War with Iraq and terrorism **POLL**

[911paramedic]

After the impending war with Iraq (never was much doubt it was going to happen) what do you think will happen with the number of terrorist strikes?

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam has to go, but this is going to open a huge can-o-worms if you ask me. We are going to appear as bullies no matter what we do, because the culture there is very old. (read: been around for a long time)

I believe they think that we are foreign invaders bent on taking over their land and occupying it. They have been raised in the atmosphere that has shown this to be true in the past, that's how things were done. I mean, you have Saddam shooting off an AK during parades, pretty militaristic if you ask me. I am speaking only from things I read and see, so I may be talking out my butt.

I believe that we are going to see many more suicide bombers and small strikes all around the world after this war starts. This is really going to help the radicals recruit members.

We are entering a very new era I think...

Just my .02

 

[Czar]

This will create a new US vs. The Muslim World slogan for the terroristst'R'us recruiting centers

 

[911paramedic]

Originally posted by: Czar
This will create a new US vs. The Muslim World slogan for the terroristst'R'us recruiting centers

Pretty much what I was thinking.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
After the impending war with Iraq (never was much doubt it was going to happen) what do you think will happen with the number of terrorist strikes? There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam has to go, but this is going to open a huge can-o-worms if you ask me. We are going to appear as bullies no matter what we do, because the culture there is very old. (read: been around for a long time) I believe they think that we are foreign invaders bent on taking over their land and occupying it. They have been raised in the atmosphere that has shown this to be true in the past, that's how things were done. I mean, you have Saddam shooting off an AK during parades, pretty militaristic if you ask me. I am speaking only from things I read and see, so I may be talking out my butt. I believe that we are going to see many more suicide bombers and small strikes all around the world after this war starts. This is really going to help the radicals recruit members. We are entering a very new era I think... Just my .02

So let me see, we will have a million terrorists instead of a few thousand, with something concrete to hate about the US (namely the invasion of Iraq and the necessary killing of some of it's people). In return we get to go to war and occupy a country with a complety different culture and "educate" them on how they must behave and conform to our standards.

Yep makes sense to me.

PS and George is doing this as part of the protection of the US against terrorism

 

[Queasy]

Immediately, there might be more attempted terrorism attacks. In the long run, I think it will help. Remember that Saddam is a major funder of terrorism. He pays Palestinian families for their sons and daughter to blow themselves. He helps fund a terrorist group in Egypt that is known to work with Al-Qaeda.

Saddam has billions of dollars. He doesn't spend all of it on terrorism but he does spend enough that if he were taken out that terrorist operations would take a hit.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Czar
This will create a new US vs. The Muslim World slogan for the terroristst'R'us recruiting centers

Yup

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Immediately, there might be more attempted terrorism attacks. In the long run, I think it will help. Remember that Saddam is a major funder of terrorism. He pays Palestinian families for their sons and daughter to blow themselves. He helps fund a terrorist group in Egypt that is known to work with Al-Qaeda. Saddam has billions of dollars. He doesn't spend all of it on terrorism but he does spend enough that if he were taken out that terrorist operations would take a hit.

What you need to fear is not billionare tyrants, but many dedicated poor people who are eager to die for their cause. Saddam has everything to lose. In the latter case, there is heaven to gain. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who has nothing to lose, coupled with the belief that their death gains them all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: axiom
There will be less terrorism. The reason being is because a Democratic Iraq would create a safe haven for millions of refugees around the Middle East.

Could you do this for me?

Define democratic concepts in middle eastern contexts consistent with american ideas of democracy.

 

[reitz]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Immediately, there might be more attempted terrorism attacks. In the long run, I think it will help. Remember that Saddam is a major funder of terrorism.

Bullshit! It just goes to show that if you repeat a lie often enough, people begin to believe it.

He pays Palestinian families for their sons and daughter to blow themselves.

No, he doesn't. He pays $20,000(?) to the families of every Palestinian killed in the conflict with Israel. This does include the families of suicide bombers, but the vast majority of them are innocents. That can hardly be considered "funding terrorism."

He helps fund a terrorist group in Egypt that is known to work with Al-Qaeda.

Since when? Last time I checked, there was absolutely no evidence that has been released linking Saddam to Al-Quaeda. Bush and Co. have claimed a couple of times to have evidence...but then again they've claimed to have evidence about a lot of things but so far they've shared none of it. Maybe you have a source backing that up?

Saddam has billions of dollars. He doesn't spend all of it on terrorism but he does spend enough that if he were taken out that terrorist operations would take a hit.

Saddam might have billions of dollars, but so far no one has made the case that any of it goes to support terrorism.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Queasy
Immediately, there might be more attempted terrorism attacks. In the long run, I think it will help. Remember that Saddam is a major funder of terrorism. He pays Palestinian families for their sons and daughter to blow themselves. He helps fund a terrorist group in Egypt that is known to work with Al-Qaeda. Saddam has billions of dollars. He doesn't spend all of it on terrorism but he does spend enough that if he were taken out that terrorist operations would take a hit.

What you need to fear is not billionare tyrants, but many dedicated poor people who are eager to die for their cause. Saddam has everything to lose. In the latter case, there is heaven to gain. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who has nothing to lose, coupled with the belief that their death gains them all.

But then you get into the question as to why these people are poor. They are poor because they live under totalitarian regimes and are fed packs of lies everday about the evils of others to take the focus off why they are poor to begin with. If you give people opportunity for better lives than only the most radical of terrorists remain. The majority would happily live their lives. Lets also not forget that the 9/11 terrorists were all college educated but had limited opportunities in the country they were from (Saudia Arabia).

I've heard Bush called chicken-little for his so-called "Sky is falling routine" with Iraq. Frankly, I think claims that worldwide terrorism would be unleased by liberating Iraq are the true chicken-little routines.

 

[Red Dawn]

If were able just to take out Hussien and his henchmen without killing innocent Civilians we probably would see a decrease in terrorism. Unfortunately that's not how war works and along with Hussien we definitely will kill innocent men women and children. This will make them Martyrs and will polarize much of the Muslim world against us creating terrorists out of those who aren't our enemies now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If were able just to take out Hussien and his henchmen without killing innocent Civilians we probably would see a decrease in terrorism. Unfortunately that's not how war works and along with Hussien we definitely will kill innocent men women and children. This will make them Martyrs and will polarize much of the Muslim world against us creating terrorists out of those who aren't our enemies now.

Yes but if we cause in increase in terrorism by seeking to reduce it, isnt it worth it? I mean who cares about terrorism? We just need to shoot someone over there. It will make us feel better.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If were able just to take out Hussien and his henchmen without killing innocent Civilians we probably would see a decrease in terrorism. Unfortunately that's not how war works and along with Hussien we definitely will kill innocent men women and children. This will make them Martyrs and will polarize much of the Muslim world against us creating terrorists out of those who aren't our enemies now.

Well, in the midst of the cries of American Imperialism, America-basher conviently forget that no war in the history of man has ever been conducted without civilian casualties. America goes out of its way to avoid civilians but still gets hammered everytime one happens. If America truly did not care about civilian casualties they would not have laser-guided bombs and such. They would just carpet bomb the crap out of whatever they were after.

It also does not help the civilian casualty situation when you have a sadistic individual such as Saddam who uses his own civilian population as unwitting shields and propaganda tools.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

I'm with the liberals. I think that if we just ignore what's going on over there everything will turn out alright. Just like Germany after WWI. Why can't we just be content to take a few knocks on the chin every now and then by terrorists? Afterall they probably only want to kill a few thousand innocent people every few months; isn't that worth it to not have France scowl at us? Why try to do something about it and "make the world a better place" when you can sit on your hands and criticize people who are trying?

/frickin sarcasm like you've never heard

 

[Queasy]

Well said Pellinor.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn If were able just to take out Hussien and his henchmen without killing innocent Civilians we probably would see a decrease in terrorism. Unfortunately that's not how war works and along with Hussien we definitely will kill innocent men women and children. This will make them Martyrs and will polarize much of the Muslim world against us creating terrorists out of those who aren't our enemies now.

Well, in the midst of the cries of American Imperialism, America-basher conviently forget that no war in the history of man has ever been conducted without civilian casualties. America goes out of its way to avoid civilians but still gets hammered everytime one happens. If America truly did not care about civilian casualties they would not have laser-guided bombs and such. They would just carpet bomb the crap out of whatever they were after. It also does not help the civilian casualty situation when you have a sadistic individual such as Saddam who uses his own civilian population as unwitting shields and propaganda tools.

Saddam is bad.

Now, I missed the part where we have a tradition of attacking, unprovoked in a meaningful way, a people who have done us no harm.
The New New Deal?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm with the liberals. I think that if we just ignore what's going on over there everything will turn out alright. Just like Germany after WWI. Why can't we just be content to take a few knocks on the chin every now and then by terrorists? Afterall they probably only want to kill a few thousand innocent people every few months; isn't that worth it to not have France scowl at us? Why try to do something about it and "make the world a better place" when you can sit on your hands and criticize people who are trying?

/frickin sarcasm like you've never heard

There is absolutely no comparison between modern-day Iraq and WW2 Germany.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Immediately, there might be more attempted terrorism attacks. In the long run, I think it will help. Remember that Saddam is a major funder of terrorism. He pays Palestinian families for their sons and daughter to blow themselves. He helps fund a terrorist group in Egypt that is known to work with Al-Qaeda.

Saddam has billions of dollars. He doesn't spend all of it on terrorism but he does spend enough that if he were taken out that terrorist operations would take a hit.

Propaganda.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn If were able just to take out Hussien and his henchmen without killing innocent Civilians we probably would see a decrease in terrorism. Unfortunately that's not how war works and along with Hussien we definitely will kill innocent men women and children. This will make them Martyrs and will polarize much of the Muslim world against us creating terrorists out of those who aren't our enemies now.

Well, in the midst of the cries of American Imperialism, America-basher conviently forget that no war in the history of man has ever been conducted without civilian casualties. America goes out of its way to avoid civilians but still gets hammered everytime one happens. If America truly did not care about civilian casualties they would not have laser-guided bombs and such. They would just carpet bomb the crap out of whatever they were after. It also does not help the civilian casualty situation when you have a sadistic individual such as Saddam who uses his own civilian population as unwitting shields and propaganda tools.

Saddam is bad.

Now, I missed the part where we have a tradition of attacking, unprovoked in a meaningful way, a people who have done us no harm.
The New New Deal?

Hmmm, let's see. Iraq invaded Kuwait and proceeded to rape and pillage. Despite hemming and hawing from the UN, the U.S. garnered together a coalition of countries to expel Iraq. Once that was completed, Iraq was forced to sign a cease-fire agreement. Not a peace agreement or accord. A simple cease-fire. The UN has since initiated 17 resolutions and Iraq has failed to meet all of them. Technically, any action now would be a continuation of the Gulf War because Iraq has failed to live up to the cease-fire and UN Resolutions.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Queasy
Immediately, there might be more attempted terrorism attacks. In the long run, I think it will help. Remember that Saddam is a major funder of terrorism. He pays Palestinian families for their sons and daughter to blow themselves. He helps fund a terrorist group in Egypt that is known to work with Al-Qaeda.

Saddam has billions of dollars. He doesn't spend all of it on terrorism but he does spend enough that if he were taken out that terrorist operations would take a hit.

Propaganda.

Conjecture.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If were able just to take out Hussien and his henchmen without killing innocent Civilians we probably would see a decrease in terrorism. Unfortunately that's not how war works and along with Hussien we definitely will kill innocent men women and children. This will make them Martyrs and will polarize much of the Muslim world against us creating terrorists out of those who aren't our enemies now.

Well, in the midst of the cries of American Imperialism, America-basher conviently forget that no war in the history of man has ever been conducted without civilian casualties. America goes out of its way to avoid civilians but still gets hammered everytime one happens. If America truly did not care about civilian casualties they would not have laser-guided bombs and such. They would just carpet bomb the crap out of whatever they were after.

It also does not help the civilian casualty situation when you have a sadistic individual such as Saddam who uses his own civilian population as unwitting shields and propaganda tools.

Well I'm not crying about American Imperialism , I'm not an American Basher, I'm not a Liberal and I'm not claiming that Hussien isn't a bastard who shouldn't be removed. Also what you said about the inevibility of civilians causulties in war is true. How does that prove your point that terrorism will decrease if we attack Hussien.

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm with the liberals. I think that if we just ignore what's going on over there everything will turn out alright. Just like Germany after WWI. Why can't we just be content to take a few knocks on the chin every now and then by terrorists? Afterall they probably only want to kill a few thousand innocent people every few months; isn't that worth it to not have France scowl at us? Why try to do something about it and "make the world a better place" when you can sit on your hands and criticize people who are trying?

/frickin sarcasm like you've never heard

For sarcasm to make a good point it needs to address the topic at hand which yours doesn't!

 

[reitz]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Queasy
Immediately, there might be more attempted terrorism attacks. In the long run, I think it will help. Remember that Saddam is a major funder of terrorism. He pays Palestinian families for their sons and daughter to blow themselves. He helps fund a terrorist group in Egypt that is known to work with Al-Qaeda.

Saddam has billions of dollars. He doesn't spend all of it on terrorism but he does spend enough that if he were taken out that terrorist operations would take a hit.

Propaganda.

Conjecture.

It's not conjecture, it's the truth. Read my response to Queasy, and then see if you can find any moderately credible source to back up his claims

 

[jjones]

Assuming there is war, it will really depend upon how the war is handled (which allies are ultimately present and which are abstaining from action but voice no opposition to war) and the length of the war. Following that, it will depend upon how Iraq governs itself after the war. I do not necessarily believe that the Iraqis favor US intervention in their country, but I do not rule out that they may welcome it if the post-war events to newly govern their country are handled in a manner fairly perceived by the people.

I think it is a very delicate situation but ultimately, I think post-war progress will be better than what is currently being experienced in Afganistan with their constant struggle for power amongst the warlords. The true question about post-war success will be how the Kurds are handled in the north and whether we can stave off the likelyhood of their renewed fight for independence, and what kind of representation the Shi'a muslim population will have in the government. We don't have to have a democracy in our making in Iraq. What we need there is a government that will cooperate with the world in general, and one that does not want to be an aggressive force upon its neighbors. I think another Jordan would suit us fine.

Ultimately, if handled well, the likelyhood for increased terrorism in the short run is high due to initial reactions, but in the long run I think it will increase stability in the region and actually work to reduce terrorism.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Remember that Saddam is a major funder of terrorism. He pays Palestinian families for their sons and daughter to blow themselves. He helps fund a terrorist group in Egypt that is known to work with Al-Qaeda.

Saddam has billions of dollars. He doesn't spend all of it on terrorism but he does spend enough that if he were taken out that terrorist operations would take a hit.

I love how people never allow a legitimate argument to be encumbered by facts. If we were looking for MAJOR backers of terrorism we know exactly where to go . . . Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. Why aren't they higher (or at least on) a hit list? Pakistan is our nuclear armed pit bull in Central Asia, the Saudis have oil, we are going to outsource a Syria ass kicking to Israel, and Iran is too much to chew . . . unless of course we have a large long term military presence in a neighboring country . . .

Saddam has little support in the region and the world (Syria is almost a friend). The false dichotomy of invade now or do nothing is not ignorant . . . it's just plain STUPID! We can go into Iraq and squash Saddam . . . leaving death, destruction, and decades of ill will in our wake . . . or we can squeeze Saddam for months possibly years through the UN.

Saddam does not have nukes; not even close . . . so there's no reason to rush.

Saddam's stash of naughty weapons (chemical/biological) is hidden (apparently quite well) but for terrorists to have access (and hurt others) they would have to retrieve these weapons. Such a feat would be nearly impossible considering the only border we could not easily monitor would be Syria.

We are not doing this for access to Iraqi oil . . . so there's no reason to rush.

We are not doing this to free Iraqis from an evil dictator . . . Iraqis are ultimately responsible for that chore. America (and the world) should certainly extend reasonable assistance but planting a democracy in Iraq would be akin to planting a mangrove forest in the desert. It would be pretty to look at for two or three days . . . then it would be dead. The revolution from within may come next year it may not come until the next decade but only a revolution from within will establish a sustainable AND peaceful republic in Iraq.

 

[XZeroII]

Historically, starting a war will actually decrease attacks. There are some exceptions, but it sends a message that if you mess with us, we will mess with you. In our case, the US will win as well. I don't understand why some people think that attacks on us will actually increase. I mean, you have to wonder how meetings at terrorist groups go...
Terrorist #1: "Hey, what's up? Have you heard? The US is ****ed off and is devastating iraq. I think now would be a good time to attack them. "
Terrorist #2: "Yea! That's a great idea. If we attack them, they will probably just give us a slap on the hand and send us on our way. Iraq and the Al-Quada are just isolated examples. They will treat us different"
Terrorist #1: "That's just what I was thinking. They can't possibly fight both us and Iraq at the same time, right? Hey? Wanna go get drunk?"
Terrorist #2: "Sure! My goat or yours?"