Is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism ?

[Marco Zee]

There seems to be a large diversity of opinion if the present war in Iraq constitutes a portion of the war on Terrorism. I would be curious to see how many of us see Iraq as an isolated war, or a part of the larger War on Terrorism.

I would argue that people who go around blowing up women and children and civilians in general, by the thousands for the express purpose of discouraging them, or punishing them, from participating in the establishment of democracy in Iraq are, by definition, TERRORISTS. Many of these delightful folks are from countries other than Iraq, and many others are holdover thugs from Saddam's ex-regime.

My liberal buddies here have argued that Saddam and Islamic terrorists "hate each other" and would "never work with each other", but clearly they are working together now (and even before the invasion).

So, I would contend that the Iraq War is indeed one front in the overall War on Terror.

Marc said previously: << Wrong again. The war in Iraq is not a war against terrorism. It is a war that has, by any measure, INCREASED terrorism. >>

Reply: Marc, the terrorists in the middle east realize the stakes involved in Iraq, and are flooding into Iraq in an effort to halt the democratization of this pivotally important country. Like any other extremists, they are a minority, even in their own countries, and therefore fear the rule of the people, who by large majorities oppose their fanaticism.
Even if I accept your premise that the war has increased terrorism, what's the option.....stop fighting the terrorists? Or stop fighting in Iraq, and all these terrorists will return to their farms and villages, and live peacefully henceforth?

Marco

[mcelrah]

So, by your broken logic, if we invaded Canada (presumably to save
them from the horrors of socialized medicine and high taxes) and the
Kanuks started fighting a guerrilla war against our occupation using
terrorist tactics - not only against our troops, but between French
speakers and English speakers - Canada would then be a front in the
GWOT, right? After all they caught that Pakistani guy who wanted to
blow up LAX coming from Canada, didn't they? - Hugh

On 23 Sep 2005, at 00:56, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> There seems to be a large diversity of opinion if the present war
> in Iraq constitutes a portion of the war on Terrorism. I would be
> curious to see how many of us see Iraq as an isolated war, or a
> part of the larger War on Terrorism.
>
> I would argue that people who go around blowing up women and
> children and civilians in general, by the thousands for the express
> purpose of discouraging them, or punishing them, from participating
> in the establishment of democracy in Iraq are, by definition,
> TERRORISTS. Many of these delightful folks are from countries
> other than Iraq, and many others are holdover thugs from Saddam's
> ex-regime.
>
> My liberal buddies here have argued that Saddam and Islamic
> terrorists "hate each other" and would "never work with each
> other", but clearly they are working together now (and even before
> the invasion).
>
> So, I would contend that the Iraq War is indeed one front in the
> overall War on Terror.
>
> Marc said previously: >
>
> Reply: Marc, the terrorists in the middle east realize the stakes
> involved in Iraq, and are flooding into Iraq in an effort to halt
> the democratization of this pivotally important country. Like
> any other extremists, they are a minority, even in their own
> countries, and therefore fear the rule of the people, who by large
> majorities oppose their fanaticism.
> Even if I accept your premise that the war has increased terrorism,
> what's the option.....stop fighting the terrorists? Or stop
> fighting in Iraq, and all these terrorists will return to their
> farms and villages, and live peacefully henceforth?
>
> Marco
>

[deveil]

report 'from the street'.
'decided that i should at least show up and be counted today. that basically was my motivation, regardless of whether anything was or wasn't accomplished.
i've stumbled upon this idea that if i acknowledge, to myself, that everything that i would ever do, no matter how seemingly altruistic, is indeed motivated by self interest...well then, i don't have to account for, or be dissappointed by, whatever reaction, appreciation, rejection or whatever occurs by others on the receiving end.
so ...i showed up.
'wore a sleeveless t-shirt over my regular shirt...hand printed on the front and back:
front: 'my parents couldn't be here. but...'
back: 'my dad & i finally agree on something.'

i got my parents' approval ahead of time and they seemed to get a kick when i told them 'they had been represented'. it seemed to strike a chord with a lot of people on the street also.
while 'marching' by a block of vocal counter protesters...i took a cue from a couple in front of me... we smiled and waved to them as though we were beauty queens on a float. 'seemed to be the right thing to do at the time.

all that and home in time for dinner...is this a great country (city) or what?!
cheers, makers mark(obscure)

[Joe Schad]

Marco,

In 1997, The neo cons for the Republican party tried to get Bill Clinton to do the war they finallly got to run. They actually sent Bill a letter outlining why they thought it would be a good idea but Bill being the smart guy he is did not buy into it.

The IRAQ war had nothing to do with 9/11 and did nothing to further our efforts to get Ben Laden and his crowd. A lot of people are beginning to realize this fact. Of course I don't expect you or the far right republican faithful to ever realize this.

Joe




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There seems to be a large diversity of opinion if the present war in Iraq constitutes a portion of the war on Terrorism. I would be curious to see how many of us see Iraq as an isolated war, or a part of the larger War on Terrorism.

I would argue that people who go around blowing up women and children and civilians in general, by the thousands for the express purpose of discouraging them, or punishing them, from participating in the establishment of democracy in Iraq are, by definition, TERRORISTS. Many of these delightful folks are from countries other than Iraq, and many others are holdover thugs from Saddam's ex-regime.

My liberal buddies here have argued that Saddam and Islamic terrorists "hate each other" and would "never work with each other", but clearly they are working together now (and even before the invasion).

So, I would contend that the Iraq War is indeed one front in the overall War on Terror.

Marc said previously: << Wrong again. The war in Iraq is not a war against terrorism. It is a war that has, by any measure, INCREASED terrorism. >>

Reply: Marc, the terrorists in the middle east realize the stakes involved in Iraq, and are flooding into Iraq in an effort to halt the democratization of this pivotally important country. Like any other extremists, they are a minority, even in their own countries, and therefore fear the rule of the people, who by large majorities oppose their fanaticism.
Even if I accept your premise that the war has increased terrorism, what's the option.....stop fighting the terrorists? Or stop fighting in Iraq, and all these terrorists will return to their farms and villages, and live peacefully henceforth?

Marco

[Marco Zee]

Hey Guys and Gals,
Have any of you seen the latest intercepted letter from Zarqawi to Al-Queda HQ's? They sound pretty certain that the battle in Iraq is CRUCIAL in the war against us infidels (their global war on western civilization) and mention how difficult it is to get the Iraqi's to join them. They even mention how important the role of manipulating the media is to winning the war. Sound like anything we have discussed here before?

Some of you may not think Iraq is front and center in the GWOT now, but these terrorist murderers sure do.

Marco

[mcelrah]

Yup, since Bush totally screwed it up, Iraq is now what it was not
before: a front in the war on terror. Great job, W! To reiterate:
Iraq might have been worth doing if there had been a commitment to do
it right, but Rumsfeld, Franks, Cheney (who as SECDEF during Desert
Storm, should have known better) tried to do it on the cheap, thus
creating the bag of worms we are now faced with. Had there been
enough troops in country to squelch the budding resistance, stop
looting, restore basic services and government functions (the
administration didn't even want to admit that we were an occupying
power, which any recent international law graduate could have told
them), fewer would have died and Iraq would be far more stable than
it is now - we could have fewer troops there than we do now. It is
devoutly to be wished that we and the mainstream Iraqis somehow
muddle through, but if so, it will be no thanks to the dunderheads at
the helm in Washington, but rather to brave soldiers and Marines and
Iraqis who have to clean up a mess not of their making. - Hugh

[Marco Zee]

All right Hugh !!! At least you will admit to what others on this forum continue to deny, ............ that the Iraq war NOW is a major front in the GWOT !!!

I do give 98% of the credit to the troops and the Iraqi's as they are doing the vast majority of the dirty work. But the troops need our moral, spiritual, and financial support to succeed as they cannot succeed without us.

One more question for you: Are we "occupying" Germany, Japan, and Korea,....we have had troops in each of these places for more than 40 years after these conflicts were "over" ???

See my other post in Pessimism about your infamous V+1 Plan.

Marco

[mcelrah]

So let's invade Canada so the kanuks start an insurgency against us
and then we will have another front in the GWOT. Huh?

When I was stationed in Europe in the early '80s, there were gas
stations on the autobahn that only U.S. military could use. Yeah,
you could tell who won the war. But, no, the formal occupation ended
in the '50s. We are not formal occupiers of Iraq now that the
interim government is in place, either. So what's your point?

Hugh

[Marco Zee]

Hugh,

I guess I'm not comfortable with the description of the US Army as an "occupying" army. I feel the proper term would be a LIBERATING Army, analagous to the France situation in WW2.
An occupying army usually means that the country was invaded by a hostile force attempting to steal the riches and resources of the country (ie Iraq invading Kuwait), whereas a liberating army has arrived to replace the indigenous or foreign dictators and forces who are holding the country "hostage",..much like France in WW2.

I am not following your Canada/Kanuk analogy. Is there any good reason to invade Canada? Are the Kanuks Islamic fundamentalist supporters? I don't get it. If Canada was invaded by Chinese communists, and the Kanuks used "terrorist tactics" to oppose them, would they be terrorists? I don't think so.

Marco

[mcelrah]

"Occupation" is the legal term for an army that has taken possession
of an inhabited area. Under the Geneva Conventions, that occupying
army is under an obligation to protect the civilian population (not
least from rape, murder and pillage by its own soldiers), prevent
looting, provide the necessities of life, etc.

The point of the Canada analogy is that there was no/no - zero -
terrorist threat from Iraq (just like there were no/no WMD, as the
International Atomic Energy Commission report, which we chose to
ignore, stated) before we invaded. Now there is. This cannot be
scored as a benefit accruing from the war.

Hugh

[Marco Zee]

Perhaps we should use the term "liberating, temporarily occupying army only until the Iraqi's can set up their own government"....but that's just too difficult and too wordy.

Since we are no longer "occupying" Iraq, let's just call them the liberating army, which was the most proper and accurate term from the start.

Get some air time folks....Saturday's looking pretty good.

Marco

[mcelrah]

The moral standing of an occupying army is determined by how that
army behaves, not by whatever pretty name you want to apply. In
general, U.S. soldiers behave well. Their leadership let them down
by failing to plan for an occupation and by promulgating rules for
handling detainees which left room for abuse. - Hugh

[brianvh]

Marco -
Let's make it simple: which of the two is true?

1. The number of terrorists have actually decreased due to the war in Iraq.
2. The number of terrorists have actually increased in response to the war in Iraq.
I think it's fairly clear we've just stirred up a hornet's nest. No, that's not right. We've CREATED a hornet's nest. There is more anger against us now than before, and hence more folks are encouraged to try their hand at terrorism to get us out of Iraq.

It's a good thing Saddam did not have any evident WMD, 'cause if he did they'd currently be in a country far less stable than it was before.

So answer me straight: has the number of terrorists actually decreased since we invaded Iraq?

[Flying Lobster]

From what I've read, I believe our own intelligence services put the percentage of non-indigenous insurgents at less than 10%, perhaps even less than 5%. Of course, much of the administration's strategy relies on the public's willingness to accept that insurgent Sunni's are the same thing as Al Queda infiltrators--which is what they used to justify the war to begin with. But that small number may in fact be in large part responsible for the evolving terrorist tactics being used.

Terrorist activities are up 3-fold world-wide since the invasion of Iraq.

Afganistan's US-supported warlords are now producing more herion than any country has ever produced any illegal drug, accounting for half or more of the country's GDP. It appears that perhaps the entire government is permeated with corruption. Anyone want to venture a wild guess where some of that illegal money is going?

marcoPope-Rove-a-Libby-peas

[MikeBalk]

Why did Bush state in a Saturday radio address that his generals have
informed him that the Iraqi troops are being trained and ready to take over
more responsibilities?

Two days earlier his generals were before congress, and Sen. McCain stated
that in the spring congress had been told that 3 divisions of 100 Iraqi
troops had come up to speed. He then asked what the current number of
divisions was.

The answer? 1.

What then does Bush mean by "his generals informed him?" Did he lie or did
his generals?


-Mike

[Marco Zee]

Brian, you said: <<Let's make it simple: which of the two is true?

1. The number of terrorists have actually decreased due to the war in Iraq.
2. The number of terrorists have actually increased in response to the war in Iraq.
I think it's fairly clear we've just stirred up a hornet's nest. No, that's not right. We've CREATED a hornet's nest. There is more anger against us now than before, and hence more folks are encouraged to try their hand at terrorism to get us out of Iraq.

It's a good thing Saddam did not have any evident WMD, 'cause if he did they'd currently be in a country far less stable than it was before.

So answer me straight: has the number of terrorists actually decreased since we invaded Iraq?>>

REPLY:

Let's see, if we kill or capture thousands of terrorists, then the total number of terrorists decreases, RIGHT ?

What cannot be determined DEFINITIVELY is whether our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is "creating" more terrorists than we are killing and capturing. How can anyone "prove" or accurately tally the total number of terrorists? Could it be that there are a finite number of terrorists, but their "activity level" has increased, giving the impression that there are "more" terrorists. Not unlike one of our fly-ins where 100 pilots may show up, the activity level of pilots increases, but the total number of pilots has not increased. But to a bystander, one might assume that HG pilots are increasing dramatically.

So, I cannot answer your question with 100% certainty, because I just don't know. But I am very comfortable with our soldiers battling and killing these terrorists on a daily basis. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist, and no better way to kill them then to have our military hunt them down and destroy them.

Marco

[Marco Zee]

Marc, you said: <<From what I've read, I believe our own intelligence services put the percentage of non-indigenous insurgents at less than 10%, perhaps even less than 5%>>

Marc,

Glad to hear that you now believe that we are battling terrorists in Iraq....previously you said we were not fighting Al-Queda there. Welcome to reality.

Marco

[mcelrah]

Marco said: "...no better way than to have our troops hunt down and
destroy terrorists"

Nope, there IS a better way: have the Iraqi troops do it. They know
the people, the terrain, and with U.S. troops out of the picture, you
take the patriotic resistance against the foreign occupiers thing out
of it. - Hugh

[Marco Zee]

It will be interesting to see what the foreign terrorists will do once the US forces withdraw from Iraq. Will they pack up and go home, or will they stay in Iraq & continue to kill and mame innocent civilians for collaborating with the "Great Satan". I suspect that they will continue to perform terrorist acts in Iraq, and/or elsewhere.

I am hoping to get the Iraqi forces up and running ASAP so that we can get our troops out of there once the democratic government and security forces are well established.

[brianvh]

Marco said:

Let's see, if we kill or capture thousands of terrorists, then the total number of terrorists decreases, RIGHT ?

What cannot be determined DEFINITIVELY is whether our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is "creating" more terrorists than we are killing and capturing. How can anyone "prove" or accurately tally the total number of terrorists? Could it be that there are a finite number of terrorists, but their "activity level" has increased, giving the impression that there are "more" terrorists.

------------------------------------------------------

Interesting and logically correct quibble. I agree that we can't know for sure, but let's look at another arena. If there were a finite number of terrorist suicide bombers in itsy bitsy Palestine, after all these years don't you think they would have run dry by now? It's been a long time....

Terrorists are created by the situation. You seem to be implying that killing all the bad terrorists will solve the problem. But if you get inside their mind you'll realize how the recruiting works: they see themselves as freedom fighters ridding their own lands of the evil foriegn invaders. They think of themselves as the noble, good guys, and by virtue of our tromping through their country uninvited with guns and bombs, a large enough number of their population agrees with them that they have steady recruitment. And everytime we kill an evil terrorist, they lose a noble freedom fighter, a member of their family who they do NOT consider to be evil (misquided at best), and hence the resentment and recruitment grows. If Iran came into the US the same way we went into Iraq, even if we did have an evil dictator, wouldn't you want a piece of them?

As you correctly state, I can't prove the above paragraph is true, but I think it fits the picture of the ongoing insurgency better than your view that we just have to kill enough cut-throats and the problem will go away.

[mcelrah]

For once, I find nothing to disagree with you about! - Hugh

[Marco Zee]

Brian,

Of course there is always nationalist resentment of any foreigners, even tourists, but especially military troops, even those "well meaning troops" who may actually be "helping" the locals. During the Viet Nam War, many of the captured North Vietnamese admitted that they were "fighting for their country" much more so than "fighting for Communism" or their political leaders.

I would take a "small" issue with your final statement which portrays my view as "....that we have to kill enough cut-throats and the problem will go away.".

I would simply say that it is human nature to attempt to stay alive, and that there exists a strong, innate sense of fear of death. And most "insurgents", by seeing large casualties of their countrymen by daring to battle US troops, naturally are deterred, by fear, from continuing to attack our troops, and thereby may seek alternative means to "improve the current situation". Conversely, some become "more committed" to violence.

My view is more accurately summarized as "kill enough cut-throats and give their more reasonable brethren a political alternative to express their resentment and address their concerns, and the violence should greatly diminish, and possibly disappear." The best example of this is England with the IRA.

Marco

[brianvh]

Right-on with what you just said.

But it comes back to the original intent of this thread - are we improving the terrorist situation? If we can produce a stable Iraq then it just might; if we can't produce a stable Iraq then we've probably made the terroritst situation much worse.

Big gamble. May as well rephrase my whole opinion - I think it was too dangerous a gamble to be worth the risk, but now that we're in it I agree we have to see it through. But we have to watch our actions and statements to make sure we don't inflame the Jingoism that pisses people off and helps create a terrorist environment.

[mcelrah]

Problem is, they are attacking our troops with IEDs, which is pretty
safe from their point of view... - Hugh

[Marco Zee]

This is a nice review of the entire Iraq debate, full of fun facts and quotes from both sides of the aisle.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Produ ... vance.html