Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Keep repeating that to yourself.

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

It's a documented fact that he had a grudge against Saddam. Whether or not he was going to have the opportunity to act upon it was uncertain before 9/11.

[SlowwHand]

Hussein broke a CEASE FIRE, Victor. That can't be disputed. Hell, even the wimpass U.N. didn't give the USA/Brits a ration of crap. The French did. So what?

[techumseh]

Has the invasion and war in Iraq caused Islamic terrorism? Clearly not - it existed beforehand. Has the invasion and war in Iraq increased the social and political base for terrorism? Clearly so. And this is supported by US intellgence agencies, as well as international and military affairs experts, and heads of state of many countries, including allies of the US.

NYE says no - Afghanistan was all these fanatics needed to attack the west. Once unleashed, no further outrages to Muslim pride were needed. The Jihad was unleashed - nothing the US might do afterwards would inflame it or increase it's intensity. Not Guantanimo, not Abu Garib, not the atrocities against Iraqi civilians.

On the face of it, such and argument seems unlikely. But what is NYE's evidence? That Islamic terrorism existed before the invasion of Iraq. That's it! He refuses to distingush between the scope and intensity of terrorism before and after the war in Iraq. All I can say is that I'm glad there are people who are more realistic and open minded in the CIA.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


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.

And it would have been up Iraq or no Iraq.

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.

NATO leaders were stating in the days afterward that the attacks on the US fell within the provisions for collective response by the alliance. This was not just a Bush production.

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?

My point is that I do not believe there would be that many fewer terrorists after Afghanistan even if Bush made sure that Saddam got a Nobel Peace Prize and left him alone.

More stables than it is now.

I prefer it not being a sovereign state from which terrorists operate with impugnity, thanks.

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.

Before you can build anything in an area, you have to pacify it.

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

You're free to disagree all you like, but you're not the sort who would have gone to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets or NATO, so it doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans.

Apparently, your opinion doesn't carry much weight with Canadians who wanted to blow up Toronto and Ottawa over the issue either.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


It's a documented fact that he had a grudge against Saddam. Whether or not he was going to have the opportunity to act upon it was uncertain before 9/11.

Bush still needed a chorus line for Iraq. Don't forget Poland.

He got one, and Saddam's own behaviour made it that much easier to get.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And it would have been up Iraq or no Iraq.

There would not be as many terrorists now had there not been an Iraq. Don't take my word for it, listen to the US spy agencies

NATO leaders were stating in the days afterward that the attacks on the US fell within the provisions for collective response by the alliance. This was not just a Bush production.

So Bush had nothing to do with it, right?

I prefer it not being a sovereign state from which terrorists operate with impugnity, thanks.

And I would prefer if we had stayed focus on stabilizing it after we messed up. And your preferences seem not to be followed with respect to Pakistan either.

Before you can build anything in an area, you have to pacify it.

But if you don't build anything, you can't really pacify it. It's a chicken and egg dilemma. More realistically, you have a small window of time right after you invade before the guerillas organize propperly to show the people that you're there to help.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Bush still needed a chorus line for Iraq. Don't forget Poland.

He got one, and Saddam's own behaviour made it that much easier to get.

I agree that Saddam played it stupid. He assumed that the US didn't want to get itself into a quagmire and piss off its allies. We showed him, didn't we!

[notyoueither]

We?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither
We?

Indeed I am quite confused. I am also a citizen of several of the countries involved.

[SlowwHand]

Way to hedge your bet.

[Victor Galis]

What can I say, I've embraced globalization.

[Berzerker]

Bosh

Exactly how many terrorist plots aimed at Americans ever originated in Iraq? How much better could the hundreds of billions of dollars we've pissed away in Iraq have been used elsewhere?

It doesn't matter how many terrorist plots were hatched by Iraqis, it was their geographic location and government that made it a good place to drain the swamp. Now we have 2 battlefields for militants to pick from smack dab in the middle of their world. "Fight them over there instead of over here" ain't just a slogan, its a tactic...not the approach I'd take, but I can at least see the results and attribute it to the desired effect of concentrating terrorists where they're much easier to kill.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Bosh

It doesn't matter how many terrorist plots were hatched by Iraqis, it was their geographic location and government that made it a good place to drain the swamp. Now we have 2 battlefields for militants to pick from smack dab in the middle of their world. "Fight them over there instead of over here" ain't just a slogan, its a tactic...not the approach I'd take, but I can at least see the results and attribute it to the desired effect of concentrating terrorists where they're much easier to kill.

How do you know that the militants over there would have ever attacked the US on home soil? It's considerably harder than causing trouble in Iraq.

[Barnabas]

Turning a non guilty country into a ****hole to divert terrorists = evil


(I know Iraq was not wealthy with Saddam, but it was a stable third world country, now Iraq is in the axis of Thank God I was not born there along with Burma, North Korea, Somalia and Afghanistan)

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by notyoueither

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.

But you seem to forget one small important fact:
The US of A didn´t simply send its troops and invade Afghanistan.
Instead they chose to support the more moderate of the two factions in the civil war that was going on in Afghanistan at this time.
i.e. instead of invading the country they chose to help a group, that already was supported by a part of the afghan population.

So the situation was different from the hostile takeover which was done by the soviets in the 80s.
The soviet takeover mobilized radicals and moderates alike, whereas the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan probably only miobilized the people which already where radical.

This, combined with the fact that the Taliban lost their major supply of weapons (i.e. the USA) and combined with the fact that the USA had much more modern technology at hand (for example UAVs which could do reconnaissance and even attack enemy groups in terrain that would be hard to access with tanks) gives the US of A much more chances to pacify Afghanistan than the soviets had when they took over the country.

The situation in Iraq on the other hand much more resembles the situation the soviets faced with Afghanistan. I.e. a hostile takeover of a country which mobilizes muslim moderates and radicals alike (even if probably not to such an extent like the soviet invasion of Afghanistan did)