Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Winston
I think the existence of Western democracy makes terrorism risks worse.

[Nubclear]

If Y makes our terrorism risk worse, but is unavoidable, then there isnt much we can do about it. In this case, I'd rather live in Western civilisation than not.
If X *also* makes our terrorism risk worse, but is avoidable, then I'd prefer to avoid it.

Even if Y is there, it is still less than X+Y

[Dinner]

Originally posted by BeBro
Now they tell us

The same conclusion was reached in the yearly reports for the last three years. The administration kept classifying it each time in order to hide the truth and cover for its lies.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I have to somewhat disagree with your assessment of Afghanistan. While I was against that war as well, I believe that if Iraq had not diverted massive quantities of resources and attention away from Afghanistan, the sort of nation building which was promised could have been delivered there. It is most unfortunate that it hasn't, but surely the situation must be salvagable.

Yeah, I bet everyone would like to know what would be the current situation if Afghanistan had been dealed with properly. I'm no military strategist, but other than from what I have heard from specialists it seems to me that the 'Coalition' hasn't really invested enough manpower/resources in Afghanistan.

A shame really; if the neocons had been less hasty in finishing the bulk of the work to be done in Afghanistan, in order to take on Iraq, then Afghanistan could have had much better prospects as a stabilizing agent in the area. Now it's once again a crappy country with the only differences being the Taliban gone and burqa's not compulsory for women.

In short: It's a half-hearted attempt slightly similar to Vietnam (albeit on a smaller scale of course), as the US would have required twice the amount of troops there to actually accomplish anything, according to specialists and analysts at the time.

[Flip McWho]

Are you kidding?

techumseh,

It might pay to develop some reading comprehension. I'm agreeing with you, just not in such strong language.

Arrian, thanks for refreshing my memory.

[Straybow]

Ah, yes. If today's critics were around in 1944 they'd be saying, "We shouldn't invade Europe, it might help Hitler's recruiting efforts. Intelligence says German mobilization may be as low as 25%, so he has huge resources to tap. It will become a quagmire like WW1."

[Flip McWho]

Because the situation in Germany is exactly like the situation in Iraq, or Afghanistan.

[Nubclear]

lol clearly iraq is just like nazi germany LOL
lol saddam is just like hitler!!1 LOL

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Straybow
Ah, yes. If today's critics were around in 1944 they'd be saying, "We shouldn't invade Europe, it might help Hitler's recruiting efforts. Intelligence says German mobilization may be as low as 25%, so he has huge resources to tap. It will become a quagmire like WW1."

Actually if you want to make analogies to WW II attacking Iraq would be much more like attacking Russia...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
Ah, yes. If today's critics were around in 1944 they'd be saying, "We shouldn't invade Europe, it might help Hitler's recruiting efforts. Intelligence says German mobilization may be as low as 25%, so he has huge resources to tap. It will become a quagmire like WW1."

Analysis so sharp only a 2 year old on a sugar high could think of it.

I have to say, if you honestly think there is ANY REMOTELY PLAUSIBLE comparison between these two things, I can really try to recommend some good psychiatrists. Really. Because it verges on mental illness.

[Darius871]

He didn't directly compare Iraq to Nazi Germany, he just illustrated how silly the attitudes of today's critics would seem in a different historical context. Sounds like two very different points to me...

*runs*

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871
He didn't directly compare Iraq to Nazi Germany, he just illustrated how silly the attitudes of today's critics would seem in a different historical context. Sounds like two very different points to me.

*runs*

He compared the magnitude and importance of invading Iraq as a national project to the war against Hitler and compared complaints against that first endevour to the later. He also compared the "war in terror" to the second world war. IN that sense, his comment is so immensely ignorant that it might cross the threshold into mental incapacity.

[Kuciwalker]

He compared the magnitude and importance of invading Iraq as a national project to the war against Hitler

No he didn't.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

He compared the magnitude and importance of invading Iraq as a national project to the war against Hitler

No he didn't.

His comment is utterly inane if he wasn't implying the comparison.

So either its a stupid comparison, or a inane troll. Either way, worthless.

[Kuciwalker]

I give up; you're hopeless and I have work to do.