• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraq, Then and Now

BBond

Diamond Member
It's impossible to hide behind a facade of lies even when a nation decides to be complicit in them. The truth just has a way of making itself known.

Bush was warned of the consequences before he attacked Iraq. Now all the warnings have come true.

The number of Americans who still choose to remain complicit is embarassing. And dangerous.

Iraq, Then and Now

By BOB HERBERT

Published: February 21, 2005

I remember going to Washington in mid-March 2003, nearly two years ago, to cover a demonstration by tens of thousands of protesters who were clinging to the last, tissue-thin strands of hope that they could bring the Bush administration to its senses and prevent the invasion of Iraq.

But it was already clear that nothing would deter President Bush from his war. I filed a column that said, "We're about to watch the tragedy unfold."

Even more clearly than the protests that weekend, I remember the ominous stories in the press about the likelihood that a war in Iraq would embolden Islamic terrorist organizations and strengthen their recruitment efforts. The Times ran a front-page article on Sunday March 16, in which a senior counterintelligence official said: "An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups. And it is a very effective tool."

On the same day The Washington Post reported that "specialists inside and outside the government question whether a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would deliver a significant blow against international terrorism. Experts warn that war and occupation could also have the opposite effect by emboldening radical Islamic groups and adding to their grievances."

All warnings were given the back of the administration's hand. Mr. Bush launched his invasion and many thousands died. Now fast-forward to last week's testimony of top administration officials before the Senate Intelligence Committee. If the war in Iraq was supposed to stem the terrorist tide, the comments of these officials made it clear that it hasn't worked.

Porter Goss, the C.I.A. director, told the committee, "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists." He added, "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focus on acts of urban terrorism."

The war, said Mr. Goss, "has become a cause for extremists." In his view, "It may only be a matter of time before Al Qaeda or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons."

Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said: "Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment. Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."

An article in last Friday's Washington Post said the radical group Ansar al-Islam, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings in Iraq, is recruiting young Muslims across Europe to join the insurgency.

So tell me again. What was this war about? In terms of the fight against terror, the war in Iraq has been a big loss. We've energized the enemy. We've wasted the talents of the many men and women who have fought bravely and tenaciously in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed in this ill-advised war. A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against Al Qaeda, which remains a deadly threat to America.

What is also dismaying is the way in which the administration has taken every opportunity since Sept. 11, 2001, to utilize the lofty language of freedom, democracy and the rule of law while secretly pursuing policies that are both unjust and profoundly inhumane. It is the policy of the U.S. to deny due process of law to detainees at the scandalous interrogation camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where prisoners, many of whom have turned out to be innocent, are routinely treated in a cruel and degrading manner.

The U.S. is also engaged in the reprehensible practice known as extraordinary rendition, in which terror suspects are abducted and sent off to be interrogated by foreign regimes that are known to practice torture. And the C.I.A. is operating ultrasecret prisons or detention centers overseas for so-called high-value detainees. What goes on in those places is anybody's guess.

It may be that most Americans would prefer not to know about these practices, which are nothing less than malignant cells that are already spreading in the nation's soul. Denial is often the first response to the most painful realities. But most Americans also know what happens when a cancer is ignored.


***EDIT***

Removed "Advertisement"

 
You realize of course that "energizing the terrorists" in this case is a GOOD thing, and is in fact one of the desired effects right? Or did that little snippet of information convienently get left out?
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
You realize of course that "energizing the terrorists" in this case is a GOOD thing, and is in fact one of the desired effects right? Or did that little snippet of information convienently get left out?

How would massive new recruitment of terrorists be a "good" thing?
 
Where are these terrorists going? Oh, Iraq, in this case, it is a good thing, because they are literally getting killed by the dozen.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
You realize of course that "energizing the terrorists" in this case is a GOOD thing, and is in fact one of the desired effects right? Or did that little snippet of information convienently get left out?
Desired effects? Hundreds of innocent Iraqi's slaughtered is the desired effect? I guess along your line of thinking it is better them than us. Hmmm.. I see your point!
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Where are these terrorists going? Oh, Iraq, in this case, it is a good thing, because they are literally getting killed by the dozen.
so, there are either civilians and terrorists, no chance maybe that certain events can move civilians to the terrorist group?


*insert link to that real world game*
 
Quote:

"Can we ban this guy already?
This is the most insubstantial thread I have ever seen in P&N that attempted to be serious. Do you have anything to say, or are you going to hide behind opinion writers from biased sources to make the sweeping generalizations and misnomers for you? "

Michael
 
Originally posted by: Michael
Quote:

"Can we ban this guy already?
This is the most insubstantial thread I have ever seen in P&N that attempted to be serious. Do you have anything to say, or are you going to hide behind opinion writers from biased sources to make the sweeping generalizations and misnomers for you? "

Michael

:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: Michael
Quote:

"Can we ban this guy already?
This is the most insubstantial thread I have ever seen in P&N that attempted to be serious. Do you have anything to say, or are you going to hide behind opinion writers from biased sources to make the sweeping generalizations and misnomers for you? "

Michael

Pst, go back to OT or wherever it is that you sloth off to for months. Kthx.
 
umbrella39,

Speaking big for being around here as short a time as you have been. I listen to the mods because they make the boards bearable, but not pissants like you.

Michael
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Specop 007
You realize of course that "energizing the terrorists" in this case is a GOOD thing, and is in fact one of the desired effects right? Or did that little snippet of information convienently get left out?
Desired effects? Hundreds of innocent Iraqi's slaughtered is the desired effect? I guess along your line of thinking it is better them than us. Hmmm.. I see your point!

Read what you've said about casualties. There have been very few of them. Which I cant for the life of me figure out why jackasses preach "OH THE CASUALTIES!!'
Look at nearly any other war in history, we've come a long ways in minimizing civilian deaths. Thats something to be proud of, not flaunt around. Besides, when the civilian casualties is one of the lowest in any war in history, you might want to sit back and take a healthy dose of STFU. It would be like saying that if there was the lowest murder rate in a city for the month that that was a BAD thing. Would you prefer MORE civilian casualties??

Additionally, it should be pointed out that these people are happy to not be under Saddams rule anymore. The only thing I can think of on that account is those people who did NOT want to liberate Iraq think that oppressive murderous dictators are a good thing. Now, why someone would WILLINGLY want to keep a country under and oppressive rule is quite beyond me, but I see it everyday so I guess its the in thing these days. But I myself much prefer freedom and democracy to oppressive dictators.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Specop 007
You realize of course that "energizing the terrorists" in this case is a GOOD thing, and is in fact one of the desired effects right? Or did that little snippet of information convienently get left out?

How would massive new recruitment of terrorists be a "good" thing?

Simple. Its like this (simply stated).
Theres 2 armies (us and them)
Theres two places to do battle (our ground or theirs)

In this case, our army has went there to do battle with them, on their land. Thus, they are not on our land.

Thats the very simplistic view but it suffices to explain it for the time.
 
Originally posted by: Michael
umbrella39,

Speaking big for being around here as short a time as you have been. I listen to the mods because they make the boards bearable, but not pissants like you.

Michael

Pst, go back to OT or wherever it is that you sloth off to for months. Kthx.
 
umbrella39,

You stuttering? You can go to get help for that. Your lack of intelligence is permanent, but stuttering can be helped by a good speech therapist. I'm sure the techniques they teach would help with posting as well.

Michael
 
Originally posted by: Michael
umbrella39,

You stuttering? You can go to get help for that. Your lack of intelligence is permanent, but stuttering can be helped by a good speech therapist. I'm sure the techniques they teach would help with posting as well.

Michael

Pst, go back to OT or wherever it is that you sloth off to for months. Kthx.
 
umbrella39,

Yawn. Am I supposed to fly off the handle at you and say something that would get me banned? You really should get that stuttering problem of yours treated. It can hurt you in your career and your love life.

Michael
 
Originally posted by: Michael
umbrella39,

Yawn. Am I supposed to fly off the handle at you and say something that would get me banned? You really should get that stuttering problem of yours treated. It can hurt you in your career and your love life.

Michael

:cookie: :cookie:

OP

Topic Title: Iraq, Then and Now
Topic Summary: Lies have a way of coming back to haunt you, don't they George?
Created On: 02/21/2005 03:54 AM

 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Specop 007
You realize of course that "energizing the terrorists" in this case is a GOOD thing, and is in fact one of the desired effects right? Or did that little snippet of information convienently get left out?

How would massive new recruitment of terrorists be a "good" thing?

Simple. Its like this (simply stated).
Theres 2 armies (us and them)
Theres two places to do battle (our ground or theirs)

In this case, our army has went there to do battle with them, on their land. Thus, they are not on our land.

Thats the very simplistic view but it suffices to explain it for the time.

NO you are wrong.

It is fine if they are fighting a traditional war but they are not.

They are not in uniforms, they blend in with the locals, they have already brought the war to us ( 9/11 wtc ).

 
Originally posted by: Michael
umbrella39,

Yawn. Am I supposed to fly off the handle at you and say something that would get me banned? You really should get that stuttering problem of yours treated. It can hurt you in your career and your love life.

Michael

Thanks for the love advice. Reciprocal Link

HTH 😉
 
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Specop 007
You realize of course that "energizing the terrorists" in this case is a GOOD thing, and is in fact one of the desired effects right? Or did that little snippet of information convienently get left out?

How would massive new recruitment of terrorists be a "good" thing?

Simple. Its like this (simply stated).
Theres 2 armies (us and them)
Theres two places to do battle (our ground or theirs)

In this case, our army has went there to do battle with them, on their land. Thus, they are not on our land.

Thats the very simplistic view but it suffices to explain it for the time.

NO you are wrong.

It is fine if they are fighting a traditional war but they are not.

They are not in uniforms, they blend in with the locals, they have already brought the war to us ( 9/11 wtc ).

I said that was the simplistic view. But the hard fact is, for every operative in Iraq its one less they have to send here. Additionally, 9/11 is NOT a factor as we were not at war with Iraq at the time of the WTC attacks. One could argue that had we been at war with Iraq it may have at the least delayed the WTC attacks, but thats all specualtion at this point.

Therefore, you cant say "I'm wrong", because it IS the truth. The more terrorists that are fighting in Iraq is the less they have to send here.
 
BBond:

OP (as all your posts):

I hate George Bush and he eats children and why did he win yet again.

<yawn>

I wouldn't have bothered posting in here except you're another cut and paste with no thought poster. From Mod comments, there's a rule against it. Unless the psoter hates Bush. Then it is OK.

Michael
 
Do you have anything to comment or are you just playing e-thug/mini-mod, Michael?

If the latter, just head on back to OT.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Do you have anything to comment or are you just playing e-thug/mini-mod, Michael?

If the latter, just head on back to OT.

Michael probably hasn't read one piece since he trolled in here but his self-imposed ignorance doesn't stop him from commenting on those who do.


 
Back
Top