You Brits are gonna love the New Freedom and Safety

[DangerBoy]

Great, the blame America first crowd. America created the terrorists!!

[got tonkaed]

if you dont think american foreign policy did not at least in some part contribute to an increase in insurgents and terrorists, then you are not perhaps getting the entire mindset, or picture of people in the middle east.

[DangerBoy]

if you dont think american foreign policy did not at least in some part contribute to an increase in insurgents and terrorists, then you are not perhaps getting the entire mindset, or picture of people in the middle east.

Ok, then are people who are against the Iraq War the only ones who do understand the mindset of people in the middle east, or do they just understand people in the middle east better than people who support the effort in Iraq?

My belief is that these insurgents/terrorists already existed. They flocked to Iraq because members of Al Queda & other terrorist organizations realized they would have one less safe haven if they lose there.

[got tonkaed]

as always things in Iraq are very complicated. Certainly there are aspects that people on both sides have better understood than the other side. However as a deeper picture of insurgency and terrorism....i would say that as a whole, most of the people who are fighting the war on terror seem to have a very limited understanding of what exactly they are fighting against.

This wasnt necesarily my opinion alone, this was the opinion of people within our own clandestine service, who are the ones essentially who are providing the understandings we have of individuals in the middle east. Its hard because these things are necesarily political issues, but there are aspects of our foreign policy which are directly related to Al-Qaida being able to create new insurgents and terrorists.

The mindset was out there, but we have certainly helped it grow because of our policies and the way they easily can be spun (and possibly rightly so).

[DangerBoy]

i would say that as a whole, most of the people who are fighting the war on terror seem to have a very limited understanding of what exactly they are fighting against.

Ok, I'll bite. Which people who are fighting the war on terror have a limited understanding of exactly what they are fighting against?

This wasnt necesarily my opinion alone, this was the opinion of people within our own clandestine service, who are the ones essentially who are providing the understandings we have of individuals in the middle east.

Which clandestine service are you talking about? My own opinion on this is that there are a number of resources that people can go to now that will offer them a more complete picture of individuals in the middle east. That's what I try to do anyway. Are you saying that individuals within our govt. are purposefully trying to mislead the public on how they perceive middle easterners in order to garner support for the Iraq effort? If that's the case then they obviously have not been successful in convincing people such as yourself.

The mindset was out there, but we have certainly helped it grow because of our policies and the way they easily can be spun (and possibly rightly so).

Which policy are you talking about? How did it specifically contribute to the growth of the insurgency/terrorist activity?

[got tonkaed]

well i think to look at where we are now a short historical approach probably works best....

Right after 9/11 the CIA had a pretty impressive amount of information which explained what would have to happen if we were going to fight a war in afghanistan. All kinds of information about the soviet failures and the geopolitcal nature of the country itself. Theres a good book on the first few years in the war on terror called imperial hubris, written by someone who was employed by the CIA and he talkes about many of the things which he considered errors in the inital process which have led to problems. Id recommend this book to anyone as far as political affilation goes, becuase he writes a fairly balanced account of some of the failures early on.

By labelling this a war against terror we have really blundered in alot of peoples opinions. Al-Qaidas terroism training group is much much smaller than the general insurgency training which has been the staple for many years since 9/11. The fact that we are going for something which is relatively small in import and in number compared to the bigger problem we are likely to be facing (assuming we continue our middle east foreign policy strategy over the next few days) suggests a severe problem in semantics and something we are likely to struggle in overcoming.

Id argue that many of the policy makers (perhaps understandably so) made a knee jerk reaction to the attacks on 9/11 and started a movement that really historically/culturally/and scematically struggles to have a large possiblity of success. You cant really fight a war against terrorism anymore than you could defeat the vietcong in the long run. Its too fluid of a concept and too invisible of an enemy. Likewise, we are not seen as liberators by in large (though certainly there are many who admire the western culture and would adopt our style of life given the oppertunity). To come in to their soverign nations under the premise that we are going to make their lives better, with a lack of general understanding of the country see iraq and afghanistan, we present a big oversight that our enemies can exploit.

I tend to go back and forht on whether or not we are being direclty mislead. Anyone who understands the nature of politics realizes that there are always going to be things which are truths, half truths and things which are necesarily deemed to be truthful which arent. I think the problem has been for a long time, that people have generally been disconnected to what is happening on the ground, and have failed to understand the basic history and cultural nature of a lot of our opposition. When you do this, it is not necesarily that you are trying to directly mislead people, you rather are trying to present information that helps your cause, and fits within your understanding (even if its incorrect).

There are numerous policies and failures in understanding our opponent. Many of them are as simple as semantic understandings in labeling the war, others are failures to understand teh basic policy of al-qaida, along with the general state of mind of the average conservative muslim in teh middle east. They also include failures to udnerstand the recent history of afghanistan and iraq and to a lesser degree iran.

the problem is, people in our intelligence agencies do have a lot of this information, but it is not being fully utlized or being used as best as possible at the present, which is the fault of the policy makers, not of the people finding the information.

[DangerBoy]

Right after 9/11 the CIA had a pretty impressive amount of information which explained what would have to happen if we were going to fight a war in afghanistan. All kinds of information about the soviet failures and the geopolitcal nature of the country itself. Theres a good book on the first few years in the war on terror called imperial hubris, written by someone who was employed by the CIA and he talkes about many of the things which he considered errors in the inital process which have led to problems. Id recommend this book to anyone as far as political affilation goes, becuase he writes a fairly balanced account of some of the failures early on.

I'll look for the book. Did you also consider other sources in order to form your opinions. Personally, I consider Afghanistan a success because it only took about 2 months to rout the Taliban regime out of power compared to the Soviets years of failure there. I guess it depends on what your definition of success is. From what I read from liberals, nothing other than the capture of Osama Bin Laden will be defined as a success. The fact that the evil Taliban regime was routed & that bin Laden & his upper echelon are forced to hide & produce a couple of random videos in order to recruit means nothing to them.

By labelling this a war against terror we have really blundered in alot of peoples opinions. Al-Qaidas terroism training group is much much smaller than the general insurgency training which has been the staple for many years since 9/11. The fact that we are going for something which is relatively small in import and in number compared to the bigger problem we are likely to be facing (assuming we continue our middle east foreign policy strategy over the next few days) suggests a severe problem in semantics and something we are likely to struggle in overcoming.

Well then how would you label it if it's not a war against terror? What would you call it when Hussein let Al-Queda & other terrorist groups train in his country? I can't really understand what you're talking about when you say "we're going 'after something' which is relatively small in import compared to 'the bigger problem' we are likely to be facing." What are you talking about? If the phrase war on terror isn't to your liking then what would you call it? We have to call it something because they hate us and want to kill us.

Id argue that many of the policy makers (perhaps understandably so) made a knee jerk reaction to the attacks on 9/11 and started a movement that really historically/culturally/and scematically struggles to have a large possiblity of success. You cant really fight a war against terrorism anymore than you could defeat the vietcong in the long run. Its too fluid of a concept and too invisible of an enemy. Likewise, we are not seen as liberators by in large (though certainly there are many who admire the western culture and would adopt our style of life given the oppertunity). To come in to their soverign nations under the premise that we are going to make their lives better, with a lack of general understanding of the country see iraq and afghanistan, we present a big oversight that our enemies can exploit.

What knee-jerk reaction are you talking about in response to the 9/11 attacks? I just flat out disagree with you that the war against terrorism can't be won. Obviously, if you kill everyone who is a terrorist or force them to surrender you win. If they are unable to kill anyone else then you win. Al-Queda has even offered a temporary cease-fire which to me shows that they are weakening. What I think people here keep saying is that if you kill a terrorist, then other people who were neutral will suddenly want to become a terrorist or sympathize with the terrorists. Based on what I read, that is not true.

I tend to go back and forht on whether or not we are being direclty mislead. Anyone who understands the nature of politics realizes that there are always going to be things which are truths, half truths and things which are necesarily deemed to be truthful which arent. I think the problem has been for a long time, that people have generally been disconnected to what is happening on the ground, and have failed to understand the basic history and cultural nature of a lot of our opposition. When you do this, it is not necesarily that you are trying to directly mislead people, you rather are trying to present information that helps your cause, and fits within your understanding (even if its incorrect).

I agree partially with this, but I think that a majority of liberal-minded people cite news sources which only reflect bad news. We just killed a major Al Queda leader there in Iraq and the news I read today says we just captured a Shiite leader. Another guy here quoted 19,000 insurgents killed but I recently read it was more like 23,000 plus. Why is it bad to present information like that? Liberal people usually call that propaganda, but isn't it just as much propaganda to say that there were no terrorists in Iraq before 2003? It seems that people against the Iraq effort keep repeating that one even though it's not true. Also, Bin Laden himself said that Iraq is the center for what he views as this 3rd World War. That's hardly semantics. He's being very definitive in how he views it.

the problem is, people in our intelligence agencies do have a lot of this information, but it is not being fully utlized or being used as best as possible at the present, which is the fault of the policy makers, not of the people finding the information.

Hmmm, maybe. What is your suggestion for a method to make them fully utilize it better?

The reason I'm asking all these questions to you is because people here who are against the war are more than willing to criticize the effort, but do not offer constructive alternatives. They also artfully dodge how they would define success.

[got tonkaed]

I'll look for the book. Did you also consider other sources in order to form your opinions. Personally, I consider Afghanistan a success because it only took about 2 months to rout the Taliban regime out of power compared to the Soviets years of failure there. I guess it depends on what your definition of success is. From what I read from liberals, nothing other than the capture of Osama Bin Laden will be defined as a success. The fact that the evil Taliban regime was routed & that bin Laden & his upper echelon are forced to hide & produce a couple of random videos in order to recruit means nothing to them.

i do try to look a variety of sources for these issues, i just felt that book was especially relavant for the timeperiod that was being discussed. I frankly disagree with you fundamentally that afghanistan is a success. it is primarily a problem of a failure to understand afghanistan. The country is tribal in nature, and centralized authority out of kabul has had little to no effect in assuring stability in the country at all. In fact seemingly the majority of reports out of afghanistan seem to suggest the taliban is growing in strength and controls much of the country, rather than the reverse. Frankly kabul is the opposite of how the majority of the country views the issue. I would say we are losing ground in afghanistan instead of gaining in it. And the longer things go the more likely we are losing pakistan as well. If you have reports which contradict this i would be interested in reading them, as it seems the majority of information in the past year has suggested that we are not winning in afghanistan.

Well then how would you label it if it's not a war against terror? What would you call it when Hussein let Al-Queda & other terrorist groups train in his country? I can't really understand what you're talking about when you say "we're going 'after something' which is relatively small in import compared to 'the bigger problem' we are likely to be facing." What are you talking about? If the phrase war on terror isn't to your liking then what would you call it? We have to call it something because they hate us and want to kill us.

well intelligence seems to suggest that the number of people being trained to be terrorists as in the people who are going to try to attack our country vs the number of people who are going to be trained to fight us when we are military involved in those countries is very low. As far as the al-qaida training program goes, the insurgency training is much much larger than the terrorist training program is. In all likelyhood, we will be forced to deal with insurgents much more than we will be forced to deal with terrorists. The problem with renaming the war is that the majority of people at the top seem to think that would signify defeat, when rather it would allow us to use our resources better to combat the things which we will actively be facing - especially in iraq in the near future, if not for the extended period of time.

Id also like to say we have different opinions about the nature of the aggression against us in terms of insurgent/terrorist. Bin laden and Al-qaida are marketing this as a defensive war, the jihad as a defensive act for the faith against the aggressors from the west. Before 9/11 this was a difficult thing to pass off, but since, as a result of our actions, it has been remarkably easy to show signs of american aggression. Frankly our actions are allowing the numbers to go up, because we are fueling the continued use of propaganda against us. The fact that the policy demands of bin laden are consistently not filled by the americans (though they wouldnt be given the nature of our middle eastern policy) is irrelavant, only the intellectuals in the group care about that. The thing which is being shelled out to the average person who is fighting us, is that the americans continue to invade and are showing few signs of letting up on them.

What knee-jerk reaction are you talking about in response to the 9/11 attacks? I just flat out disagree with you that the war against terrorism can't be won. Obviously, if you kill everyone who is a terrorist or force them to surrender you win. Al-Queda has even offered a temporary cease-fire which to me shows that they are weakening. What I think people here keep saying is that if you kill a terrorist, then other people who were neutral will suddenly want to become a terrorist or sympathize with the terrorists. Based on what I read, that is not true.

The knee-jerk reaction especially was the invasion of afghanistan and the desire to set up a centralized authority in kabul, which has proven to be inconsequential to maintaing stablity. Also the failure ot block off borders in teh country was incorrect. The incorrect labeling of this as a war gainst terror will probably also prove to be incorrect. Frankly the errors are numerous and they were all done because people did not use the information at hand to create a better policy. I feel you are being incorrectly informed about the idea that you can simply kill every terrorist. Frankly it is too difficult with the lack of help we are getting from the countries in the area to locate all the terrorists. And we are providing more evidence for the opposition to continue to draw up recruits for. It appears we have conflicting information on such issues.

I agree partially with this, but I think that a majority of liberal-minded people cite news sources which only reflect bad news. We just killed a major Al Queda leader there in Iraq and the news I read today says we just captured a Shiite leader. Another guy here quoted 19,000 insurgents killed but I recently read it was more like 23,000 plus. Why is it bad to present information like that? Liberal people usually call that propaganda, but isn't it just as much propaganda to say that there were no terrorists in Iraq before 2003? It seems that people against the Iraq effort keep repeating that one even though it's not true. Also, Bin Laden himself said that Iraq is the center for what he views as this 3rd World War. That's hardly semantics. He's being very definitive in how he views it.

i would agree that there are certainly many people who use the news to fit their agenda, and that many of these people are liberal. Yes we are killing many of hte people who may be against us, and we are starting to do so in large numbers. However, we are killing a tremendous number of people who are not against us, and less distressing but perhaps even more logistically important, we are not creating stability in many regions of iraq. I think the last report i saw claimed that less than 10 percent of iraq would be able to be anything approaching self sufficent and given the number of lives lost on all sides that is not a positive statistic.

Bin laden is a master of propaganda, better than any of us are id wager. He is marking this as a battleground for the 3rd world war because it is easy to sell to people who cannot become informed on the issue. Much like it is easy to reduce many issues in america down to social talking points, he creates a much more strong reaction by setting a simple standard for action in Iraq. Frankly we are contributing to this, and if the surge proves to be ineffective as a whole, he will be able to use the fact that there was a surge as fuel for propaganda for a much longer timespan still. The longer we stay in iraq the more people will be affected by the message that jihad starts there, and the more insurgents that will enter teh country. we are rapidly, if we havent long ago, reached the point of diminsing returns in iraq.

Hmmm, maybe. What is your suggestion for a method to make them fully utilize it better?

The reason I'm asking all these questions to you is because people here who are against the war are more than willing to criticize the effort, but do not offer constructive alternatives. They also artfully dodge how they would define success.

to some degree we are limited in saying what we should do with the intelligence we have, becuase frankly we arent allowed to see it. I can only speculate at best as to what we have currently in classified reports since i certainly have no access. But having read the things ive read and hearing the things we hear from people who have left this administration, it seems we are having a basic lack of communication between different groups in washington. It appears the clandestine service is being incredibly underutlized and information is being to politicized. Frankly information should hold no biases, as it should be viewed as guiding as fact. We are apparently doing too much slanting of what is going on in order to support actions which are on the whole being increasingly opposed by teh american population. Too much information is not being used, because people within the clandestine services are witholding it, because unpopular stances do not lead to promotions. There needs to apparently be some cleanup within the intelligence agencies, however there is little that we can necesarily do about this unless it is called for by the politicans who are active in washington. All we can really do is write letters i would assume and try to get the word out. There is a huge gap of power in terms of information, which the public is in a poor position in.

[DangerBoy]

You wrote a lot of stuff so I'm not going to quote everything. But I just simply disagree with you on so many things and how you present them. You really aren't answering my specific questions but are speaking in general terms.

If you don't define the current operation in Afghanistan as a success, then how would you define it? Perfection?

The Taliban provided safe haven for Bin Laden. We told them to give him up and they refused. We went in and removed them from power. This was a regime who destroyed culturally significant treasures, tortured women & wouldn't let them go to school, and used soccer fields to murder innocent people. While no govt. is perfect, what would you prefer in place of a centralized govt. from Kabul? You're very willing to criticize, but what is your solution? Their parliament now has one of the highest representations of women in that region. Ok, the Taliban is growing. Are they now in charge of the country? No. They are forced to make sporadic attacks and do not dictate a policy of evil.

I don't see how you can make the claim that we're fostering new recruitment for terrorists when we're killing them at record numbers. So, are we supposed to just let them attack us without defending ourselves in order for other countries/people to like us better? If Bin Laden spins it as a defensive struggle who cares! He's evil. We can't worry about what he says. We have to defeat him. He wants to kill us.

I really haven't you heard you give any specific new information to back up what you're saying. It sounds more like the same old lines against the war that are general statements. Of course everyone does that from both sides to a certain extent, but I still have yet to hear liberals here define what success would be.

I'm not denying that there are bad things happening in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm just saying that people who are against the war are only considering the information they want in order to back up their displeasure. I just read some information on Iraq that show BOTH the good & bad.

[got tonkaed]

fair enough....i suppose we will probably soon approach an impass of sorts.

For me defining success in afghanistan would be when we continue to have success over the long term in having tribal regions stop their implicit support of the taliban. Indicators of success would be an increase in regions which did not support the taliban, which evidence seems to suggest isnt happening. Or id take a greater degree of stability between some of the tribes along with a greater sense of allegiance to kabul, which is very unlikely to happen. I would prefer that we stopped focusing on kabul as an end all be all, becuase success in afghanistan is measured in the tribes, not in the one city. Yes i would love for the indicators of success as far as womens rights and democracy to improve, but we have to realize that democratically elected groups, in much of that part of the world are not going to agree with our conception of womens rights as of yet. The taliban has more effective control of the country than kabul does. When that shifts, ill be willing to suggest we are heading down the road to success.

You suggest that the liberal crowd is looking for absolutes, id suggest the conservatives are advocating things which are not in fact successes as of yet, and have little hope of becoming so.

I guess id we will disagree on the nature of the danger of islamic terrorists toward our way of life. Bringing in our perspectives to the debate, id suggest that your worldview takes a necesary more conflictive view toward islam than mine does. I understand and respect your opinion that they will attack us at first oppertunity, where i feel tehy will only do so as a result of our continued support of antagonsitic policy. I do not expect you to agree with this, but this is something we probably will be at an impass about. To oversimply things, islam presents as much of a challenge to your way of life as you do to them, so i understand your apprehension toward them.

I dont know that im reciting typical war lines, as it seems that many things i have said you were not familiar with before, so if they are that retread of statements, you wouldnt continue to suggest you had not heard of these things. I dont think we necesarily have to get into a google debate regarding sources, they are all out there, and i try to spend as much time getting information from a variety of sources. Nothing im presenting as ideas are coming from evidence that is hidden from public view.

I think people who are against the war are beginning to view the good information as lacking in comparsion to the bad. Yes some are blindly listening to a small number of sources and getting what they want out of that. I think there is a greater degree of people who are hearing the good and bad news and deciding that the good does not outweigh the bad.

as far as defining victory or for my views on any foreign policy, id be happy to answer any specifics as best as i am able.

[DangerBoy]

For me defining success in afghanistan would be when we continue to have success over the long term in having tribal regions stop their implicit support of the taliban. Indicators of success would be an increase in regions which did not support the taliban, which evidence seems to suggest isnt happening. Or id take a greater degree of stability between some of the tribes along with a greater sense of allegiance to kabul, which is very unlikely to happen. I would prefer that we stopped focusing on kabul as an end all be all, becuase success in afghanistan is measured in the tribes, not in the one city. Yes i would love for the indicators of success as far as womens rights and democracy to improve, but we have to realize that democratically elected groups, in much of that part of the world are not going to agree with our conception of womens rights as of yet. The taliban has more effective control of the country than kabul does. When that shifts, ill be willing to suggest we are heading down the road to success.

OK, at least you defined your terms for success. That's more than I've heard from the usual group of criticizers here. I would disagree that the Taliban has more control over the country than the central government. If that were true then women would not be allowed to attend school or serve in the govt. there, which was the original Taliban policy. There would also be a renewed effort for mass murder which took place before they were ousted. If we're going to focus on the tribes instead of Kabul then the country itself would not exist. It would be a bunch of little countries parceled out according to tribe ethnicity or loyalty. It wouldn't be long before these separate tribes/countries would be attacking each other again. There has to be some sort of central authority to stabilize the country and people have to try and get along/compromise at some point. Other countries can do it & I believe Afghanistan is also capable of it.

You suggest that the liberal crowd is looking for absolutes, id suggest the conservatives are advocating things which are not in fact successes as of yet, and have little hope of becoming so.

Actually what I believe is that the liberal crowd waits for anything bad to happen, and I do mean anything. They wait for those events and then criticize in general terms. They rarely offer a positive alternative for solving the problem but keep criticizing.

I guess id we will disagree on the nature of the danger of islamic terrorists toward our way of life. Bringing in our perspectives to the debate, id suggest that your worldview takes a necesary more conflictive view toward islam than mine does. I understand and respect your opinion that they will attack us at first oppertunity, where i feel tehy will only do so as a result of our continued support of antagonsitic policy. I do not expect you to agree with this, but this is something we probably will be at an impass about. To oversimply things, islam presents as much of a challenge to your way of life as you do to them, so i understand your apprehension toward them.

Yeah, you're right. We totally disagree about the nature of the terrorists. I believe they are evil and must be either killed, captured, or forced to surrender so they will not murder anyone else. If they won't stop murdering then I won't stop supporting our govt's attempts to stop them.

I dont know that im reciting typical war lines, as it seems that many things i have said you were not familiar with before, so if they are that retread of statements, you wouldnt continue to suggest you had not heard of these things. I dont think we necesarily have to get into a google debate regarding sources, they are all out there, and i try to spend as much time getting information from a variety of sources. Nothing im presenting as ideas are coming from evidence that is hidden from public view.

The line that we can't win the war despite evidence that we're killing massive amounts of insurgents. The other line is that we're creating the problem or escalating it when we confront these murderers.

I think people who are against the war are beginning to view the good information as lacking in comparsion to the bad. Yes some are blindly listening to a small number of sources and getting what they want out of that. I think there is a greater degree of people who are hearing the good and bad news and deciding that the good does not outweigh the bad.

I would say that's because of selective reporting by news agencies who don't like President Bush. There's plenty of good news out there that's not being presented to the public. When someone says there's good news happening over there people are stunned.

as far as defining victory or for my views on any foreign policy, id be happy to answer any specifics as best as i am able.

You did a good job concerning Afghanistan. I may not agree but you were specific so thanks. I would like to ask you one last question if you're willing. You don't have to explain with a lot of sentences but just one word: Would you like to see Osama Bin Laden captured & killed?

[got tonkaed]

i suppose ill keep things relatively short since i think we know what we tend to agree on and what we disagree about.....

in regards to your question, of course i would like to see osama bin laden captured, it would probably boost our national security a great deal and probably disjoint the al-qaida effort. Its likely he would be made a martyr and a bit of a rallying point, but at the same time he provides inspiration for many and possibly would be a good point of hurting moral.

I personally dont need him killed if hes going to spend the rest of his life in jail. But if thats how it would have to be i suppose i wouldnt really have any qualms against it. To be fair im not a huge advocate of killing anyone, but its not something that im so passionate about to go against what would likely be an overwhemling majority of popular opinion.

[DangerBoy]

i suppose ill keep things relatively short since i think we know what we tend to agree on and what we disagree about.....

in regards to your question, of course i would like to see osama bin laden captured, it would probably boost our national security a great deal and probably disjoint the al-qaida effort. Its likely he would be made a martyr and a bit of a rallying point, but at the same time he provides inspiration for many and possibly would be a good point of hurting moral.

I personally dont need him killed if hes going to spend the rest of his life in jail. But if thats how it would have to be i suppose i wouldnt really have any qualms against it. To be fair im not a huge advocate of killing anyone, but its not something that im so passionate about to go against what would likely be an overwhemling majority of popular opinion.

Thanks. I'm not passionate about killing either but I think it's necessary sometimes. We can't prevent people from making a martyr out of anyone. That's out of our control so I don't worry about it. I've heard some people make a martyr of Hitler but that doesn't change my attitude that defeating his fascist regime was necessary.

[joecoolfrog]

i suppose ill keep things relatively short since i think we know what we tend to agree on and what we disagree about.....

in regards to your question, of course i would like to see osama bin laden captured, it would probably boost our national security a great deal and probably disjoint the al-qaida effort. Its likely he would be made a martyr and a bit of a rallying point, but at the same time he provides inspiration for many and possibly would be a good point of hurting moral.

I personally dont need him killed if hes going to spend the rest of his life in jail. But if thats how it would have to be i suppose i wouldnt really have any qualms against it. To be fair im not a huge advocate of killing anyone, but its not something that im so passionate about to go against what would likely be an overwhemling majority of popular opinion.

Thanks. I'm not passionate about killing either but I think it's necessary sometimes. We can't prevent people from making a martyr out of anyone. That's out of our control so I don't worry about it. I've heard some people make a martyr of Hitler but that doesn't change my attitude that defeating his fascist regime was necessary.

Neither the USA nor anybody else will eradicate terrorism unless the conditions that first fostered that terrorism no longer exist. If a majority of far more educated and informed Americans think Iraq was a mistake then what do you think the average person living in the Middle East thinks ? It is also a palpable error to call everybody fighting the occupying forces in Iraq a terrorist,many of the insurgents are remnants of the old regime or various factions jossling for power,some not surprisingly are ordinary people who dont like their country occupied and some are taking revenge for the deaths of loved ones. Even the Bush administration has conceded that their was no huge Islamic terrorist powerbase in Iraq prior to the invasion, Saddam crushed all potential trouble makers and they were no exception. The invasion of Iraq has not only failed to help fight Islamic terrorism it has handed the fanatics a huge propoganda victory and helped to recruit many more to the cause, the attrocities in Madrid and London were a direct result of this. The Irony is that we are now struggling in Afghanistan ( where the Islamists really were and are) because much of the available resources have been squandered in Iraq .
This incidently has long been the view of the British military who are neither Liberal or,despite what some of yout trash media might pretend,a bunch of cowardly wimps.

[got tonkaed]

Neither the USA nor anybody else will eradicate terrorism unless the conditions that first fostered that terrorism no longer exist. If a majority of far more educated and informed Americans think Iraq was a mistake then what do you think the average person living in the Middle East thinks ? It is also a palpable error to call everybody fighting the occupied forces in Iraq a terrorist,many of the insurgents are remnants of the old regime or various factions jossling for power,some not surprisingly are ordinary people who dont like their country occupied and some are taking revenge for the deaths of loved ones. Even the Bush administration has conceded that their was no huge Islamic terrorist powerbase in Iraq prior to the invasion, Saddam crushed all potential trouble makers and they were no exception. The invasion of Iraq has not only failed to help fight Islamic terrorism it has handed the fanatics a huge propoganda victory and helped to recruit many more to the cause, the attrocities in Madrid and London were a direct result of this.

this is actually a really good point. one of the very negative results of the iraq invasion is you are going to downgrade from a relatively stable (if not always pro-us or pro human rights) leader to an unstable situation that creates the potential for greater long term problems. Probably one of the more sound and irrefutable aspects of the iraqi invasion that was incredibly overlooked at the time.

[joecoolfrog]

The amazing thing is that Bush senior,for those very reasons, decided against usurping Saddam after the Gulf war a decade earlier

[DangerBoy]

Neither the USA nor anybody else will eradicate terrorism unless the conditions that first fostered that terrorism no longer exist.

What are these conditions that you are talking about? Are you saying it's the United States' fault because we support Israel? Heck, let's not have alliances or peaceful relations with any countries because somebody else will get angry about it.

If a majority of far more educated and informed Americans think Iraq was a mistake then what do you think the average person living in the Middle East thinks ?

Your question implies that people who support the Iraq effort are not as educated or informed as those who are against it. That's a position of not dealing with the facts but just saying my opinion is better than yours because it's a more informed opinion. For the record, I'm reading the report right now about Middle East opinions. Sunnis and ex-Baathists are the only groups with a majority opinion against us.

It is also a palpable error to call everybody fighting the occupying forces in Iraq a terrorist, many of the insurgents are remnants of the old regime or various factions jossling for power,some not surprisingly are ordinary people who dont like their country occupied and some are taking revenge for the deaths of loved ones.

Are you reading the actual polls taken over in Iraq or left wing blogs & periodicals? They're not occupiers but liberators.

Even the Bush administration has conceded that their was no huge Islamic terrorist powerbase in Iraq prior to the invasion, Saddam crushed all potential trouble makers and they were no exception.

That's just straight up wrong. Al Zarqawi was there training terrorists before the US invaded. Even the Democrats admit this.

The invasion of Iraq has not only failed to help fight Islamic terrorism it has handed the fanatics a huge propoganda victory and helped to recruit many more to the cause, the attrocities in Madrid and London were a direct result of this.

Sure it has. It has stopped over 23,000 plus terrorists by killing them. Terrorists are going to use propaganda regardless. That's why they're terrorists. They are totally committed to killing those who don't agree with them. Do you really think they're going to stop murdering if the US & other govts say please stop?

The Irony is that we are now struggling in Afghanistan ( where the Islamists really were and are) because much of the available resources have been squandered in Iraq .

The other irony is that we haven't been attacked since September 11th. How you can say that resources are being squandered when we keep killing terrorists is something I don't understand. The purpose of the military is to kill the enemy and protect us from further invasion. They are doing their job.

This incidently has long been the view of the British military who are neither Liberal or,despite what some of yout trash media might pretend,a bunch of cowardly wimps.

Which proves what I've started to believe in the last two years - Liberals can't make their points without calling names.

one of the very negative results of the iraq invasion is you are going to downgrade from a relatively stable (if not always pro-us or pro human rights) leader to an unstable situation that creates the potential for greater long term problems. Probably one of the more sound and irrefutable aspects of the iraqi invasion that was incredibly overlooked at the time.

Huh? The stability of a madman who murdered thousands of his own people. He beat and tortured numerous innocent lives! He also harbored terrorists so they could train to carry out more attacks on other people! Is this the kind of stability you're talking about?

The stable government of Saddam Hussein

Why don't you tell some of those people in the video how stable it was before Saddam was defeated.

[got tonkaed]

well if you consider the amount of danger that he posed, compared the amount of danger that likely will come as a result of the power vaccum in an area with such resources, yes i do consider saddams regime, although terrible to be more stable. If you do not see this, then you are not critically looking at the situation.

[joecoolfrog]

1) If there is a perception that the USA is anti Islam then that perception needs to be disproved in order to undermine the terrorists, invading a Muslim country simply hardens that view.
2) I implied nothing of the sort - try reading again with an open mind !
Opinion Worldwide is overwhelmingly against what has developed in Iraq,you cannot supply any evidence that this is not true and if you fail to accept that fact you are simply in denial.
3) Oh please Polls conducted by who and asking whom ? we can argue semantics all day but those firing the bullets dont consider you liberators do they !
4) Read again,I said huge Islamist powerbase not a few hundred which is probably about the same as in Britain and many other countries.
5) Show me any link that says 23,000 terrorists,as opposed to insurgents,have been killed.
6) It is not a Irony that the USA has not had further attacks,it is a combination of better homeland security and geographical location. Other countries that are more accesible have been subject to numerous attacks,do they not matter ?
7) Any part of the media that suggests that the British army has been anything but professional in Iraq or Afghanistan is talking trash,that is fact not name calling.
In terms of supporting terrorism Iraq was not a threat and therefore considered stable, if this was the true reason for invasion then Syria,Iran and Libya would clearly head the list - just ask the Israelis. Saddam was a monster with an appalling human rights record and that may be a reason for regime change but has nothing to do with any war on terror.
9) Im not a Liberal I have voted Conservative, the equivalent of your Republican , all my life. It is not imperative to slavishly toe a party line,you do realise that I would hope !

[Neutrino]

What are these conditions that you are talking about? Are you saying it's the United States' fault because we support Israel? Heck, let's not have alliances or peaceful relations with any countries because somebody else will get angry about it.

I don't think it counts solely as "peaceful relations" if the US was a prime factor in establishing Israel and continues to supply then with weaponry...

Your question implies that people who support the Iraq effort are not as educated or informed as those who are against it. That's a position of not dealing with the facts but just saying my opinion is better than yours because it's a more informed opinion. For the record, I'm reading the report right now about Middle East opinions. Sunnis and ex-Baathists are the only groups with a majority opinion against us.

Actually, I think, ultimately, a more informed opinion is more valuable than an uninformed one.

Are you reading the actual polls taken over in Iraq or left wing blogs & periodicals? They're not occupiers but liberators.

No matter what the majority thinks, there are still going to be some who are a little pissed off that a criuse missile just vaporised their house and family.

That's just straight up wrong. Al Zarqawi was there training terrorists before the US invaded. Even the Democrats admit this.

He was probably training terrorists then because Hussien allowed it. He knew a US invasion was coming, and so probably decided to make a temporary alliance with the insurgents and terrorists.

Sure it has. It has stopped over 23,000 plus terrorists by killing them.

And created countless more from propaganda gained from these deaths.

Terrorists are going to use propaganda regardless. That's why they're terrorists. They are totally committed to killing those who don't agree with them. Do you really think they're going to stop murdering if the US & other govts say please stop?

If the US and other governments stop giving them propaganda bonuses with over-the-top responses, then yes, they will stop. It takes a special type of person to blow themselves up for an idea. Unfortunatly, massive reprisals (the kind the US are so fond of) create them by the dozens.

The other irony is that we haven't been attacked since September 11th. How you can say that resources are being squandered when we keep killing terrorists is something I don't understand. The purpose of the military is to kill the enemy and protect us from further invasion. They are doing their job.

There have been quite a few attempts (JFK Airport, that other one in the UK (complete mind blank as to the name of the place)) at terrorist activity since 9/11, but these have mainly been stopped by the US' vastly increaced security.
Where the US citizenry is no longer paying the price in lives, the US military and local populations are.

Invasion? You've got to be kidding me.

Which proves what I've started to believe in the last two years - Liberals can't make their points without calling names.

YAY FOR STERIOTYPING!

I think it is quite obvious there are only two types of people in this world: Liberals and Coservatives. Anyone who dosen't rigidly follow one of these schools of thought is an idiot and UnAmerican (the greatest of all insults), in addition for being completely wrong for having a view different to mine.



P.S.

One of the reasons that America is the greatest country in the world is that it has cared about the rights of people around the world. You see, it does affect you in a practical way, it's just not an immediate effect and therefore not obvious to you.

You better not let Neutrino see this.

I live to serve

[DangerBoy]

well if you consider the amount of danger that he posed, compared the amount of danger that likely will come as a result of the power vaccum in an area with such resources, yes i do consider saddams regime, although terrible to be more stable. If you do not see this, then you are not critically looking at the situation.

At least I got you on the record as saying that you believe Saddam Hussein's regime is more stable. Incredible. If this is what it takes to be a sophisticated and critical thinker, then I never want to be one of you.

[got tonkaed]

well if you consider the amount of danger that he posed, compared the amount of danger that likely will come as a result of the power vaccum in an area with such resources, yes i do consider saddams regime, although terrible to be more stable. If you do not see this, then you are not critically looking at the situation.

At least I got you on the record as saying that you believe Saddam Hussein's regime is more stable. Incredible. If this is what it takes to be a sophisticated and critical thinker, then I never want to be one of you.

well you are of course entitled to your opinion. And perhaps i am incorrect. However, if you allow yourself to be(what in my view must be) led to believe that someone who stood against islamic fundamentalism (he wasnt really on friendly terms with iran) running a secular government (albeit one that commited atrocities) is more of a danger to us than many of the things that are likely to come out of the power vaccum that is iraq, then you dont understand the nature of even the thing you are fighting. Saddam wanted the lifting of sanctions and to have a greater degree of autonomy over his oil. The likely new leadership in iraq will demand foreign policy things such as the destruction of isreal and the removal of american bases from the holy land. You have effectely condoned actions which put american foriegn policy in a worse position as they are demand that we are less capable of agreeing with.

You must realize, saddam was one of many bad men who ruled(s) on this planet. He was not the worst, nor was he a choir boy. But what we have traded him for, is something far less tenable in the future of american foreign policy. It doesnt take a critical thinker to see these things, it just takes someone who is able to look at something with anything approaching objectivity.

[joecoolfrog]

well if you consider the amount of danger that he posed, compared the amount of danger that likely will come as a result of the power vaccum in an area with such resources, yes i do consider saddams regime, although terrible to be more stable. If you do not see this, then you are not critically looking at the situation.

At least I got you on the record as saying that you believe Saddam Hussein's regime is more stable. Incredible. If this is what it takes to be a sophisticated and critical thinker, then I never want to be one of you.

I dont think there is the slightest chance of that
If you are not prepared to listen to an opposing view and perhaps learn something then you will remain forever ignorant

[Stopper]

well if you consider the amount of danger that he posed, compared the amount of danger that likely will come as a result of the power vaccum in an area with such resources, yes i do consider saddams regime, although terrible to be more stable. If you do not see this, then you are not critically looking at the situation.

At least I got you on the record as saying that you believe Saddam Hussein's regime is more stable. Incredible. If this is what it takes to be a sophisticated and critical thinker, then I never want to be one of you.

I dont think there is the slightest chance of that
If you are not prepared to listen to an opposing view and perhaps learn something then you will remain forever ignorant

I'd be curious to know how DangerBoy would demonstrate that Iraq was less stable before the invasion. The mind boggles...

[got tonkaed]

well if you consider the amount of danger that he posed, compared the amount of danger that likely will come as a result of the power vaccum in an area with such resources, yes i do consider saddams regime, although terrible to be more stable. If you do not see this, then you are not critically looking at the situation.

At least I got you on the record as saying that you believe Saddam Hussein's regime is more stable. Incredible. If this is what it takes to be a sophisticated and critical thinker, then I never want to be one of you.

I dont think there is the slightest chance of that
If you are not prepared to listen to an opposing view and perhaps learn something then you will remain forever ignorant

I'd be curious to know how DangerBoy would demonstrate that Iraq was less stable before the invasion. The mind boggles...

im pretty sure its predicated on the fact that saddam is a bad guy who in his mind was killing thousands of his own citzens (true) and driven to destroy america with wmds (highly debatable)