How is Iraq an Integral part of the War on Terror

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
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.

What's this? A bait and switch?

I wasn't offering justification. I offered reasons, which is what you asked for.

Nor am I a neocon. Other than my pro-war stance, I'm probably a bigger flaming liberal than most of you in here.

 

[TMPadmin]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
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.

The evidence is and was there to attack. IF Roosevelt knew of Hitler's plans would you have praised him for removing him from power before our official declaration of war on the axis powers? Would you have supported his efforts attacking Germany before "the rise" of their military? Nobody can say for sure that Saddam would have gone the same route but I feel better today knowing that he will not get the opportunity.

What about Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb? Killing 140,000 men, women and children instantly with another 60,000 later from related causes. For every one soldier killed six civilians were killed. Those are just the numbers from Hiroshima. President Truman made this decision knowing that if the war went on millions would die in the battles to come. Total casualties for WWII: 61 Million (give or take). Sorry for the small history lesson or refresher.

Do we wait until we are attacked by a dictator who has proven to be defiant to the UN time and time again? Do we look the other way when atrocities are being committed? Do we need another 9/11 - I refer back to me other post but liberals just see it as a conspiracy. But I know the next: there are other issues around the world and we did nothing. You need to pick your battles. We either address one at a time (or two) or do nothing at all.

Take it as you wish.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The war on terror is completely unconventional, yet we adopted a conventional approach to fighting it by invading Iraq. In the process, we have alienated ourselves from our potential allies and have caused an increased hatred of the United States and helped beef up recruits for Al Qaeda. To defeat terrorism we will need the help of our allies, if you think we can do this by ourselves you are dead wrong. We will only increase the chances for attack against us by continuing in our unilateral approach. And don't feed me this coalition BS that we have in Iraq, when we bear 90% of the costs and casualties it is a unilateral approach.

 

[Doboji]

Ok because noone else seems to step in, allow me.

1. The war in Iraq currently is an integral part of the war, because if we leave now, we wouls leave a power vaccum that would quickly allow for AlQueda and other terrorists to establish a powerful new base of operations.

2. The invasion of Iraq was an integral part of the war on terror, because terrorism is a regional problem, I.E. the middle east. The only way to stomp out terrorism is by changing the political and economic landscape of the entire region. Iraq is part 1.

Flame away... and lets get this political firefest underway shall we?

-Max

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

They want us all dead. The only way to avoid that is to kill them first.

Wow, sounds like these terrorists are more powerful than the Nazis and the Soviets combined.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I'm not saying this because I want Iraq to fail, I'm saying this because I'm a blind liberal, and want any conservative venture to fail, regardless of right or wrong. Anything to support my party!

Yeah, big shocker there.

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: TravisT
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.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" Nope Saddam didn't say that, but Rumsfeld sure adopted that philosophy when he visited Saddam in 83 to supply Iraq with military weopens and ingredients to launch biological/chemical warfare. 20 years later of course, Rumsfeld is screaming that Saddam used chemical weopens.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" Irony on so many levels...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Wow, sounds like these terrorists are more powerful than the Nazis and the Soviets combined.

Nice bit of hyperbole there.

But we disassembled the Nazis (killing far more of thm than we have Iraqis) and the Soviets actually could be dealt with through diplomacy.

Originally posted by: calbear2000
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" Nope Saddam didn't say that, but Rumsfeld sure adopted that philosophy when he visited Saddam in 83 to supply Iraq with military weopens and ingredients to launch biological/chemical warfare. 20 years later of course, Rumsfeld is screaming that Saddam used chemical weopens.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" Irony on so many levels...

Geez, not the tired, old 'US supplied chemicals & biologicals to Saddam' fallacy.

This is patently incorrect. The US did no such thing. As a matter of fact, the countries that supplied the chemical/biological weapons to Iraq in the 80s included Russia, Germany, and France.

Hmmm. Now where have I heard those countries mentioned before in regards to Iraq?

 

[faiznne]

Why are you guys still asking why the Iraq war was launched? Bush's advisor has the real reason right here:

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Bush did state that Iraq was a threat to our allies. Israel is considered an allie so they could very well be part of the reason Iraq was invaded. Though, Iran is still threatening Israel and we haven't invaded them, yet, so Mekay's claims may be a bit off the mark. If we were THAT concerned about Israel we'd have already marched on Tehran.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
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

the systemic cause of terrorism is a lack of personal freedoms found throughout the middle east. By establishing a foot hold of westernization in the middle east we can strike at the roots of terrorism. Iraq was a highly secularized country with an abusive leader who actively supported terrorist acts against the Israeli people.

As such Iraq was a good place to start the necessary westernization of the middle east.

No to mention the generally accepted argument by all sides that Iraq is central to fighting the war on terror now because of the terrorists that have moved in.

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
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

the systemic cause of terrorism is a lack of personal freedoms found throughout the middle east. By establishing a foot hold of westernization in the middle east we can strike at the roots of terrorism. Iraq was a highly secularized country with an abusive leader who actively supported terrorist acts against the Israeli people.

As such Iraq was a good place to start the necessary westernization of the middle east.

what's your reasoning?

we've had our own terrorism in the USA (Tim McVeigh, abortion clinic bombings),
and England's had plenty with the IRA.

clearly the middle eastern countries don't want
westernization forced on them.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Geez, not the tired, old 'US supplied chemicals & biologicals to Saddam' fallacy.

This is patently incorrect. The US did no such thing. As a matter of fact, the countries that supplied the chemical/biological weapons to Iraq in the 80s included Russia, Germany, and France.

Hmmm. Now where have I heard those countries mentioned before in regards to Iraq?

Are you sure?

Text

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

Text

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yes, I'm sure. Do some more research on the Anthrax and Botulism sent to Iraq. It went to their Ministry of Education. It was intended for studying strains of virii that are deadly to farm animals and people and came not from a government agency but from an agricultural firm in Virginia.This same firm ships strains of Anthrax and Botulism to countries around the world.

Nice try though.

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Wow, sounds like these terrorists are more powerful than the Nazis and the Soviets combined.

Nice bit of hyperbole there.

But we disassembled the Nazis (killing far more of thm than we have Iraqis) and the Soviets actually could be dealt with through diplomacy.

Originally posted by: calbear2000
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" Nope Saddam didn't say that, but Rumsfeld sure adopted that philosophy when he visited Saddam in 83 to supply Iraq with military weopens and ingredients to launch biological/chemical warfare. 20 years later of course, Rumsfeld is screaming that Saddam used chemical weopens.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" Irony on so many levels...

Geez, not the tired, old 'US supplied chemicals & biologicals to Saddam' fallacy.

This is patently incorrect. The US did no such thing. As a matter of fact, the countries that supplied the chemical/biological weapons to Iraq in the 80s included Russia, Germany, and France.

Hmmm. Now where have I heard those countries mentioned before in regards to Iraq?

Reread what was posted. No one said the US supplied Iraq with WMD's.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Reread what I posted. The biologicals shipped to Iraq were not for warfare, as you claimed. Nor were chemicals for warfare shipped either.

 

[Todd33]

Wink wink, nudge nudge. Not for warfare

Meanwhile when they used them, we hardly made a stink until years later when we wanted to invade.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Wink wink, nudge nudge. Not for warfare

Meanwhile when they used them, we hardly made a stink until years later when we wanted to invade.

Used them? What did they do with them, destroy livestock (Anthrax is a poor weaponized biological with a short shelf life) and cause widespread food poisoning in Iran?

You don't suppose that it was actually the Sarin and VX, which we didn't supply, we were really concerned about, do you?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, I'm sure. Do some more research on the Anthrax and Botulism sent to Iraq. It went to their Ministry of Education. It was intended for studying strains of virii that are deadly to farm animals and people and came not from a government agency but from an agricultural firm in Virginia.This same firm ships strains of Anthrax and Botulism to countries around the world.

Nice try though.

Ah, dual use?

If you go to the link you can also read the following:

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

(7) - The Riegle Report

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Ok so let me get this straight. Before we invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda had no bases or camps in Iraq whatsoever. Now that we have attacked and invaded Iraq we have created a situation where Al Qaeda is flourishing and gathering recruits each day. So now if we leave, Al Qaeda will have a new stronghold with which to conduct its operations. The obvious question is, why the hell did we go to war in the first place? Conservatives have still not given a justfiable reason to support a fullscale invasion of Iraq.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The obvious question is, why the hell did we go to war in the first place?

as i said, to strike at the root of terrorism by westernizing the middle east.

clearly the middle eastern countries don't want westernization forced on them.

i belive all humans desire freedom.

Sure nut jobs will always exist, but the pool of possible suicide bombers becomes much smaller when people have the personal freedoms that we in the US take for granted every day.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The obvious question is, why the hell did we go to war in the first place?

as i said, to strike at the root of terrorism by westernizing the middle east.

I believed that this is the reason also. I believe that the neocons thought that Iraq would convert into a western style democracy extremely easily.

clearly the middle eastern countries don't want westernization forced on them.

i belive all humans desire freedom.

I don't. Look at Iraq. Who leads the insurgants? Clerics. They want a theocracy where they can follow the tao of Mohammed. Freedom has very little meaning to them. Freedom had little meaning to anybody until it was expounded upon during the enlightenment.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The obvious question is, why the hell did we go to war in the first place?

as i said, to strike at the root of terrorism by westernizing the middle east.

I believed that this is the reason also. I believe that the neocons thought that Iraq would convert into a western style democracy extremely easily.

clearly the middle eastern countries don't want westernization forced on them.

i belive all humans desire freedom.

I don't.

I?m glad we can agree that this is an ideological difference, not something that?s absolutely right or wrong.

I?m also glad we had a president willing to take a chance at ending the root cause of terrorism instead of one that would vainly try to appease terrorists.

I never thought it would be easy, just that it might work. Even if we fail, at least we tried.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The obvious question is, why the hell did we go to war in the first place?

as i said, to strike at the root of terrorism by westernizing the middle east.

clearly the middle eastern countries don't want westernization forced on them.

i belive all humans desire freedom.

Sure nut jobs will always exist, but the pool of possible suicide bombers becomes much smaller when people have the personal freedoms that we in the US take for granted every day.

Do you realize how stupid you sound? Your taking your American view of the world and trying to apply it to the Islamic world. It is idiotic and it is this kind of thinking that has led us to the mess in Iraq. The pool of suicide bombers is become increasingly larger by the day you moron, take a look at the front page news and look at the alarming number of Iraqi police force deaths and American troops dying. We are losing more and more troops each month, we are NOT making progress in Iraq. All intelligence estimates do not paint this rosy picture that you neocons like to paint of Iraq, it is an absolute nightmare over there and its time people begin to realize that this was a horribly planned idea and a failed philosophy. This is not the way to win the war on terror, we are only helping Al Qaeda's cause. Call me a traitor, nonpatriotic, whatever you want, we will not win this war in Iraq if we continue the way we are going.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

It is idiotic and it is this kind of thinking that has led us to the mess in Iraq

I?m sorry, I thought that you where actually looking for a discourse, not go about insulting someone for having a ideological point of view that contrasts from yours. I think the long-term will show that westernization of the middle-east will reduce the pool of potential terrorists greatly. It takes a long time: we had a "failed philosophy" in Germany as well, if you hold the same standards.

If we come at ideological points of view and disagree then we?re going to sound like fools to one-another. But I respect ware you?re coming from for many of the reasons listed, I just wish you?d be open-minded enough to respect points of view that honestly differ from yours.