How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror
- Thread starter OneOfTheseDays
- Start date
What's sad is that no Republican or Iraq supporter can come up with any legitimate reason as to why we are in Iraq right now when there are many more greater dangers out there that deserve our immediate attention.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The reason seems pretty simple and transparent, at least imho. In order to fight terrorism the US needs a base in the ME. This base needs to have a US friendly political leadership and be an example to other peoples in the region that a totalitarian government or hardline Islamic theocracy are not the only valid types of govenment for ME countries. People in the ME need to learn that living under the iron fist of one man or a cleric who dictates everything you do and say (And sorry, though analogies will surely be attempted, there's absolutely no comparison with the Bush admin in any way shape or form in that respect.), without any voice in government, is not a mandatory requirement.
Strategically, Iraq is the best place to be. It's located smack-dab in the middle of the real problem countries bordering SA, Syria, and Iran. Politically, Iraq was the easiest country to invade as well. Saddam's revious behaviour and the years of UN sanctions opened the door enough for the US to place its foot there and barge in the remaining way.
Is it actually going to work? That's questionable. The factors involved to make that determination are chaotic. Was our previous method working? No. We had to take a different tack. It's unfortunate that violence had to be the answer, but unfortunately our foe in the war on terror is ultra-violent. They don't want diplomacy. They don't want compromise. They want us all dead. The only way to avoid that is to kill them first.
Strategically, Iraq is the best place to be. It's located smack-dab in the middle of the real problem countries bordering SA, Syria, and Iran. Politically, Iraq was the easiest country to invade as well. Saddam's revious behaviour and the years of UN sanctions opened the door enough for the US to place its foot there and barge in the remaining way.
Is it actually going to work? That's questionable. The factors involved to make that determination are chaotic. Was our previous method working? No. We had to take a different tack. It's unfortunate that violence had to be the answer, but unfortunately our foe in the war on terror is ultra-violent. They don't want diplomacy. They don't want compromise. They want us all dead. The only way to avoid that is to kill them first.
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
It?s from the national review but it states facts no speculation. Still I'm sure liberals will be all over it as a right wing conspiracy.
Thanks a bunch for expressing your views but is that truly a valid reason for occupying a country? Should Europe invade Hawaii so that they can put down a base and keep an eye on Japan?
Just to add what TastesLikeChicken had to say, which I agree with...
Iraq, although you may not say it is linked with Saddam, had terrorists there. Zarqawi was running a terrorist camp in Northern Iraq prior to going over there where he had killed 100's of people (Estimated 700).
Also, since we've been there we've had terrorists come to Iraq from all over that region. Although you may think that Iraq isn't a great place to be, we have strategically been killing nearly 83 terrorists per day while we've been there just this previous month (According to Rummsfield). Keep in mind it only takes a handful of them to kill thousands of people here in the States. It is better for us to fight the war there than it would be to fight the war here on our streets, which is what I believe would be happening.
Also, Saddam is a dangerous man. I believe he was the one to say "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."... this shows to me that if we didn't take him out of power then, our children would have to later.
Iraq, although you may not say it is linked with Saddam, had terrorists there. Zarqawi was running a terrorist camp in Northern Iraq prior to going over there where he had killed 100's of people (Estimated 700).
Also, since we've been there we've had terrorists come to Iraq from all over that region. Although you may think that Iraq isn't a great place to be, we have strategically been killing nearly 83 terrorists per day while we've been there just this previous month (According to Rummsfield). Keep in mind it only takes a handful of them to kill thousands of people here in the States. It is better for us to fight the war there than it would be to fight the war here on our streets, which is what I believe would be happening.
Also, Saddam is a dangerous man. I believe he was the one to say "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."... this shows to me that if we didn't take him out of power then, our children would have to later.
Why post such drivel? A liberal news source can say that 2+2=4, and conservatives would dispute it.
Like no fscking DUH!
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
When the Japanese begin flying planes into European landmarks and threatening to kill all the European infidels, "praise Buddha," that can be a consideration. Until then it doesn't seem like a very valid analogy.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Northern Iraq? You mean "Kurdistan" ? As in the region which Saddam had no control over? So the Kurds let a terrorist camp exist in their region and now it's Saddam's responsibility. Or hey, our country has militant white supremacy camps dotting the countryside- does that mean Bush supports neo-Nazism? Strange logic you are using...
Then when I thought it couldn't get worse... so now we invade the country, destroying any law and order there was and dismantling it's security like border patrol so when terrorists start to pour in (like no duh!) it goes back to Saddam and it justifies our war? Holy cripes that makes no sense whatsoever!
lozina, you didn't read my post very well. I didn't say you had to believe that Saddam was linked to the terrorism. I just said that there were visible terrorist camps in Iraq. What is so hard to understand about that?
Wait, I thought you said that Saddam didn't have power over the terrorists (Kurdistan)...
So which is it, they had law and order or were there just terrorists there that Saddam was doing nothing about? You seem to be a little bit two-faced here...
If A) They had law and order and some form of border patrol, then we must assume that Saddam was harboring terrorists.
If B) Saddam had no control over his country and there were terrorists in what you refer to be "Kurdistan", then we need to go and clean it up so another 3,000 people don't die. Or, what would be a better solution to elminating terrorists? Send flowers?
Wait, I thought you said that Saddam didn't have power over the terrorists (Kurdistan)...
So which is it, they had law and order or were there just terrorists there that Saddam was doing nothing about? You seem to be a little bit two-faced here...
If A) They had law and order and some form of border patrol, then we must assume that Saddam was harboring terrorists.
If B) Saddam had no control over his country and there were terrorists in what you refer to be "Kurdistan", then we need to go and clean it up so another 3,000 people don't die. Or, what would be a better solution to elminating terrorists? Send flowers?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I don't think the US invasion of Iraq was "random" by any stretch of the imagination.
Truthfully, I wouldn't blame Russia if they invaded and occupied Saudi Arabia in order to get right ot the heart of al Qaeda, since al Qaeda and the Chechnyan rebels are tightly intertwined. It's seriously doubtful that would ever happen, but I wouldn't blame them if they did.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Nice try shooter, when you ranted about terrorists pouring in it's a given we're talking about Iraq "proper" with the cities like Baghdad, Fallujah, Al-Sadr city, etc... since those are the places we're seeing all these terrorist attacks in the headlines
Trying to make a case on that is really futile, it's like: Look, in your original message you said "terrorist camp" and now you're saying there are "visible terrorist camps" - camps with an 'S' as in plural! OMG you're two-faced!
Anyway, the fact you brought those two items up shows that those tidbits have you convinced that invading Iraq was justified, otherwise you wouldn't have tried bringing up such nonsense. And so I am pointing out to you why it is wrong to invade Iraq based on the points you have selected.
None of the reasons you neocons have come up with justify full scale invasion by any means.
There are consequences to invading Iraq. Most notably is the fact that there is a greater possibility that we will fail in Iraq, and will ultimately have to pull out. There is a very slim chance for success here, and the possibility that Iraq will become even remotely democratic looks slimmer each day. I'm not saying this because I want Iraq to fail, I'm saying this based upon the intelligence reports and analysis of others. Still, nobody can answer the question as to why we went to Iraq so fast, ignoring other graver threats.
It's sad, neocons still don't have any valid reason to justify a fullscale invasion of Iraq.
There are consequences to invading Iraq. Most notably is the fact that there is a greater possibility that we will fail in Iraq, and will ultimately have to pull out. There is a very slim chance for success here, and the possibility that Iraq will become even remotely democratic looks slimmer each day. I'm not saying this because I want Iraq to fail, I'm saying this based upon the intelligence reports and analysis of others. Still, nobody can answer the question as to why we went to Iraq so fast, ignoring other graver threats.
It's sad, neocons still don't have any valid reason to justify a fullscale invasion of Iraq.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
I certainly agree with Iraq not being random, I'm sure there was a thoroughly thought out plan. But I firmly believe that in order to uphold a status of a honorable and respectable nation we shouldn't be invading countries for anything less than what is absolutely right, like the Gulf War in '91 for example, where we had France, Germany, Saudi Arabia and even Syria in our coaltion.
lozina, sorry to inform you of this, but you have yet to show me why those are not valid points. You just don't agree with them, which is fine.
Sudheer Anne, much like lozina, you don't have to agree with the points or feel that they justify going into Iraq. The question is, How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror? I along with a couple of others have given reasons why it is. But again, you don't have to agree with them. I just expect a little respect in return. Thanks.
Sudheer Anne, much like lozina, you don't have to agree with the points or feel that they justify going into Iraq. The question is, How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror? I along with a couple of others have given reasons why it is. But again, you don't have to agree with them. I just expect a little respect in return. Thanks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter