What would the US response be if Al Queda

[Hayabusa Rider]

If Bush is in office, he will use it for political gain, wave the flag and bomb someone he doens't like, just as before. Americans will let him take away whatever rights he seems fit, and so it goes and goes.

Please save me! <sarcasm>

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: Strk
Isn't it obvious? We'll have to invade Finland!

I'm beaten to the punch again! Rats!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

would depend if it were done like Afghanistan or done like Iraq, its up to those in control

From the people on the left neither has been a success.

Afghanistan would have been more of a success if Dubya hadn't wasted resources trying to show up Daddy and protecting Israel. He could he enriched Haliburton just as easily in Afghanistan.

I have to hand it to you, you managed to stuff Israel, GHB, and Haliburton into a single thought.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: maluckey
A terrorist attack by it's very nature is almost impossible to stop before the fact so long as the atttack planners are skilled and cautious. This would be the same despite having double the police and intelligence capacity that the United States has now. Deterrence goes only so far, then you are in a Martial Law/Police State attitude. Spies criminals and malcontents, and even an assaaination attempt happened under Hitlers Germany. Spies and terrorists still confound the Mossad, arguably the best of the best in intelligence.

It looks like its starting to get pretty scary in Florida

Miami Police Take New Tack Against Terror

Miami police announced Monday they will stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.

Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats.

"This is an in-your-face type of strategy. It's letting the terrorists know we are out there," Fernandez said.

The operations will keep terrorists off guard, Fernandez said. He said al-Qaida and other terrorist groups plot attacks by putting places under surveillance and watching for flaws and patterns in security.

"People are definitely going to notice it," Fernandez said. "We want that shock. We want that awe. But at the same time, we don't want people to feel their rights are being threatened. We need them to be our eyes and ears."

Link

Federal prosecutors are reviewing whether to pursue charges against an Arvada woman who refused to show identification to federal police while riding an RTD bus through the Federal Center in Lakewood.

Deborah Davis, 50, was ticketed for two petty offenses Sept. 26 by officers who commonly board the RTD bus as it passes through the Federal Center and ask passengers for identification.

Davis said she commuted daily from her home in Arvada to her job at a small business in Lakewood, taking an RTD bus south on Kipling Street each morning from the recreation center in Wheat Ridge, where she left her car. She said the bus always passed through the Federal Center and some people got off there.

Guards at the Federal Center gate always boarded the bus and asked to see all passengers' identification, she said.

She said the guards just looked at the IDs and did not record them or compare them with any lists.

When she refused to show her ID, she said, officers with the Federal Protective Service removed her from the bus, handcuffed her, put her in the back of a patrol car and took her to a federal police station within the Federal Center, where she waited while officers conferred. She was subsequently given two tickets and released.

She said she arrived at work three hours late. She no longer has that job and did not identify her former employer.

Link

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

By making it a Terrorist hot bed at the expense of the Iraqis?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

By making it a Terrorist hot bed at the expense of the Iraqis?

By placing a democracy smack tab in the middle of the middle east.
Syria, Iran, SA, Jordan will all feel the bleed affect of having a democracy right next to them that is Islamic and Arab.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

By making it a Terrorist hot bed at the expense of the Iraqis?

By placing a democracy smack tab in the middle of the middle east.
Syria, Iran, SA, Jordan will all feel the bleed affect of having a democracy right next to them that is Islamic and Arab.

Hmmm sounds like what the Communist where trying to do in the 50's throught the late 80's around the globe..

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

By making it a Terrorist hot bed at the expense of the Iraqis?

[/quote]


Don't be silly, everyone know that a Muslim Theocracy stifles terrorism.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

By making it a Terrorist hot bed at the expense of the Iraqis?

By placing a democracy smack tab in the middle of the middle east.
Syria, Iran, SA, Jordan will all feel the bleed affect of having a democracy right next to them that is Islamic and Arab.

Hmmm sounds like what the Communist where trying to do in the 50's throught the late 80's around the globe..

Communists would have tried to forcefully overthrow SA, Jordan, Syria, and Iran.
A more fitting comparison is what we did in Europe by holding a line and stopping communism in its tracks by the same methods.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

By making it a Terrorist hot bed at the expense of the Iraqis?

By placing a democracy smack tab in the middle of the middle east.
Syria, Iran, SA, Jordan will all feel the bleed affect of having a democracy right next to them that is Islamic and Arab.

Hmmm sounds like what the Communist where trying to do in the 50's throught the late 80's around the globe..

Communists would have tried to forcefully overthrow SA, Jordan, Syria, and Iran.
A more fitting comparison is what we did in Europe by holding a line and stopping communism in its tracks by the same methods.

I don't recall us invading a country in Europe who didn't declare war against us and toppling their government. The only comparison that can be had regarding Europe is not one I want to make.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

By making it a Terrorist hot bed at the expense of the Iraqis?

By placing a democracy smack tab in the middle of the middle east.
Syria, Iran, SA, Jordan will all feel the bleed affect of having a democracy right next to them that is Islamic and Arab.

Hmmm sounds like what the Communist where trying to do in the 50's throught the late 80's around the globe..

Communists would have tried to forcefully overthrow SA, Jordan, Syria, and Iran.
A more fitting comparison is what we did in Europe by holding a line and stopping communism in its tracks by the same methods.

I don't recall us invading a country in Europe who didn't declare war against us and toppling their government. The only comparison that can be had regarding Europe is not one I want to make.

That is cute however we are talking about the bleeding effect of democracy in the region, not the means in which it was erected.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is cute however we are talking about the bleeding effect of democracy in the region, not the means in which it was erected.

The bleeding effect?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

That is cute however we are talking about the bleeding effect of democracy in the region, not the means in which it was erected.

Which was done at the expense of the Iraqis!

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

Genx87:
But Iraq already WAS a viable option to thwart terrorism in the ME. Saddam hated the fundmentalists with a passion, and fought a anti-fundamantal border war with Iran that killed millions of Muslim extremists (mostly Iranians, who really got the short end of that war).

Forget about was Saddam a nice guy - he was, like it or not, on our side when it came to combating Muslim extremists. They threatened HIS dominance of his own dictatorship, and he wouldn't stand for that. Unlike SA, he didn't back down and trade them control of the schools so he could stay in power. Nope - he had secret police to ensure that they stayed underground and ineffective.

Saddam was a horrorshow to his own people - but when playing RealPolitiks, you sometimes can't choose your bedfellows. My prediction is that he would have been (and long-term his sons) more effective at stopping fundamentalism in Iraq and the surrounding areas then we ever will be...because he is also a Muslim, and can get away with things that we cannot without putting fuel on the fire.

Invading Iraq was never about stopping Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. I don't have access to the files that say what it was (Halliburton contracts, oil control, revenge for plotting to kill Bush Sr., all of the above?) - but in terms of preventing another terror attack on the US it's probably the worst tactic you could devise. The Iranians are the real threat, and Saddam would have corralled them much better (esp if we had helped him covertly) and with less fallout than anything we can do...

Future Shock

 

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

Genx87:
But Iraq already WAS a viable option to thwart terrorism in the ME. Saddam hated the fundmentalists with a passion, and fought a anti-fundamantal border war with Iran that killed millions of Muslim extremists (mostly Iranians, who really got the short end of that war).

Forget about was Saddam a nice guy - he was, like it or not, on our side when it came to combating Muslim extremists. They threatened HIS dominance of his own dictatorship, and he wouldn't stand for that. Unlike SA, he didn't back down and trade them control of the schools so he could stay in power. Nope - he had secret police to ensure that they stayed underground and ineffective.

Saddam was a horrorshow to his own people - but when playing RealPolitiks, you sometimes can't choose your bedfellows. My prediction is that he would have been (and long-term his sons) more effective at stopping fundamentalism in Iraq and the surrounding areas then we ever will be...because he is also a Muslim, and can get away with things that we cannot without putting fuel on the fire.

Invading Iraq was never about stopping Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. I don't have access to the files that say what it was (Halliburton contracts, oil control, revenge for plotting to kill Bush Sr., all of the above?) - but in terms of preventing another terror attack on the US it's probably the worst tactic you could devise. The Iranians are the real threat, and Saddam would have corralled them much better (esp if we had helped him covertly) and with less fallout than anything we can do...

Future Shock

You make valid points, very interesting take on the situation. I don't think US policy makers forsaw the consequences of the war in Iraq. If they had seen it from that perspective I don't see how or why they would have attacked Iraq. The fundemental flaw in their arguments were that Iraqi's would have embraced western style democracy and freedom.

 

[Genx87]

So you trade AQ for state sponsered terrorism?
Saddam was not a viable option to thwart terrorism. One of the driving factors in terrorism is the lack of political expression. The people are sick of religious dictatorships or royalty running their lives in the ME.

Saddam was not the answer, he was part of the cause.

Unless you really believe Saddam won the election 11 million to 0?

Saddam was a horrorshow to his own people - but when playing RealPolitiks, you sometimes can't choose your bedfellows. My prediction is that he would have been (and long-term his sons) more effective at stopping fundamentalism in Iraq and the surrounding areas then we ever will be...because he is also a Muslim, and can get away with things that we cannot without putting fuel on the fire.

He has been there for 30 years, how much has AQ grown over the same time period? What about Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other groups around the ME? Saddam was no threat to terrorism and your notion he was is silly.

Invading Iraq was never about stopping Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. I don't have access to the files that say what it was (Halliburton contracts, oil control, revenge for plotting to kill Bush Sr., all of the above?) - but in terms of preventing another terror attack on the US it's probably the worst tactic you could devise. The Iranians are the real threat, and Saddam would have corralled them much better (esp if we had helped him covertly) and with less fallout than anything we can do...

Nothing lays out a serious discussion like dropping all the hot conspiracy theories.
Nobody knows if this is the "worst" think we could have done. I think bombing mecca would probably be worse. Iran is a real threat, they are a country that has subsidized terrorism abroad, and are working on a nuclear program with missiles that can land in Europe.

Saddam again was not good at coralling Iran and your idea he would coorperate with us is even more silly than the previous idea.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

You are operating under the assumption that attacking Iraq was a legitimate response to 9/11. It was not, as an even cursory objective look at the facts proves.
I'm all for going after the people actually responsible. Kill the MFs. But attacking countries willy-nilly makes the problem worse, as events will eventually show.
I would hope we'll go after those responsible next time it happens. I'm sure Homeland Security, as poorly managed as it is now, will get a big boost....

I agree if all you were looking to do was go after Bin Laden. But that would be like trying to assasinate Hitler while leaving the rest of the Nazi party in control of the organization.

On a broader scale Iraq is a viable option to thwart terrorism in the middle east.

Genx87:
But Iraq already WAS a viable option to thwart terrorism in the ME. Saddam hated the fundmentalists with a passion, and fought a anti-fundamantal border war with Iran that killed millions of Muslim extremists (mostly Iranians, who really got the short end of that war).

Forget about was Saddam a nice guy - he was, like it or not, on our side when it came to combating Muslim extremists. They threatened HIS dominance of his own dictatorship, and he wouldn't stand for that. Unlike SA, he didn't back down and trade them control of the schools so he could stay in power. Nope - he had secret police to ensure that they stayed underground and ineffective.

Saddam was a horrorshow to his own people - but when playing RealPolitiks, you sometimes can't choose your bedfellows. My prediction is that he would have been (and long-term his sons) more effective at stopping fundamentalism in Iraq and the surrounding areas then we ever will be...because he is also a Muslim, and can get away with things that we cannot without putting fuel on the fire.

Invading Iraq was never about stopping Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. I don't have access to the files that say what it was (Halliburton contracts, oil control, revenge for plotting to kill Bush Sr., all of the above?) - but in terms of preventing another terror attack on the US it's probably the worst tactic you could devise. The Iranians are the real threat, and Saddam would have corralled them much better (esp if we had helped him covertly) and with less fallout than anything we can do...

Future Shock

You make valid points, very interesting take on the situation. I don't think US policy makers forsaw the consequences of the war in Iraq. If they had seen it from that perspective I don't see how or why they would have attacked Iraq. The fundemental flaw in their arguments were that Iraqi's would have embraced western style democracy and freedom.

What was the voter turnout like in last January's elections? Watch this month and see what the turnout is like. This will give you a more realistic idea on whether or not the "people" are embracing this idea of democracy. Judging it by the lunatics, thugs, and opportunists who have their own brutal agenda is not logically sound.

 

[Lemon law]

What seems to be missed here is that we are doing exactly zero to defend ourselves.--we have not hardened our ports,
chemical plants, our computer data bases, our electrical grid, gas distruition network, or any of those things that need doing.
Those things take Money---Bush beating his chest and promising to get Bin Laden costs nothing.

Instead Bush put all his money on invading Iraq-----or all offence and no defence.

To again give a sports anology-lots of teams have awesome offence----but into the playoffs no teams
without a real good defence are left.

Just one terrorist with a mortor could be a few miles from a chemical plant -----and kill hundreds of thousands of people
when that plant blew. ----and the list goes on and on and on.

But why should Al-Quida do anything to alter the course of its best recruiter------George W. Bush&Co?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What seems to be missed here is that we are doing exactly zero to defend ourselves.--we have not hardened our ports,
chemical plants, our computer data bases, our electrical grid, gas distruition network, or any of those things that need doing.
Those things take Money---Bush beating his chest and promising to get Bin Laden costs nothing.

It's not because it takes money. It's simply because you can't do it. Refineries cover many square miles. How do you propose to 'harden' them against attacks? There's a Mobil refinery on the way to Chicago from here that is within a stone's throw of the interstate. How are you going to stop me from throwing a grenade and blowing up a key component that will cripple the entire multi-billion-dollar facility? You can't. To think otherwise is blissful ignorance, nothing more. You simply suggest that we throw money at the problem, but that is not a viable solution.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
You make valid points, very interesting take on the situation. I don't think US policy makers forsaw the consequences of the war in Iraq. If they had seen it from that perspective I don't see how or why they would have attacked Iraq. The fundemental flaw in their arguments were that Iraqi's would have embraced western style democracy and freedom.

Yup, why on Earth did we expect a place where a democracy has never in History existed would embrace one?

"On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward?s Bush at War, ?Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.? Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while ?attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain ? Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.?"

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

 

[Orignal Earl]

No comments on my Florida post?
You guys willing to put up with a police state to battle the fear of the terrorists?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So you trade AQ for state sponsered terrorism?
Saddam was not a viable option to thwart terrorism. One of the driving factors in terrorism is the lack of political expression. The people are sick of religious dictatorships or royalty running their lives in the ME.

Saddam was not the answer, he was part of the cause.

Unless you really believe Saddam won the election 11 million to 0?

Saddam was a horrorshow to his own people - but when playing RealPolitiks, you sometimes can't choose your bedfellows. My prediction is that he would have been (and long-term his sons) more effective at stopping fundamentalism in Iraq and the surrounding areas then we ever will be...because he is also a Muslim, and can get away with things that we cannot without putting fuel on the fire.

He has been there for 30 years, how much has AQ grown over the same time period? What about Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other groups around the ME? Saddam was no threat to terrorism and your notion he was is silly.

Invading Iraq was never about stopping Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. I don't have access to the files that say what it was (Halliburton contracts, oil control, revenge for plotting to kill Bush Sr., all of the above?) - but in terms of preventing another terror attack on the US it's probably the worst tactic you could devise. The Iranians are the real threat, and Saddam would have corralled them much better (esp if we had helped him covertly) and with less fallout than anything we can do...

Nothing lays out a serious discussion like dropping all the hot conspiracy theories.
Nobody knows if this is the "worst" think we could have done. I think bombing mecca would probably be worse. Iran is a real threat, they are a country that has subsidized terrorism abroad, and are working on a nuclear program with missiles that can land in Europe.

Saddam again was not good at coralling Iran and your idea he would coorperate with us is even more silly than the previous idea.

You're lumping "terrorism" as if it were something more than a simple tactic. It isn't - it's just a tactic to be used when the small are fighting the larger.

What we care about ISN'T terrorism - it's Muslim fundamentalism. There are many, many brands of terrorists - but it's the Muslim fundamentalists that are the real threat. Forget the tactic - study Muslim fundmentalism (realizing that if it is thwarted at terrorism it will branch off to other tactics, such as rampantly propogating it's population within countries that oppose it).

Saddam was far from being a good Muslim - Shiite or Sunni. He was amoral, but wore the trappings of Sunni religion because, well, you have to to get in power by having the imans support you. Saddam hated the fundamentalists, because they saw his lifestyle and even his own crimes against Muslims and condemned them. There would never have been any peace between them - and unlike the US, he can legitimately claim to have killed MILLIONS of them...and got away with it from the other Arabs who saw it as a border war.

Islamic fundmentalism isn't growing because of a lack of political expression - it's growing right now, in countries where the Muslim people have votes, economic freedom, and communities, such as France, UK, and Belgium. Islamic fundamentalism is growing because of differing, irreconcileable world views, in which the Muslim fundamentalist realizes that the modern world is 180degrees out of step with the Koran's teachings - not on everything, but on enough to make him angry. These people, rather than adjust an aging document, would rather adjust the world - in any way, shape or form they can. Giving democracy can ONLY help that if the fundamentalists manage to elect enough representatives to change a country from a modern country back to a theocracy. PERIOD. And if they lose at the polls, well then they'll take it back to the streets - ours or theirs.

And I don't drop conspiracy theories randomly - I mention them because SO many Republicans (Scowcroft, Powell initially, etc.) all were against invading Iraq on anti-terrorism reasons. They weren't scared of war - they were against fighting the WRONG war at the WRONG time. So if all of those Repubicans knew the score, esp. Scowcroft, then why invade? It just has to be something else...because too many infuential Republicans KNEW that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11.

FS

 

[Genx87]

Yup, why on Earth did we expect a place where a democracy has never in History existed would embrace one?

This is probably one of the lamest arguments ever made against bringing democracy to Iraq. How many democratic govts stood within the borders of the United States before the United States was formed?

See what a silly argument it is?