iraq again

[MannyIsGod]

i'm still waiting for some conservative proof that the war in iraq has helped the war on terror.

also, i remember matt saying that he considered the war a success because sadaam was no longer in power.

woudln't there have been better military solutions than an all out invasion had that been our goal/

[Yonivore]

Outside of Iraq, are terror attacks up or down?

[DeSPURado]

Bump. Terror attacks are up Yonivore. Inside and outside Iraq. Remember that report , it said it specifically discluded attacks on the troops.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government acknowledged Thursday that a recent report declaring a decline in terrorism in 2003 was wrong.

The report, released in April and touted by top administration officials as a sign of the success of the war on terrorism, was based on faulty data, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

In fact, he told reporters, the corrected report will show "a sharp increase over the previous year." The corrected version is not yet completed, he said.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report/)

[Yonivore]

I'm talking about 2004.

Outside of Russia, where have you heard of any major terrorist attack?

I haven't.

Iraq has been a vortex that has sucked the al Qaeda resources in. Just like the Zarqawi memo said, they have to win in Iraq or they may lose the overall war.

Remember the "suffocation" memo?

[DeSPURado]

I didn't hear about any in 2003 either, outside of Iraq. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.


The revised report undercuts these assertions. The State Department now reports that there were
175 significant terrorist events in 2003. This is the highest level of significant terrorist events in
20 years. Since 2001, the number of significant terrorist attacks has increased by 41%.

NUMBER OF FATALITIES AND INJURIES
In addition, the number of fatalities and injuries reported in the new data is more than double the
number reported in the initial report. According to the new data, 625 people were killed in
terrorist attacks in 2003, more than double the 307 people reported in the April report. Similarly,
the number of people injured in the attacks also more than doubled, rising from 1,593 in the
initial report to 3,646 in the new report.
Revised terror report (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_global_terror_report_june_22_fact_sheet. pdf)

[Yonivore]

2004, and it doesn't mean it did either.

Jeeze!

[MannyIsGod]

once again, i didn't ask for a very shallow view of the war. I want in depth studies. Seriously, you can skew anything by looking at it with one variable.

and Sidenote. Is it moral to engage the people of a nation not involved in a war (remember, we went in as liberators) in a war in order to lessen our burden?

[Whottt]

There's a lot more dead terrorists and used up homicide bombers than there would have been without the war. Used up homicide bombers that will never be used to detonate nuclear materials or bombs in the US or anywhere else.

Instead of plotting terrorist acts in the USA the terrorists are over in Iraq trying to claim that country as their own, and dying by the boatload. Eventually enough of them will die that this war will end and Iraq and the middle east will be just a bit more peaceful.

[Nbadan]

Here ya go Manny, this article covers some of the main problems behind the Neocon Idealism of a liberated Iraq..


Operation enduring millstone
By B Raman

It is increasingly difficult to make sense out of what is going on in Iraq.

An unending spate of kidnappings, the like of which even Lebanon did not seen in its worst days; 26 foreign hostages already beheaded or otherwise killed and more than 20 still in captivity, one does not know where and in whose custody; more suicide car bombings per week than in the rest of the world put together in a month or even a longer period; a seemingly inexhaustible flow of volunteers for suicide missions, the like of which no other country has seen since suicide terrorism became the vogue 20 years ago; more acts of terrorism and other armed attacks per day (87 according to the latest count as against 60 in April last) than in the rest of the world put together; more civilians killed by the Americans, the terrorists and the resistance fighters since May last year than by al-Qaeda in the rest of the world since it carried out its strikes with explosives outside the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in August 1998 - that is the state of Iraq since the US-led coalition occupied the country about 18 months ago.

Nearly 150,000 coalition troops spread out across the country, more than the USSR had in Afghanistan at the height of its occupation in the 1980s; more helicopter gunships, more aircraft, more modern communication interception equipment, more arms and ammunition of the most lethal kind than ever used by the USSR in Afghanistan; more officers of the US intelligence community swarming across Iraq than the KGB ever deployed in Afghanistan; more money at the disposal of the US intelligence community than it ever had for use in its clandestine war against the Soviet Union. At the height of the Cold War, the US intelligence community, then consisting of about 12 agencies, had a total budget of about US$10 billion per annum to contend with its communist adversaries; today, with 15 agencies, it has $30 billion plus, thanks to Osama bin Laden and the horde of jihadi terrorists confronting the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the world. Despite all this, the US does not have a clue as to who are its adversaries in Iraq.

Resistance fighters? Terrorists? Domestic? Foreign? Al-Qaeda? Pakistanis? Chechens? Arab volunteers from other countries? Ex-Ba'athists? The sacked soldiers of Saddam Hussein's army? Shi'ites? Sunnis? Plain criminals? US intelligence does not seem to have the least inkling of it. The more of the resistance and terrorists the US kills, the more the number of Iraqis and foreign Muslims take to arms against the US. The total number of resistance fighters and terrorists, domestic and foreign, operating in different parts of the country is estimated to have increased fourfold since the beginning of this year from about 5,000 to about 20,000, despite the estimated death of nearly 5,000, if not more, at the hands of US troops.

Is there a common command and control of this rainbow coalition of anti-US elements? If so, how does it function? Where and in whose hands is it located? Which are the organizations involved? Is there a supreme leader? There are visible and invisible enemies. Enemies like Muqtada al-Sadr, who are seen commanding and fighting for the benefit of TV cameras, and enemies like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who orchestrates terrorist incidents unseen and unnoticed. Audible and inaudible leaders. Leaders who brag and make claims. Others who operate silently.

If all the claims are to be believed, more terrorist organizations are being spawned in Iraq every month than in the rest of the world. Each with a bizarre name, the origin and significance of which nobody understands. Why did the group that kidnapped seven foreigners, including three Indians, two months ago call itself the Holders of the Black Banner? Why does the group that kidnapped a Jordanian on Wednesday call itself the Lions of the Monotheism Brigade?

One can understand their anger against the Americans. One can even understand their anger against the Indians, the Pakistanis and the Nepalis, despite the fact that their countries refrained from supporting the US occupation of Iraq. They were working for Kuwaiti, Saudi and other US-surrogate companies involved in keeping the US troops supplied. But why target two French journalists, despite the fact that France was in the forefront of the international community's opposition to the US invasion and occupation? And that, too, for a reason (in retaliation for the ban on the use of headscarves by Muslim girls in France's public schools) totally unconnected with Iraq.

Are al-Zarqawi and Muqtada the source of all the problems of the US? Will their elimination lead to a withering away of Muqtada's Mehdi Army of Shi'ites and Al-Zarqawi's Khalid Ibn al-Walid Brigade, the military wing of his Tawhid Wa al-jihad (Unification and Holy War)? Any fond hopes that they would are likely to be belied.

After 18 months of occupation, the US continues to grope in the dark. Its technical intelligence agencies find themselves totally helpless in the absence of the use of modern means of communications by the terrorists and resistance fighters. Its human intelligence (HUMINT) agencies are as clueless as ever, despite their claimed capture of dozens of alleged terrorists and resistance fighters. Their interrogation, despite the use of shocking techniques of mental and physical torture, has hardly produced any worthwhile intelligence. One does not need a mole in the US intelligence to know this. Had there been any worthwhile intelligence, one would have seen the results on the ground.

The Americans did not understand the Iraqi people before they invaded and occupied their country, deceiving themselves into believing that the Iraqis would come out and sing and dance in the streets as the Parisians did when Paris was liberated from the clutches of the Nazis. They do not understand the Iraqi people even after 18 months of occupation. They are unlikely to understand them even if the occupation extends to eternity. The ability to understand others is not part of the American psyche.

Political and military stooges midwived by intelligence agencies have never been accepted by a people. Remember what happened to the succession of made-in-the-KGB and made-in-the-CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) stooges - the Shah of Iran, the stooges of South Vietnam, Babrak Karmal and Najibullah in Afghanistan, the KGB's stooges in Eastern Europe?

See what is happening to Hamid Karzai in Kabul - a straw ruler who is the CIA-protected monarch of all that he surveys, just a radius of a few hundred meters from his palace windows. He has no control over what is happening in the rest of the country. He does not even seem to know what is happening in the rest of Kabul outside his palace.

See what is happening to President General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Living in a make-believe world of his own, deceiving himself into believing that 96% of his people love him. And yet he needs American security experts to protect him - after the two failed attempts to kill him last December. As he struts around the world stage as the United States' mascot in the ummah, large parts of his country are burning - Karachi, Balochistan and Waziristan. South Waziristan is fast becoming Pakistan's mini-Iraq. Every day, somebody killing somebody else. Nobody knows who is killing whom, why and for what.

See what is happening to Iyad Allawi, the self-styled interim prime minister of Iraq. He came to office with the roar of a tiger warning the terrorists and the resistance fighters that he would be their nemesis. He seems destined to disappear like the tail of a snake.

The recent escalation of terrorism and other acts of violence in Afghanistan and Iraq is not related only to the promised presidential elections in Afghanistan in October and parliamentary elections in Iraq in January - to make them impossible to hold with any degree of credibility. It is equally related to the presidential elections in the US in November.

President George W Bush is seeking re-election with the claim that his anti-terrorism front is winning. The terrorists and resistance fighters in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan's mini-Iraq are determined to show that it is not so. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect more and more acts of terrorism and violent anti-US confrontations in Afghanistan, Pakistan's mini-Iraq and Iraq as the US presidential elections approach.

On October 7, 2001, Bush embarked on what he thought would be his famous "war against terrorism" under the code name "Operation Enduring Freedom". The famous has turned embarrassingly infamous. Instead of enduring freedom, he has an enduring millstone around his neck, a millstone of his own creation.

It is easier to describe the grim situation facing the world today four years after Bush launched his war than to prescribe a workable way out of the tunnel in which the world finds itself trapped. How one wishes one could suggest a workable and acceptable (to the US) way out. There is only one possible solution that keeps coming to mind: at the risk of being called mad, let me suggest restoring Saddam to power and quickly withdrawing from Iraq. It is unlikely to happen. And so blood will continue to flow.

Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI18Ak01.html)

[MannyIsGod]

Whott, is it moral to kill another countries civilians in order tosave your own?

[Yonivore]

Yes.

One can presume the citizens of that country failed to reign in their own leader before being allowed to affect people outside their border.

Countries subject to attack from Iraq had no say in the political process that led to his rise...ostensibly, the people of Iraq, no matter how ineffectual, did.

That's why there are revolutions...to do what, if you don't, someone else is liable to come in and do for you.

I dare say, we've killed fewer civilians than would have been killed in an Iraqi revolution.

[spurster]

is it moral to kill another countries civilians in order tosave your own?
Not just kill them, but torture them, too. In the name of God, democracy, freedom, and fighting terrorists, it is possible to rationalize any of our actions.

[MannyIsGod]

then we aren't liberators yoni, you can't have it both way.s

[Tommy Duncan]

Is it "moral" to leave a brutal dictator in power when you have the power to remove him?

[Hook Dem]

Suggestion Manny....move to Iraq, run for office, and make it happen your way. Or you could just stay here and tell us every day how differently you would have done it. Either way, whatever you do, it doesn't make a rats ass to me what you do.:moon

[Joe Chalupa]

Speak your mind! This is America!

[MannyIsGod]

for not caring, you reply an awful lot.

why is it, that anytime i have an opinion, you say i should go do it.

actually fucker, one day i may go do it. but one does not simply show up and run for a political office. i'm doing my time in trenches right now, working with different groups and learning how the [fucked up] system works.

i have big ambitions to change things, and with luck i may one day get a chance at that.

i will not however, simply assume that those in power know best, becaue time and time again they have shown they do not. you can simply choose complaceny and follow along like the sheep you are, and thats fine. to each his own. but the next time you bring an educated informed arguement to the table here, will be the first.


all i have gotten from the conservatives on this board, in response to iraq, are opinions. i've asked for studies, even from conservative think tanks, in regards to a deep analysis on the consequences of the iraq war, and i have yet to recieve them. although, according to yoni, for everyone that says the war was regressive, there is another that says it was not.

also, according to some of you, removing sadaam from power is what deemed this a success. if that was the goal, there were much simpler ways of accomplishing this.

and lastly, turning iraq into a battleground has been a victory because it has prevented terror here in the united states. we went in as liberators, yet we use their land to fight out wars. that doesn't fit any defenition of liberation i know. also, this assumes that the terrorists in iraq were the same ones that woudl have carried out attacks here, which i think is a far reaching assumption. the absence of attacks on american soil does not mean we have hurt al queda with the war in iraq. we should not be quick to claim victorys simpy to justify the administrations actions.

acknowledge these points in an intelligent way with facts please. seriously, if there is proof out there that the iraq war has been good for us, then i want to see it, because that is my major criticism of bush. many of you forget that in 2000 i was a bush supporter.

[Tommy Duncan]

Perhaps it is because this topic has been discussed ad naseum in this forum? I know I've commented on it more than I've cared to and laid out why we went to war and why it was justified.

I recall posting what would be deemed an unfavorable report about Iraq's prospects in this forum from a respected institute and it received very few comments. Why? Again, Iraq fatigue.

Obviously there is a ton of commentary on this subject available on both the left and right. If you want quality run of the mill conservative commentary on the current status of the war effort I would suggest checking out National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com) and The Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com).

The neoconservative take on Iraq can be found at The Weekly Standard (http://TheWeeklyStandard).

Reason (http://www.reason.com/) provides a libertarian perspective.

Cato provides a good source of commentary on Iraq from a libertarian/conservative perspective and that can be found here (http://www.cato.org/current/iraq/index.html).

If you are looking for a conservative think tank then the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/) would probably fit the bill.

If you are looking for a more objective viewpoint I would suggest The Economist (http://www.economist.com).

Foreign Affairs (http://www.foreignaffairs.org) is good to check out for viewpoints from a host of respected individuals of all ideological persuasions on Iraq.

Sen. McCain in his convention speech (http://www.gopconvention.com/cgi-data/speeches/files/oi07hf896nd7in9fr129gu4t5jv74i7m.shtml) laid out the case for war and why removing Hussein makes it a success rather succinctly:


After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein,

President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls.

Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

The central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can't be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.

We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times.

By destroying his regime we gave hope to people long oppressed that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.

Most importantly, our efforts may encourage the people of a region that has never known peace or freedom or lasting stability that they may someday possess these rights. I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission was necessary, achievable and noble. For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.

Also I wonder how much we can truly trust the reporting of the "mainstream" media now that it's been established that at least one network is willing to suspend certain journalistic ethics in pursuit of a "fake, yet accurate" story. At least National Review and the WSJ's editorial page do not attempt to hide their partisan biases behind the veil of objectivity.

[Joe Chalupa]

So one bad apple condemns the rest?

I don't think there are too many news media who have not had to retract a story at one time or another.

I know there are many different views on the subject and that is what I LOVE ABOUT AMERICA!!!!

Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[Tommy Duncan]

Um we are talking about the most famous network news anchor today and a legendary network news organization. It's a bit more than just a simple retraction. The only thing CBS News was missing was the "Paid for by the Democratic National Committee" statement at the bottom of the screen during the 60 Minutes II broadcast.

[Joe Chalupa]

If it were true perhaps.

[Yonivore]

"I don't think there are too many news media who have not had to retract a story at one time or another."
You'd be hard pressed to find one that was cooperating with a Political Campaign's opposition research team (dirt diggers) and who ignored all their experts and lawyers and went to air with what they knew were dubious documents.

Really, are you honestly suggesting that Mapes and/or Rather weren't engaging in a partisan ploy to undermine the President? Is it really a coincidence that the DNC's "Operation Fortunate Son" kicked off at the same time?

Is is a coincidence that Mapes' story got new life at the same time Burkett said he was talking to the DNC about beating back the Swifties and dirtying Bush's pants?

I don't think so. And, I'm willing to bet reasonable people don't think so either.

But, that's just me.

Of, course, there is the Nbadanallah "Six Degrees of Karl Rove" theory...

[Hook Dem]

"i will not however, simply assume that those in power know best, becaue time and time again they have shown they do not. you can simply choose complaceny and follow along like the sheep you are, and thats fine. to each his own. but the next time you bring an educated informed arguement to the table here, will be the first." ............Once again, you have violated rule#1. You have seriously underestimated the intellegence of your advesaries. Back away from the mirror and quit admiring yourself. You are a little kid with an over inflated ego. You will always be in the "trenches":flipoff

[Joe Chalupa]

I am embarrassed and distancing myself from any wrong doing by this Mapes woman.
I don't like dirty politics and I'm starting to catch a whiff of something bad.










But we must keep it to continue even if Kerry does get spanked on November 2!

[MannyIsGod]

hook, let me know when you post anything of value. you're the biggest tool in this forum.

once again, would you like to debate and put this shit to bed/ huh, mr. advesary/

[MannyIsGod]

Is it "moral" to leave a brutal dictator in power when you have the power to remove him?

however, our country does not promote a policy of removing every brutal dictator. in fact, we have a history of placing them in power do we not/ we also support quite a few of them at the moment.

so, explain to me how that bears relevance/ if we went in to remove this dictator, why do we support others/

marcus, you know damn well that we didn't go into iraq because we wanted to save the iraqi people. don't use that stupid shit.

[Tommy Duncan]

Just because the US does not have a policy of removing every brutal dictator that does not mean that taking out Hussein was not "moral."

Is it "moral" to leave a threat to our national security in power just to increase one's reelection chances?

Anyways, we went into Iraq to remove a threat to our national security.

This has been covered approximately 8,493 times in this forum.

[MannyIsGod]

matt, i'm not looking for commentary.

op-ed peices are a dime a dozen

i'm interested in studies.

to be fair, some of the links you provided did have studies, such as at cato -

www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-502es.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-502es.html)
"Iraq: The Wrong War" by Charles V. Peña, Cato Policy Analysis No. 502, December 15, 2003.

www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-505es.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-505es.html)
"Can Iraq be Democratic?" by Patrick Basham, Cato Policy Analysis No. 505, January 5, 2004.

from herritage

www.heritage.org/Research.../hl844.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl844.cfm)
Post-Conflict Operations from Europe to Iraq
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
Heritage Lecture #844:spam2

i'm looking for in depth studies done by many people. i didn't find that at any of those sites. i'm sick of commentary, everyone has an opinion and it all means jack shit if it's not backed up with facts.

[Joe Chalupa]

There are plenty more countries that are a "threat" to the US.

Also keep in mind that there countries who look at the US as a "threat". I'm just glad none of them are stupid enough to think that a "pre-emptive" war against is an option.

Semper Fi!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

yeah, i'll add that to the list of reasons given in this forum, because i was responding to people saying that we went to fight the terrorists in iraq versus here.

now, i can buy that we went to remove a national security threat, as that shoudl be the justification for most wars.

however, that brings me back to my origional point that none of the supporters of the war in here are willing to acknowledge that it may not have had the desired effect, and bringing about more of a national security threat, thereby making it a mistake.

[Tommy Duncan]

You asked for reports from "conservative think tanks" and you are surprised to find "commentary"?

Beam me up.

[MannyIsGod]

initialy i asked for studies, i figured conservative think tanks would have conducted some simmilar to others that have been done.

[Tommy Duncan]

Well you just pointed out 3 "studies" from "conservative think tanks" above.

Can you provide me with some "studies" from wherever (I don't care, I'm not picky) about the impact of leaving Hussein in power?

[Whottt]

however, our country does not promote a policy of removing every brutal dictator. in fact, we have a history of placing them in power do we not/ we also support quite a few of them at the moment.

What brutal dictator did we place in power? And what were our alternatives?



so, explain to me how that bears relevance/ if we went in to remove this dictator, why do we support others/

Most others haven't violated the conditions of their surrender in war that was waged against them after they invaded another country.





marcus, you know damn well that we didn't go into iraq because we wanted to save the iraqi people. don't use that stupid shit.

Of course not..we went into Iraq in our own interests and defense...the fact that we are liberating them from a brutal dictator is secondary and supposed to appease the antiwar segment of the American population who value American lives below all others and think it is a crime for us to defend ourselves.

[Joe Chalupa]

I always thought it was kind of strange everytime I would hear about a tragedy somewhere in the World and they would say, "A plane went down killing all 200 aboard....no word on how many were Americans"....does it really matter?
200 PEOPLE ARE DEAD!!

But I'm all for defending America!

[Whottt]

In a plane accident I'd feel the same way. In a war environment I'm more concerned about ours than those that might be killing them. Because ours are fighting for me...not to have me praying to Allah 5 times a day.