Beatnik

Yeah I'm not stirring the pot b/c we've seen that nobody's mind gets changed in the sandbox 'debates', I just don't agree that any of our explicitly stated goals going into the Iraq theater were met.

Although we had a pretty robust presence in the region in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait prior to Iraq, and it seems that the current conditions are more an inflamatory force in the region than a moderating one. Also I don't see by any definition how the insurgency is defeated when the avg. killings per day there is twice what it was last year.

Again I'm not fanning the flames of pseudo-debate and don't feel like arguing the issue either. Just providing some parity of perspective on the issue.

__________________

kin3

Since we've been in Iraq we (in the US)haven't been bombed. Think that would be true had we not gone after them there in Iraq.

__________________
The Old Guy
kin3

leejo

No I understand that it may seem wacky. Well let me use an analogy. As of the evening of 6/6/44, the war in Europe was a foregone conclusion. Many generals on the German side knew it. There simply was no way they were going to be able to sustain a fight against the allies in Europe, much less defeat them, once that foothold was achieved. That didn't stop the Germans from continuing the fight and it didn't save the many soldiers who died between D-Day and VE day. Still, D-day was a decisive battle: Whoever won it won the war.

So when I say the insurgency is basically defeated, I'm not at all suggesting that there's any relationship between their being defeated and their ability to inflict damage and kill. But I do think that when this government was formed, they crossed a point of no return, and the Iraqi government, with US military support, is basically going to go about the business of grinding down and killing the remaining insurgency, with the sort of broad popular support that the US military could never achieve.

It's just a feeling. Ever play chess much? There's often a point in a game when you just know that you've either won or lost, and others looking at the game might not see what you see. To them it may seem like you're still basically tied or even behind, but still, you know. Boxing is the same way. Sometimes you can see a little thing here or there that tells you that one boxer is going to win in 3 or 4 rounds. Some juicy BF2 rounds are like this. That's how I see this fight now.

El_Gringo_Grande

Dude 1: Why you got a banana in your ear?
Dude 2: To keep away the alligators.
Dude 1: There aren't any alligators for 500 miles!
Dude 2: See how good it works!

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Faultline

I don't think there's any hard evidence to support this claim. There have been plenty of plans foiled, but perhaps that's because our security measures have been scrutinized and beefed up?

Also, we didn't go into Iraq to root out Al-Quada. We went into Iraq because Saddam would not comply with WMD inspection demands with the U.N.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I just think it's a common misconception among our own Americans that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11 and that was why we went in. The war was sold on the premise that SH had some WMD's that he might hand over to terrorists one day for them to use on us or that he himself might someday use them on the US or an ally.

__________________

AMosely

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

leejo

I don't understand what that quote has to do with anything. After 9/11 do you suppose Mr. Bin Laden might have become more or less interested in dealing with a country that had offered him safe haven in the past?

TheFatKidDeath

The invasion of Iraq has sharply increased the number of world wide terrorist attacks which can be proven with statitcial evidence. Simply look at the amount of terrorist attacks pre and post invasion and you will see the amount of attacks increased after the invasion.

The invasion of Iraq has accomplished exactly the opposite of what the Bush Administartion intended.

leejo

That shows nothing.

TheFatKidDeath

How do statistical facts show nothing?

leejo

Statistical facts do not show a causal relationship. You assert that the fact that terror attacks have increased in number since the Iraq invasion shows that the invasion has increased the number of world wide terror attacks, but it doesn't show that at all.

For example, we know that these attacks often take years' of planning. It is possible that Al Qaeda achieved a level of operational competence and had spread to the point at which they became capable of executing more attacks world wide. In that case, blaming Iraq on those attacks would be similar to blaming firefighters for the spreading forest fire.

I'm not saying your wrong, though I believe you are, I'm just saying that your statistics do not show that Iraq has caused the increase in attacks.

TheFatKidDeath

Your right, there is no casual relationship between the invasion of Iraq and an increase in terrorist attacks. In fact there is a DIRECT relationship. The invasion has fueled an Anti-American - Ant-Western feeling of a siginificant number of Muslims worldwide. This opposition to the invasion has manfiested itself into terror attacks on Western targets, on Arab governments and of course our troops. The statistics show the correlation.

That's a false analogy. Most of the terrorist attacks after the invasion are not conducted by Al-Qadia. The majority of attacks that have occured have not been planned years in advance. The years of suicide car bombs in Iraq had no significant amount of planning nor have the attacks by other groups who are not affiliated with Al-Qadia. It does not take a year of operational planning to fill a car with explosives and detonate. The majority of attacks have not come from that group but by others who are angered by the US invasion on Iraq.

What is causing the increase in terrorist attacks?

leejo

I said causal, not casual, and you are still making stuff up. Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that there would not have been a much greater number of terror attacks had we NOT invaded Iraq, and offer no evidence to show that wouldn't have happened.

For all you know there could have been 5 times as many attacks had we not invaded Iraq. Your statistics certainly do not rule out that possibility.

leejo

The fact that you have yet to cite a single statistic isn't helping your case either.

leejo

Here. I'll do your job for you:



Taken from http://www.cdi.org/program/document....page=index.cfm, which is an interesting read.

There has been a drop in international terrorism if you exclude the Kashmir conflict, which has NOTHING to do with Iraq, and the attacks inside Iraq, which most certainly are related to the invasion but which do not support your assertion that muslims around the world are getting ants in their pants to blow up the nearest western artifact.