War on Terror a rousing success: al-Qaida has rebuilt to level just before 9/11

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


And this is even dumber than what Cyber posted. It has everything to do with Iraq.
[...]
al-Qaida was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Resources being used to fight al-Qaida and the remnants of the new-deposed Taliban in Afghanistan were redirected to Iraq, where neither entity existed. The Taliban and al-Qaida have retaken much of Afghanistan because our attention and resources were diverted elsewhere, Iraq, which allowed them to also slip into Pakistan to bolster anti-Musharraf, radical fundamentalists in that country. In taking those actions, we've greatly exacerbated the threat to the stability of Musharraf's government. We made it much more possible for the anti-Musharraf elements to move against him and take control of that country as well.

Ogie's post is not dumb at all, and you should chill with your know-it-all.

Musharraf can not afford giving the US too much of a helping hand without being overthrown by his own country men. Even people in his own military intelligence structure are working against him, because fanatical Islam is a really strong motivator.

Yes, Iraq has took important assets from Afghanistan, intelligence wise, and in special forces etc.

But, this also has alot to do with Musharraf needing to strike political deals in order to stay in power.

Musharraft stays in power by playing his cards right with the Islamists in his own country, that have a free passage to and from Afghanistan. It is tribal land, and no actual borders or government control exist there. Similar to much of central asia and the middle east.

Thinking that had US forces stayed there in large numbers, they could have sealed the Pakistani-Afghanistan border is laughable, and a clash with political reality.

Had the border been closed, Pakistan would have seen a blacklash from Islamists, and Musharraf would have fallen. A continued large US presense in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, or a direct conflict with pro-Taliban pakistani forces and US troops would have brough Musharraf down.

[Sirotnikov]

No one believed SH had WMDs, not even our intelligence agencies, yet the Bush Administration kept pushing that non-truth with their non-evidence.

That is not true btw.

The intel agencies sincerely suspected that Saddam had stuff going on, and had only poor intellgience assests to go on.

Don't forget, most walk-in humint sources would tell stuff about WMDs because that's what people wanted to hear.

Other intel. agencies also believed the same, so when colleague briefings occured, people fed each other's beliefs, often unknowingly citing the same sources (origins of intel. are rarely shared)

What is true, is that CIA did not want to take responsibility for openly saying that Iraq did have WMDs, because it wasn't 100% sure. The Bush administration decided that 60% is good enough, and took the bet.

In the aftermath, CIA did all it could to clear itself of fault, but that is not true. All the western intelligence agencies believed Saddam had a WMD program in some level (even limited).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Ogie's post is not dumb at all, and you should chill with your know-it-all.

It's OK, the content of his posts show the extent of his know it all-ness.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by CyberShy
No, that's not true.
As it's not true that Bush invaded Iraq b/c of WMD.
It's a (well executed and succeeding) corruption of history.

The Bush administration has argumented that Sadam should be removed before terrorists would join forces with SH, not because they had already done that.
The idea is very simple, the Afghanistan administration used to give home to terrorists, now the Taliban had been gone we must be sure that no other governament could possibly take over.

I'm afraid you are just plain wrong about this. Colin Powell testified to the UN, on behalf of the US gov't that Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda before the invasion.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.un/index.html

[Robert]

Powell never linked SH to the 9/11 attacks.
He said it was possible that there were links between Al Qaida and SH, because important Al Qaida members had been visiting Iraq for months. He didn't claim that Iraq was behind 9/11.

This is the post I replied to:

It has everything to do with Iraq. Part of the Bush Administration's public attempts to get the public behind war with Iraq was the incessant intermingling of Iraq and 9/11.

The author of that post claimed that the US Administration pushed for an Iraq / 9/11 connection.
I responded to that quote, and also after reading your news source, I still stick to my opinion that Iraq was never linked to 9/11.

[Arrian]

It was Cheney, IIRC, who pushed the Saddam-9/11 connection. Just going from memory, it was the repeated references to how Saddam supported terror (gifts to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, I believe), immediately followed by or preceded by references to 9/11.

In any event, it was skillfully done. To this day, a shocking percentage of Americans think Saddam had a hand in 9/11.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Not too shocking, or not anymore shocking than that percentage of Americans who think Afghanistan is controled by a resurgent Taliban.

[Arrian]

With the exception of Afganistan, the "WoT" should have been an international police operation, not a "war."

Afganistan was an interesting case, because the established regime was actively aiding and abetting the terrorist organization that had attacked us. Ergo, there was a clear and present danger to the national security of the USA, and it had to be dealt with militarily.

Of course, you could argue similarly about Pakistan (especially right around 9/11, before we & Musharraf buddied up), but unfortunately Pakistan has nukes so military force was out.

Whereas Iraq was not such a danger, as was clear to many of us back in 2002/3, and is crystal clear now. I understand some of you honestly believed that Iraq was a real threat. I get that a reasonable (if perhaps gullible) person could have believed it. But it turns out that those people were wrong.

Now, having done it, we've got a huge problem on our hands. Because Iraq now sure as hell is part of the WoT. We made sure of that...

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

We were buddied up with Musharraf before 9/11.

Iraq was always a part of the WoT. We can argue how minimal it was or who it actually threatened, but the Palestinian payouts and the fact that regime knew of and did not restrict several Al-Qaida leaders residing within its territory makes this clear.

The WoT, btw, is not all about America.

[DinoDoc]

It should be unless you are of the opinion we should send troops to deal with the Tamil Tigers as well. Not to mention crushing the PKK in the Kurdish regions of Iraq who are using the safe area we provide to attack Turkey.

[Arrian]

The Pakistani security forces - or powerful elements within them - basically created the Taleban, and I've little doubt they were at the very least sympathetic to AQ. It was my understanding that our relationship with Pakistan was rather cool until 9/11, at which point we needed Pakistan's help - we had to have Musharraf on our side. And we got him, or at least so it seems.

When you say we buddied up w/him pre-9/11 what do you mean, exactly? I'm curious.

As for the rest... yeah, I know it's not all about the USA. When did I say otherwise? When I talked about threats to the national security of the USA, I was focusing on the use of the US military to invade other countries (Afganistan & Iraq), and further arguing that the invasion of Iraq did not assist (and likely harmed) the effort in the "WoT." To the extent the WoT involves other countries like Israel, Spain, the UK, etc., we should be sharing intel and police work. If there is another Afganistan situation that requires the use of military force, we have NATO (as we do in Afganistan).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It should be unless you are of the opinion we should send troops to deal with the Tamil Tigers as well. Not to mention crushing the PKK in the Kurdish regions of Iraq who are using the safe area we provide to attack Turkey.

We have some 'spaining to do concerning our support (or at least tacit acceptance) of the IRA and its operatives. Water under the bridge, right?

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

It most definetly is not, and as has been mentioned the whole thing is not a military action.

How the hell are we supposed to wage a global war on terrorism with the help of as many nations as possible if we only care about the portion that effects us specifically?

Do you think we are not intimately involved with both the governments of Turkey and Iraq about the PKK?

What about the Isreal Palestinian conflict?

[Patroklos]

We have some 'spaining to do concerning our support (or at least tacit acceptance) of the IRA and its operatives. Water under the bridge, right?

Please do tell, when the last time the IRA was a problem that the British didnot happily want to be in their sphere soley?

Or when was it you think the FBI and CIA were not intimatley involved with our Brit counterparts on the issue?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Do you think we are not intimately involved with both the governments of Turkey and Iraq about the PKK?

No, I do not. Other than Telling the Turks to stay out of Northern Iraq while they keep getting attacked, that is.

How the hell are we supposed to wage a global war on terrorism with the help of as many nations as possible if we only care about the portion that effects us specifically?

So when are we going to be sending troops to deal with the world leader in suicide terrorism: The Tamil Tigers?

What about the Isreal Palestinian conflict?

What about it? We can't force a settlement on sides not willing to negotiate with each other.