Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq

[mookie2001]

im just glad we invaded
gas is so cheap now

[The Ressurrected One]

That is debateable, but no where in that post did I blame American forces with the deaths.

I'm so sick of the reaching, why the can't people stick to what is being said in the thread? I understand that you are despratelly trying to fit me into some liberal mold because I dare be critical of America at times, but get a damn grip.

Calm down little one.

Where did I say you were blaming American forces? I merely delineated between deaths caused by terrorists and insurgents and deaths caused by Coalition forces.

You're a little sensitive, don't'cha think?

And, on the 500,000 number. If you just start with the 500,000 casualties claimed by Saddam Hussein in the Iraq/Iran war from 1980 to 1988, then staying at 500,000 is conservative.

, if nothing else, he was under-reporting his own casualties and it was probably much higher...

But, really, you take things much too personally in here.

[The Ressurrected One]

im just glad we invaded
gas is so cheap now

Who ever said it was about the price of gasoline?

[Bandit2981]

I was wondering when the "smug" tactic by TRO would be used...

[The Ressurrected One]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/...casualties.php

26 a day. Less than half what it would take to approach the carnage inflicted under the Saddam Hussein regime.

[The Ressurrected One]

I was wondering when the "smug" tactic by TRO would be used...

Wow! You wonder about such things? Must be nice to have such time on your hands.

[mookie2001]

well
ill admit if gas was under a $1.50 id be hardcore prowar, although id feel like and be an asshole

[The Ressurrected One]

well
ill admit if gas was under a $1.50 id be hardcore prowar, although id feel like and be an asshole

Okay, I'll bite. What does the price of gasoline have to do with your position on the war?

[MannyIsGod]

300,000 deaths under the Baath regime is what I've found. That comes out to 8k a year. Currently, 800 a month are dying which is 16 more per year.

But I digress, its nothing more than a talking point when it comes down to it. The point that things are less than peachy stands.

[mookie2001]

its a huge factor in me not thinking this war is good for our country
americans, younger and stupider than me dying
innocent iraqis dying
billions of dollars wasted
our military being spread thin
and our presidents 3 different reasons for war right after another

[The Ressurrected One]

300,000 deaths under the Baath regime is what I've found. That comes out to 8k a year. Currently, 800 a month are dying which is 16 more per year.

But I digress, its nothing more than a talking point when it comes down to it. The point that things are less than peachy stands.

But, things are "peachier" than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Which is the point.

I suggest you read parts 1 through 31 of this man's blog on how well things are going in Iraq now.

Good News from Iraq -- Part 23

Parts 1 through 22 are suggested reading, as well.

Also, I think you 300,000 number is way off. That's just the number of Shi'ites he's suspected of murdering.

[The Ressurrected One]

its a huge factor in me not thinking this war is good for our country
americans, younger and stupider than me dying
innocent iraqis dying
billions of dollars wasted
our military being spread thin
and our presidents 3 different reasons for war right after another

Okay...then...nevermind.

[bigzak25]

That remains to be seen, but I wonder about the moral implications of turning someone elses home into a battle ground for your own protection.

That is a valid point.

But while I'm not a big fan of the ideology, in this case, I feel it is warranted...The End Justifies the Means.

For the good of the American people 1st, and as it so happens, for the good of the Iraqi people as well. I refuse to believe that when the U.S. pulls the majority of our troops out of Iraq, it will not a better place then when we came.

I hope i'm not wrong. I think we all do.

[Chevy Tahoe]

Gas, schmash... If you can't afford it, you shouldn't be driving. Take a bus, ride a bike or carpool in a nice big Chevy Tahoe!

[AFE7FATMAN]

The U.S. supported the mujahadeen (sp?), not the Taliban....

No smack daddy no

Russia entered Afganistan, at the invitation of the previous government. They got drawn into the conflict because a FANATICAL socialist government
had ins uted reform at too fast a pace and their ungodly actions pissed of the religious fanatic, whom we had been supplying with weapons. The radical governmnet crumbled, a more conservative socialist one came to power, but the US continued to support the rebels

In Afganistan there were two sides the communists and the opposition forces,
the mujahedin.

The infighting among mujahedin factions also deterred many afgans from repatriating and sent thousands of refugees into countries next door and around the world, and some of these became the terroists and the trainers
of the terroists of today.

The anarchy of the civil war enabled the radical Islamic movement, the
Taliban to gain POWER. The Taliban had great support from the pushtun population, and we supported them.

Mujahedin = freedom fighter
The Mujahedin was simply the armed resistance to the People's Democratic
Party of Afganistan which came into power when Mohammed Daoud was
killed.

Sheet in 1997 the Taliban sent a delagation to Sugarland Texas to discuss
building a oil pipeline. Ever hear of Unocal?
What we will do for oil, Manny, Tony Cleveanger, I and others discussed
this 4 or five years ago.

[smackdaddy11]

No smack daddy no

Yes, Smackdaddy, yes.

http://www.sabawoon.com/afghanpedia/....CivilWar.shtm


[QUOTE]The Taliban:

The name "Taliban" means "Students" (Students of Islamic Knowledge). Founded in 1994, rose to power in 1996, and seeks to establish a radical Sunni Islamic regime throughout Afghanistan. Created by a senior mullah (Islamic priest), Mohammed Omar, in the southern Afghanistan town of Kandahar.

Mullah Mohammed Omar, the reclusive supreme leader, is supported by a circle of eight to 10 colleagues. Veterans of the war against the Soviets fill their fighting ranks. Rules are enforced by the Ministry of Virtue and Vice, a religious police force.

The Taliban leaders at the beginning made look like they didn't have any special social relationship with the forces of bin Laden, but at the fall of Kabul on Nov.12, 2001, Mullah Mohammad Omar stated that the Afghan war was not about how many states they may control in Afghanistan but about "the destruction of America, that everybody in the world will witness".

The Taliban, in 1996 began a genocidal campaign designed to wipe out Shiite Muslims from much of Afghanistan. It openly countenanced international terrorism, harboring the criminal mastermind Osama bin Laden and giving him virtually free rein to plan bombings and assassinations.

It imposed a disturbing and deeply fundamentalist form of Muslim culture on the nation.
Under the Taliban regime, girls' schools were closed and women were forced to quit their jobs (at one time, 40 percent of Afghan doctors were female) and to wear a head-to-toe garment known as the burkha. As a result, hospitals lost almost all their staffs and children in orphanages were deserted. In a country where hundreds of thousands of men had been killed in warfare, widows, who were the sole sources of income for their families, found themselves unable to work.
Men were ordered to grow full, untrimmed beards (in accordance with orthodox Islam) and were rounded up and beaten with sticks in an effort to force prayer in the mosques.
Movies, television, videos, music and dance -- all were banned.


The Taliban gained power through the lawlessness left over after the '80's war, Pakistan and Saudi support. Nobody was helping the Afghans after the war. The Taliban was nowhere to be seen in 1980, as you claim.


http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html

[Marcus Bryant]

We should go back to the "do nothing" approach to dealing with Islamofascism and two bit dictatorships in the ME. That certainly worked.

[MannyIsGod]

When exactly have we ever used the do nothing policy?

[Marcus Bryant]

Look back over the 30 years prior to 9-11. Repubs and Demo presidents alike turned a blind eye to strikes and threats against American interests in the ME. Not just Carter, but Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. Sure, some of it was driven by pragmatism during the Cold War, but by and large the US pretty much did nothing, unless it was a rather blatant move like Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

[MannyIsGod]

So, the do nothing policy contained the following:

Continued military and financial support of Israel.
Building bases in Saudi Arabia.
Using said bases and bases in Turkey for No Fly Zones in Iraq
Continued Military pressence in the Persian Gulf
Support of Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war of the 80s.
Military support of Iran prior to the 80s.
Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Might as well throw in Desert Fox, too.
Support of Afghanistan in the 1980s through the use of the CIA and arms shipments.
The Clinton cruise missle attacks.
The attacks on Libya in the 80s.

, thats a lot for nothing.

[Marcus Bryant]

What did Reagan do when the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon?
What was Clinton's response to the USS Cole? The African Embassy bombings? The '93 WTC attack?

Do. Nothing.

[MannyIsGod]

By no means am I saying that the policy put into place was great, but look at your own last post.

First, the pressence of a marine barracks in Beruit is already contradictory for a "Do Nothing Policy" because the pressence is in itself an action.

Same thing with the Cole.

There was something done about the embassy bombings, and it was half assed but it is not as though there was actual support in this government for anything more.


Its as though America as a whole is reaching out to grab a beehive and trying to figure out a way to stop the stings. Here is an idea, stop grabbing the hive.

[Marcus Bryant]

I said attacks. Again and again the US ran away. The US was never committed to dealing with Islamic terrorism for well over 30 years.

[MannyIsGod]

No, you said:

We should go back to the "do nothing" approach to dealing with Islamofascism and two bit dictatorships in the ME. That certainly worked.

You said nothing about terrorism.

[Marcus Bryant]

Then who was committing the "strikes", the Easter Bunny?