Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
It will be interesting to see if the UN will take over what the United States is currently doing and do it without United States involvement.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
I'm unsure what you mean since you didn't quote. Are you saying if the UN says we should be there shorter or longer, Obama will just go along with that?
Oh, well; I was hoping my Foxnews link would get more notice (though I expected Dixie to ignore it). It reports the same story about the conclusions of a fairly intensive intelligence study showing that Al Qaeda is actually better positioned to strike America since Iraq, but focuses on Bush's disagreement with it.
That's really the best part. Bush, faced with hard facts from the best intel available on the topic, disagrees.....because his "gut" tells him different.
Dixie's a lot like that, too; the facts simply don't seem to matter. They're really 2 peas in a pod....made for each other.
That's really the best part. Bush, faced with hard facts from the best intel available on the topic, disagrees.....because his "gut" tells him different.
Dixie's a lot like that, too; the facts simply don't seem to matter. They're really 2 peas in a pod....made for each other.
There is no doubt about it, now is the time to cut and run and leave Iraq. Certainly if we leave, that in-and-of-itself will weaken al-Qaeda and totally demoralize them so there is no chance that they would ever attack America again.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The intelligent study "shows" no such thing, and it's not a "study" it's an estimate. I remind you, this is from the same "best intelligence available" that indicated WMD in Iraq. Are the hornets more determined to strike us after we swatted their nest? Sure! But we haven't been stung since 9/11, and that is not by accident or because they haven't tried. We could have a terrorist attack tomorrow, we are not impervious to attack, but electing Obama president, is certainly not going to make us more safe from this threat.
Here are some facts you seem to miss... We are in a war that was declared on us, along with other countries who are allied with us in this war. We didn't bring the fight to them, they brought it to us. Since war seldom ends in a draw, we will either win, or they will. IF we choose to not fight them, we stand no chance of winning, because they are committed to winning the fight. History proves, to the victor go the spoils, and this will be the case no matter who the victor is in this war.
That said, the point of who/what/why/when/where are irrelevant. We can either win or they will win, and the world will live with the consequence, either way. I have always been crystal clear which side of this I am on, and you can always become enlightened and change your opinion, but I honestly don't think mine is going to ever change, we really do need to hope we win this war. It's not going to be very pleasant if we don't.
"We are in a war that was declared on us"
You must have missed the reminder at the beginning of the thread. Iraq didn't attack us...you get that, right?
You miserable fool. You & Bush have this whole thing completely ass-backwards. There are not a finite # of terrorists, so that when you kill all of the current ones, terrorism is finished! The next terror attack in the U.S. will likely be from a cell that is currently in the Western Hemisphere. In the history of our nation, we have endured very few attacks on our own soil, so the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 means absolutely nothing; 9/11 itself took almost 10 years to plan.
You must have missed the reminder at the beginning of the thread. Iraq didn't attack us...you get that, right?
You miserable fool. You & Bush have this whole thing completely ass-backwards. There are not a finite # of terrorists, so that when you kill all of the current ones, terrorism is finished! The next terror attack in the U.S. will likely be from a cell that is currently in the Western Hemisphere. In the history of our nation, we have endured very few attacks on our own soil, so the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 means absolutely nothing; 9/11 itself took almost 10 years to plan.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well yeah 'total victory', what other kind of victory is there?
Years ago? It was less than two years, and they were and still are "in the final throes". This was a major insurgency, it does take time to quell it. Have we made some major screw ups along the way? Hell yes, which is why it has taken about 2 years longer than anticipated. We can look at ANY war under a microscope and find blunder upon blunder in the course of our greatest victories. Making mistakes in the course of war is common, and it doesn't always spell defeat.
The most recent information from Iraq, indicates things are fundamentally changing for the better. You can continue to try and downplay this and pretend it isn't so, but the truth will shine through. You can't stop it. Iraq isn't exploding into Civil War, but it might if you get your way and withdraw US forces too soon. How soon? Fuck-if-I-know! It depends on too many other factors, and we can't start drawing timelines because that just makes it all a waiting game.
It's like I said in another thread, Obama has a 6-year-window, where all you pinheads will claim immunity from criticism because Bush had that long to get us into this. I already know how your twisted minds work. By that time, John McCain would have already brought most of them home, so maybe Obama is just talking tough for the base, and intends to follow the Bush Plan for Iraq?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Who said there was a finite # of terrorists or that we can finish terrorism?
Whoever said that, I would recommend they get off the crack pipe. And since there are hundreds of cells in the Western Hemisphere, and terrorists haven't developed teletransporters, I think it is a safe bet to say the attack would come from someplace in the Western Hemisphere.
In Nagasaki Japan, there is a Memorial to serve as a reminder of what happens when you attack Americans on their own soil. This is the main reason it hasn't happened often. On September 11, we were not attacked by Iraq, or any nation. And we are currently not fighting a war against Iraq. The Enemy has been defined as alQaeda, but there is a much larger enemy, the ideology which fuels alQaeda, Hamas, and all these countless terror organizations. Sure, they all have different objectives and focus, they don't all target the US to exploit their message, they don't all pose a direct threat to the US, but the ideology of radical Islam is fueling it all. Our problems, Israels problems, the Kurds problems, and even Europe's problems. This is much bigger than a few men with towels on their head in a '83 pickup truck armed with automatic weapons, this is an ideology. We are at war, with an ideology.
There is no example to give for this, it is the first time we have waged this kind of war. With Nazism, Imperialism, and Communism, there was a nation, an army, a flag. There were diplomats, diplomacy, treaties, alliances, and pacts. alQaeda is an Organization, one of several, who are strategically located all over the world. There was an ideology which had to be defeated, and Democracy prevailed in those cases, but our army had to battle their army and win a conventional war first. We can't defeat alQaeda or Terrorism, with conventional warfare alone. We have to defeat the ideology with a counter ideology, and since Democracy has always worked, and is working pretty well for us, this seems to be the best tool we have to use.
You call it "Nation Building" and I think there have been some great arguments for us not being in the nation building business, I tend to agree as a general rule. However, there are always exceptions, and this is one. We simply have to establish the ideology of democracy in the middle east, to have any chance of it working. You can't point a gun at someone and expect them to embrace democracy, and that is not what we have done. Iraqi people have built their new democracy from the ground up, we didn't always agree with their methods or principles, but it is a democracy. The more Iraq improves and prospers, the more Mr. Jihad is going to look at Iraq and think.... hmmm, might be nice to enjoy freedom and democracy? Women in other Radical Islamic nations will look at Iraqi women and think.... Hmmm, might be nice to get to have a voice in this shit? Young people will look at Iraq and see hope and opportunity for a future, a life, prosperity, and then they will look at the war-torn death-filled life they enjoy as a terror thug, and maybe they think... hmmm... might be nice to have a meaningful life?
In other words, WE can't change hearts and minds, but Iraqi's can. We've given them the tool, and they will do the work for us. The ideology war can be won, and will be won, if we give it time to sink in and work. If we abandon it, and allow the fundamentalist radicals to take over, we will pay a much greater price in blood and treasure to ultimately defeat it, if we even can defeat it then.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
WTF are you talking about, the Iraqi government, parliament, prime minister, and most of the people, are well aware we liberated them. Because Rumsfeld miscalculated the levels of insurgency, was just one of many problems we had throughout this war, but that doesn't mean we are losing, or have lost.
You've got this totally ignorant view of Iraq, I guess because of all the kool-aid you drank, but it's really not like you think. In 98% of Iraq, there is no insurgency, no violence, all is going well and people are embracing democracy, becoming part of the process, voting in astounding numbers. The trouble is isolated to two provinces, where the former Saddam thugs and the alQaeda terror thugs are entrenched. Given time, we'll get them, or the Iraqi's will get them. Will that end all security threats to Iraq? Nope. It is going to take a long time to insure security and stability in Iraq, it can't be done in a few months. The most pressing issue at the moment, is Iran. Next is going to be Syria. Until these issues are resolved, we can't abandon Iraq, no matter how much you wish we could or who you elect president.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I have explained how we win a war against an ideology, and there is no Bloody Civil War, that is your overblown rhetoric. Civil War is when a nation is divided, and Iraq is not divided. There is not an internal struggle for two different forms of government, Iraq is a Democracy, being threatened by radical extremists who make up a very small percentage of the population. It is an Insurgency, not a Civil War. We are not the referee of anything, we are there to insure Democracy prevails in the midst of those who wish for it to fail. It is a role we know and understand very well.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Dixie, how long are you going to hold on to the assertion that it is a "very small percentage" or that it is simply an "insurgency" and thus not anything to care about.
Call it whatever you want Dix, but when our guys are dying by about 1,000 per year, and the costs are building like a house of cards, then don't expect me to buy your snake oil.
Iraq IS divided! It is! Don't be such that you can't accept even that much. Secondly, there is a Civil War. And we are the referee.
I just keep wondering how many young men's early deaths in Iraq will make you really look at this war with an objective eye. How many of our guys have to die before you stop spinning and start seeing?