Is Iraq a current battleground ...

[CADsortaGUY]

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Its a good idea if we can consolidate our war on terrorism with our war on Iraq.
We already have the troops in IRaq so think of how much money we are saving.
We have a good amount of terrorists there now so hopefully we can convince the rest to cooperate and move into Iraq also.

 

[NonSequiter]

I think the attack in Spain does call into question the central principle of the so-called Flypaper Doctrine. Whether or not it totally invalidates it is hard to tell.

 

[Spencer278]

I wouldn't call it a battleground. There are terrorist there now that we opened the door for them and we haven't really done anything.

 

[Zephyr106]

Iraq is a battleground, not the battleground. As the Spain bombings demonstrate, terrorists want to make the West the battleground, and any opening of new fronts in the Middle East doesn't stop them. The Iraq Detour simply provided another battleground, and alot of those "foreign fighters" spawned out of the woodwork and crossed the border from Syria into Iraq. They aren't the kind that would travel to the West in deep cover sleeper cells to conduct attacks.

Zephyr

 

[LordMagnusKain]

what with it being a spot on the ground ware battling is on-going.

 

[NonSequiter]

Iraq is a battleground, not the battleground. As the Spain bombings demonstrate, terrorists want to make the West the battleground, and any opening of new fronts in the Middle East doesn't stop them. The Iraq Detour simply provided another battleground, and alot of those "foreign fighters" spawned out of the woodwork and crossed the border from Syria into Iraq. They aren't the kind that would travel to the West in deep cover sleeper cells to conduct attacks.

I agree. This will simply expedite Darwinism at work, weeding out the stupider of the terrorist set who would attack U.S. forces in its area of depth and strength. While their goals may be psychopathic, they do have goals. Throwing themselves away in fruitless pinprick attacks on U.S. forces may appeal to a certain subgroup, but the smarter terrorist kiddies will evolve and find other, softer targets to work.

 

[Bowfinger]

Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

So your answer is no?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

So your answer is no?

CkG

I answered your question exactly as I'm going to.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

So your answer is no?

CkG

I answered your question exactly as I'm going to.

My question is a yes/no question and THEN an explain option

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Okay Cad, I know you're just bursting with excitement to spring your little argument on Bow -- assuming he answers "yes" to your question. Why don't you save us all the aggravation and just lay it out for us. I, for one, have already conceded that Iraq has mutated into a battleground in the war of terror and that Iraq now attracts terrorists and Islamists who want to fight the "Zionist Crusaders" or the "Occupying Satan" or whatever we are called this week. Yes, Iraq has become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I understand the theory of taking the fight to them and that perhaps, just perhaps, Iraq may lure the terrorists to wage their jihad there rather than here. That's really not a foregone conclusion, it's a theory; as we've seen in Spain this past week, and in countless other cases around the world, AQ and similar-minded groups still attack the West outside of Iraq.

So is it working? IMO, not really. In fact, our invasion of Iraq and our subsequent occupation may be further fanning the flames of jihad. All of our efforts to squash AQ and similar groups may actually have an unintended result. That result could be the splintering of AQ or the mutation of AQ into other groups. After all, it's hard to supress an idea -- we can kill 99% of all terrorists and given the right conditions the idea may still spread and other Islamists may pick up the mantle where AQ left off.

 

[Czar]

no, its a battleground to stop a civil war, sure terrorists are exploiting the situation but winning iraq wont do much against international terrorism

 

[Genesys]

...I, for one, have already conceded that Iraq has mutated into a battleground in the war of terror...

what do you mean mutated? I recall Bush saying that we would take the fight to terrorists and those that harbor and aid them. As far as i'm concerned, Iraq aided terrorists in one way or another, and [I would imagine] aided them in multiple ways.

So, in reality, Iraq hasnt mutated into a battleground, it just became the predominant battleground of the war.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Genesys

As far as i'm concerned, Iraq aided terrorists in one way or another, and [I would imagine] aided them in multiple ways.

Thank you for admitting that nearly a year later we still don't have the facts about Iraq straight

 

[arsbanned]

Its a good idea if we can consolidate our war on terrorism with our war on Iraq.

We already had a place to "consolidate" our war on terrorism. Afghanistan. Remember?

 

[Gaard]

CAD, don't you feel just a tad bit hypocritical criticising someone for not answering a question the way you want?

Gaard - "Could you answer it with a yes or no?"
CAD - "Nope."

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, don't you feel just a tad bit hypocritical criticising someone for not answering a question the way you want?

Gaard - "Could you answer it with a yes or no?"
CAD - "Nope."

Yes, it's quite interesting that Cad sets up the "rules" of the thread and then proceeds not to follow them. I'm sure he voted "yes," however he neglected to 'splain himself even after I asked him specifically to do so. What a spootyhead.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Its a good idea if we can consolidate our war on terrorism with our war on Iraq.

We already had a place to "consolidate" our war on terrorism. Afghanistan. Remember?

Oh...but the terrain in Afghanistan is too difficult to maintain a campaign.

Bush is a military genius in getting everyone to come to Iraq so we can line them up and shoot or arrest them, including Al Qaeda.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, don't you feel just a tad bit hypocritical criticising someone for not answering a question the way you want?

Gaard - "Could you answer it with a yes or no?"
CAD - "Nope."

Nope

Bow said in a different thread that he would discuss it in it's own thread - so I started one. He's ducked and dodged. It really isn't a tough question and I even gave room to "explain"(meaning - give it some nuance) why. Guess Bow knows he can't answer truthfully without making my point either way. Oh well.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, don't you feel just a tad bit hypocritical criticising someone for not answering a question the way you want?

Gaard - "Could you answer it with a yes or no?"
CAD - "Nope."

Yes, it's quite interesting that Cad sets up the "rules" of the thread and then proceeds not to follow them. I'm sure he voted "yes," however he neglected to 'splain himself even after I asked him specifically to do so. What a spootyhead.

I think my position was stated in the other thread But yes I started this thread expressly because Bow wouldn't answer a simple question because he called it a diversion. Well - seems the question is right to the point and he still doesn't wish to discuss it.

*shrugs* I didn't expect anything less.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Well frankly I'm disappointed. I expected you would spring your elaborate diatribe on Bow once he fell into your trap (i.e. admitted that Iraq was a "battleground on terror"). Well where is it? Where is the long, well-thought out treatise tying Spain's recent elections together with OIF and the WoT?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well frankly I'm disappointed. I expected you would spring your elaborate diatribe on Bow once he fell into your trap (i.e. admitted that Iraq was a "battleground on terror"). Well where is it? Where is the long, well-thought out treatise tying Spain's recent elections together with OIF and the WoT?

He hasn't answered the question yet Plus - it was already laid out in the other thread.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, don't you feel just a tad bit hypocritical criticising someone for not answering a question the way you want?

Gaard - "Could you answer it with a yes or no?"
CAD - "Nope."

Nope

Bow said in a different thread that he would discuss it in it's own thread - so I started one. He's ducked and dodged. It really isn't a tough question and I even gave room to "explain"(meaning - give it some nuance) why. Guess Bow knows he can't answer truthfully without making my point either way. Oh well.

CkG

Poor baby. You don't know what to do when you don't get to dictate how the discussion is framed. I answered your question fully, offering a far more responsive discussion than most of your spin-a-thons. I just won't put my answer in your little box.

Do you want a discussion, or do you want to play more games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.

Cheers,

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Poor baby. You don't know what to do when you don't get to dictate how the discussion is framed. I answered your question fully, offering a far more responsive discussion than most of your spin-a-thons. I just won't put my answer in your little box.

Do you want a discussion, or do you want to play more games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.

Cheers,

OH TEH NOESS...Bowfinger doesn't like me....MOMMY!!@1!!!!!

Anyway - The answer is a yes or no answer. It either is or isn't. There is no "kinda" a battleground. Either we are fighting them there or we aren't. So again - In your opinion - Is Iraq a current battleground for terrorism?

You can call names, try to spin and explain, but without knowing your answer to the question we can't put it in context.

So lets break this kerry-esq statement down.

Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

Iraq is a place where terrorists can fight us? So it is a yes?
"We may kill individual terrorists" - so that is a yes too?
"We don't hurt terrorism" - oh really? By killing individual terrorists and cells we don't hurt them?
Ah here we go....
"In order to effectively combat terrorism" - ah so since you don't think Iraq is effective it isn't a battle ground? Or do you think it is -but just "not good enough"?

See - none of your nuance answers my question. It either IS or ISN'T. I don't give a rats ass if you think it's "effective" or who's "terms" you think it's on - IS IT A BATTLEGROUND FOR TERRORISM.

Want to continue to stall and play games? or are you going to answer the question?

Let me take a page from kerry's book.

HOW DID YOU VOTE....NO...HOW DID YOU VOTE....



CkG