a base to attack the US and the government that sheltered them.

Where is this 'it's all Bush' bull**** coming from?

Yeah, but radicalizing many who would not have otherwise been radicalized is a far greater downside. Giving them another unstable nation to use as a base of operations was a mistake.

Apparently, Iraq is not required to be a target of the radicals. See the above points about Canada (not in Iraq) being the target of radicals. perhaps it's a good thing that real radicals have places to go that are more important than Toronto.

Both these countries were stable before we went in. I feel it is wrong to break something we can't fix, and I believe brutal dictatorship > civil war.

Excuse me, are you saying Afghanistan was 'stable' in the summer of 2001?

But is a willingness to kill any and all locals who got in the way a good way to stablize an area? That worked so well in Germany and Japan after WWII... oh wait.

What are you arguing?

The only path to stability is reconstruction. We have the money to fix the economy in Afghanistan and give something to people to do besides kill eachother. To believe that stability can be established purely by force of arms... well, I suppose Saddam did manage it.

Indeed. As I said, we can provide security. Stability will have to come from the inhabitants. However, you're not going to succeed with rebuilding or stability until the area is pacified.

Afghanistan has never been pacified. That is the point. Once we went in, Iraq is not the cause of that much greater radicalisation. The fight began on Sept 12, 2001, as soon as NATO and the US Def Dept began planning to strike back.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Did I say that?

The discussion is whether Iraq has made us better or worse off wrt to Muslim radicals, yes?

If radicals are going to Iraq and getting shot, that would be better for 'us' than going to New York and blowing up a subway, yes?

But it's worse than if some of them had just stayed home and shaken their fist impotently at a TV or something. Increasing kill counts aren't impressive if it's due to increased enemy recruitment. The absolute number of terrorists is up.

Where is this 'it's all Bush' bull**** coming from?

It's not like most people were begging Bush to go to war. He said we're going to war, and people agreed that based on the events of 9/11 it was justified. Did you listen to Bush's rhetoric during the 2001-2003 period? Tough talk and a lot of angry people together is a powerful thing.

Apparently, Iraq is not required to be a target of the radicals. See the above points about Canada (not in Iraq) being the target of radicals. perhaps it's a good thing that real radicals have places to go that are more important than Toronto.

Who cares about Toronto anyway? (Yes, my location field is in fact accurate.) I don't know... I think I prefer a small number of terrorists that can be stopped here than an insane number that can cause a civil war in Iraq. There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of terrorists in Iraq. Do you think even 1% of them could have actually attacked us on our home soil?

Excuse me, are you saying Afghanistan was 'stable' in the summer of 2001?

More stables than it is now.

What are you arguing?

That sheer firepower is not a good way to guage the stabilization power of an occupier. The Soviets were willing to take everything apart and kill everyone, but they weren't willing to build a better place. Of course they failed.

Indeed. As I said, we can provide security. Stability will have to come from the inhabitants. However, you're not going to succeed with rebuilding or stability until the area is pacified.

The area cna not be pacified unless some rebuilding does take place though. If you wait until all the terrorists are dead, it will never happen. You have to rebuild to show the terrorists that they've lost, that they can't stop you from building something.

Afghanistan has never been pacified. That is the point. Once we went in, Iraq is not the cause of that much greater radicalisation. The fight began on Sept 12, 2001, as soon as NATO and the US Def Dept began planning to strike back.

I disagree. Afghanistan was a justifiable target after 9/11, with a justification that didn't require all sorts of lies and misiniformation.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So you think that had the Russians not invaded Afghanistan these people who ended up going there would not have been radicals? You ****ting me?

I said nothing of the sort. Stop being a dip ****.

I am specifically saying that the radicals are there no matter what we do, and as soon as we set foot in Afghanistan the fight was on, with or without Iraq.

The Muslims that went were radicals. Osama bin Laden was a Wahabbist before he left Saudi Arabia. I didn't recall many new radicals being born as a result of the USSR invading Afghanistan. On the other hand, this Iraq invasion has created more radicals. The people joining up wouldn't have before the invasion of Iraq. After all, they didn't after the US invaded Afghanistan.

And I call bull**** on that simplistic, and convenient for you, argument. I sat with people who were leaving a University in Canada to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. These were not local yokels. The mujahadeen mobilised from the entire Muslim world to fight the Red Army. There is little likelihood that the same would not have happened again.

I will say, though, that the US invasion of Afghanistan was a bit different in that it was well supported throughout the Muslim world by almost every leader of a Muslim country. Iraq's invasion most definately was not, not even close. So pardon me for finding it strange that many Muslims would have become radicalized when even the radical leaders supported the US action in Afghanistan. Only those who backed the 9/11 bombings and believed the US deserved to be destroyed rallied to Afghanistan against the US.

It isn't the governments that are the problem in Iraq either, are they?

It's the people, and if you think the Iranians were going to sit still and keep quiet for the next 10 years you are severely naive.

[SlowwHand]

Bush said, terrorists and whomever gives them shelter.
Pretty much laid it on the line.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bush said, terrorists and whomever gives them shelter.
Pretty much laid it on the line.

And people who tried to kill his dad too.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

Saddam didn't need to bother with all that. Bush was out to get him before 9/11, and he just found his justification.

Keep repeating that to yourself.

'Bush is evil and no matter what happened, he was going to screw the world! Ommmm'