I also wonder why Saddam didn't cooperate and comply with the 18 U.N. attempts to inspect for the weapons in question. Seems to me that if he had complied from the get go and no weapons were found the big Bush lie could not have been told.
Picking sides is what the problem is in this country and is why we're more divided today than anytime in my lifetime. How about the two sides JOINING each other on common ground instead of trying to place blame for what's already been done??
The posts today just confirm my theory that opposition to the right think conservatives are dumb.....and this is just not accurate.
IMO Saddam made one of the stupidest political gambles ever. He knew that the UN would find nothing and yet flouted inspections to the end. My guess is that he expected that Bush wouldn't get European support for an invasion and wouldn't go to war without it. Some reports from Republican Guard brass detail a very looney Saddam at the outset of the war, wantonly ordering troops to places that would have insured their slaughter. Order which the generals politely declined. Crazy or stupid? Take your pick. In any case, no one really knows why he did what he did.
I for one do not think all conservatives are stupid. However, I think that many are willing to ignore the obvious mendanciousness of this administration with regard to Iraq. This lack of honesty on the conservatives part is galling and very destructive to the future of this country.
My father-in-law is a case in point. He constantly tells me that the war in Iraq has prevented futher attacks on the US by distracting all of the terrorists. It is true their has not been any new attacks on the homeland since 9/11. But when I press him to take into account the costs to American lives abroad, the cost in taxpayer monies etc., he refuses to acknowledge that there were/are alternatives to the way that Bush wants to prosecute the war on terror or that we may be suffering more because our choices. He simply says this is how it has to be done. He usually ends his discussion by saying that "these people can't be negotiated with anyway". In other words kill em all. I can't be bothered to figure this thing out. To me that is the ultimate in unitelligent or honest debate.
Another example. When I talk to my conservative dishwasher repairman about Vietnam, he boldly states that "we were winning the war until the protesters got involved". When I ask what evidence he bases this upon, he simply says that "he has his sources". When I point out that the architect of the war, former secretary of defense Bob MacNamara, says that we had no idea what we were doing militarily. He says, "well you have your sources and I have mine". So I find that most conservatives are unwilling to look at facts or to even present facts. Does this make them stupid, no, but it sure don't make them look too smart either.
BTW my dishwasher repairman claims that there was WMD in Iraq and that it was removed to Syria. Motown anything to that claim?
Santanabadababaloo is comedy. That picture of Kerry is killing it. However, i think he would be just as happy with this cowboy running the show. So why get bent.
Another example. When I talk to my conservative dishwasher repairman about Vietnam, he boldly states that "we were winning the war until the protesters got involved".
when i talk to my ecuadorian dishwasher/repairman about vietnam, he boldly tells me "i don't speek english."
Another example. When I talk to my conservative dishwasher repairman about Vietnam, he boldly states that "we were winning the war until the protesters got involved". When I ask what evidence he bases this upon, he simply says that "he has his sources". When I point out that the architect of the war, former secretary of defense Bob MacNamara, says that we had no idea what we were doing militarily. He says, "well you have your sources and I have mine". So I find that most conservatives are unwilling to look at facts or to even present facts. Does this make them stupid, no, but it sure don't make them look too smart either.
This goes back to what the Spliffer was saying about the conservative echo chamber. The right in this country have spent the last 25 years assembling their own little world with it's own intelligentsia (conservative "think tanks")and media (Fox News), in which propaganda rules and spin can be (and is) manufactured for every contingency. As a result it doesn't matter what the truth is, because the folks on the right get to have their own "truth", which they carry clutched to their breast like an item of religious devotion.
Case in point: John Kerry, served in (and was wounded in) the Vietnam war = coward George Bush, dodged the Vietnam war and seems to have reneged even on his NG duty, towering hero.
The right wing regularly tests the WTF sensors of the few Americans that are left paying attention. Unfortunately for them that small segment of society seems to be growing a little more every day. Every time they come out and call someone like Cindy Sheehan a traitor, a few more people snap out of their fog and wonder what the fuck's going on.
I don't think conservatives are stupid either. I do however think they are dishonest.
I for one do not think all conservatives are stupid. However, I think that many are willing to ignore the obvious mendanciousness of this administration with regard to Iraq. This lack of honesty on the conservatives part is galling and very destructive to the future of this country.
To clarify, I also dont think all conservatives are stupid. On many of the domestic issues i discussed in my last post, I find conservative positions self serving, willfully ignorant and vaguely racist. However, I recognize that conservative economic positions (as opposed to social) are not inherently bad, and I can respect a difference of opinion. What really drives me nuts is foreign policy of Bush and Co, particularly the degree to which they've adopted neo-conservatism, particularly the wolfowitz school of thought, and seemingly brought it into the mainstream, as well as the way this war has been sold to the public, including the shameless, repeated citings of the 9-11/ Saddam link and the scare tactics during the election, both of which Bush has never responded to. The lack of preparation and planning for Iraq seems to me to be directly related to the confidence these decision makers had that their "academic" theories would apply to the real world. How else could Cheney say with a straight face that we would be greeted in the streets with flowers and that the insurgency is on its last legs. Again, this is willful ignorance, in that whatever doesn't fit into their version of the story is ignored as unimportant or a fluke. Theres always an excuse. As much as I think they have hurt this country domestically, the international damage to our reputation is something Americans are going to be dealing with for a long time.
I for one do not think all conservatives are stupid. However, I think that many are willing to ignore the obvious mendanciousness of this administration with regard to Iraq. This lack of honesty on the conservatives part is galling and very destructive to the future of this country.
To clarify, I also dont think all conservatives are stupid. On many of the domestic issues i discussed in my last post, I find conservative positions self serving, willfully ignorant and vaguely racist. However, I recognize that conservative economic positions (as opposed to social) are not inherently bad, and I can respect a difference of opinion. What really drives me nuts is foreign policy of Bush and Co, particularly the degree to which they've adopted neo-conservatism, particularly the wolfowitz school of thought, and seemingly brought it into the mainstream, as well as the way this war has been sold to the public, including the shameless, repeated citings of the 9-11/ Saddam link and the scare tactics during the election, both of which Bush has never responded to. The lack of preparation and planning for Iraq seems to me to be directly related to the confidence these decision makers had that their "academic" theories would apply to the real world. How else could Cheney say with a straight face that we would be greeted in the streets with flowers and that the insurgency is on its last legs. Again, this is willful ignorance, in that whatever doesn't fit into their version of the story is ignored as unimportant or a fluke. Theres always an excuse. As much as I think they have hurt this country domestically, the international damage to our reputation is something Americans are going to be dealing with for a long time.
was "willful ignorance" on the talking points memo this morning? Mine still reads "colossal misjudgment"?
was "willful ignorance" on the talking points memo this morning? Mine still reads "colossal misjudgment"?
I'd say self-serving, willfull ignorance is pretty much standard for these guys. You disagree?
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother???s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thy say to thy brother, "Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother???s eye.
was "willful ignorance" on the talking points memo this morning? Mine still reads "colossal misjudgment"?
I'd say self-serving, willfull ignorance is pretty much standard for these guys. You disagree?
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother???s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thy say to thy brother, "Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother???s eye.
Cute, I'm talking about real life consequences for actual people, he's quoting the bible, why does this sound familiar. Oh yeah, contemporary political discourse...
Cute, I'm talking about real life consequences for actual people, he's quoting the bible, why does this sound familiar. Oh yeah, contemporary political discourse...
what makes Motown's info any more or less accurate than anyone else's?? Other than if it reflects what you believe it's accurate and if it takes the opposite view it must be bullshit.
Cosine. More people need to "step outside of one's self" more often. I don't care what side your on.
BTW my dishwasher repairman claims that there was WMD in Iraq and that it was removed to Syria. Motown anything to that claim?
That claim was based upon Donald Rumsfeld I believe when they couldn't find any WMD. I'm not at home right now, but there were follow up reports by the weapons inspector teams after the war I think that found no proof to suppor this claim. When I get home I'll try find the specifics.
And since I can't agree with either the liberal or conservative stance on the War in Iraq I guess I'm fucked.....but at least I've made that choice and am prepared to be ridiculed by both sides....you guys only get to enjoy half of it.
That's a cop-out. If you can write posts like this, you're not too dumb to form opinions based on information and research. As others have pointed out, you're stuck in this black/white mentality, thinking you must choose between liberal or conservative. I consider myself neither, but I'm still very much against the war in Iraq. You obviously have a strong aversion to siding with a large, unthinking group, wanting rather to remain an individual with a unique perspective that only an individual can have. That's a good thing. But this "I'm not smart enough" nonsense is an excuse not to have to think. The situation in Iraq is complex and to assume we can distill it down to a simple black and white decision may be overestimating our intelligence, but I don't think that's anyone's goal here. Instead, people like Motown try to provide people with an alternative viewpoints to those of our current administration. I would rather not form an opinion without looking at multiple sides of an issue, and apparently you wouldn't either. So quit worrying about picking sides and start thinking about the issue.
Ahhh...the old "You're either with us or against us" routine.....I have an opinion, and it's everchanging based on reading and asking questions...I just can't come to grips with EITHER of the two popular opinions that are currently out there with a line drawn in the sand and people pointing fingers at each other.
And seriously, what makes Motown's info any more or less accurate than anyone else's?? Other than if it reflects what you believe it's accurate and if it takes the opposite view it must be bullshit.
Did you even read my post? Maybe you were right and you are too dumb to get any of this.
Can any supporter of the war answer these questions for me:
1) What was the Bush administration's stated reasons for invading Iraq and have they proven to be right?
2) How is the war in Iraq helping the war on terror?
3) What is the Bush administration's plan for victory and is it working?
Maybe I'm asking for to many facts with these questions.
1. Confront the possibility that Iraq would provide weapons to terror states that would use them.
2. Asking the question in reverse "would leaving Iraq help the war on terror?" provides the answer.
3. 4 years with no attacks in US, and lots of dead jihadists.
And now you tell me the Democratic plan to confront terrorism. Negative feedback?
Seeing as how I'm not a Democrat I don't really give a fuck.
1. I thought Iraq WAS the terror state. Or do you mean give them to terroists? Which terrorists were Iraq connected to that they were going to give these WMD to?
2. Leaving Iraq NOW would make it worse because there are plenty of Islamists in Iraq, who'd probably take it on the road after the U.S. was gone. Were they there before though or did the U.S. invasion bring them there?
3. So by your definition of success then we were "winning" the war on terror before 9/11 because we were never attacked? So when Al Qaeda attacked the 2 U.S. embassies in East Africa and attacked the Cole, those didn't really matter. It was only 9/11 that counts. So after 9/11 when Islamists have attacked Spain, England, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia a couple times, etc. none of that counts either. There have been more Islamist terrorist attacks AFTER 9/11 than before so are we winning? And if only 3-10% of the insurgents in Iraq are Islamists and foreign fighters, how many are "lots of dead jihadists"?
"US Army admits Iraqis outnumber foreign fighters as its main enemy" - Telegraph U.K. 12/4/05
"Iraqis, rather than foreign fightesr, now form the vast majority of the insurgents who are waging a ferocisou guerilla war against United States forces in Sunni western Iraq, American commanders have revealed. Their conclusion, disclosed to the Sunday Telegraph in interviews over 10 days in battle-torn Anbar province, contrdicts the White House message that outsiders are the principal enemy in Iraq. Of the 1,300 suspected insurgents arrested over the past five months in and around Ramadi, none has been a foreigner.[/b] Col. John Gronski, senior officer in the town, Anbar's provincal captial, said that almost all insurgent fighting there was by Iraqis. Foreigners provided only money and logistical support."
"Assesing Iraq's Sunni Arab Insurgency" - Washington Institute for Near East Policy Dec. 2005
"U.S. officials ahve estimated that the insurgency consists of perhaps 3,500 fighters and 12,000-20,000 total members (although the actual figure may well be much higher) and another 1,000 or so foreign jihadists.[/b]"
"Among Insurgnets in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found" - Washington Post 11/17/05
"Before 8,500 U.S. and Iraqi soldiers metodically swept through Tal Afar two months ago in the year's largest counterinsurgency officen, commanders described the northern city as a logisitics hub for fighters, including foreigners entering the country from Syria, 65 miles to the west. 'They come across the border and us Tall Afar as a base to launch attacks across nothern Iraq,' Col. H.R. McMaster, commander of the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which led the assault, said in a briefing the day before it began. When the air and ground operation wound donwn in mid-September, nearly 200 insurgents had been killed and close to 1,000 detained, the military said at the time. But interrogations and other analysts carried out in recent weeks showed that none of those captured was from outside Iraq. According to McMaster's staff, the 3rd Armored Cavalry last detained a foreign fighter in June.[/b]"
"The relative importance of the foreign component of Iraq's two-year-old insurgency, estimated between 4 to 10 percent of all guerrillas,[/b] has been a matter of growing debate in military and intelligence circles, U.S. and Iraqi officials and American commanders said. Top U.S. military officials here have long emphasized the influence of groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, an insurgent network led by a Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. But analysts say the focus on foreign elements is also an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency in the eys of Iraqis, by portraying it as terrorism foisted on the country by outsiders. 'Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency,' said Anthony H. Cordesman, a foremr Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.[/b] 'It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism,' he continued."
"In much of the country, including the north and center, commanders say, the insurgency is led and populated almost entirely of Iraqis,[/b] many of them former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, who do not work closely with Zarqawi's group."
How the Invasion of Iraq Inspired the Islamist movement[/b]
Defeat in Afghanistan[/b]
Followers of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda believed that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was the first step in recreating the mythical Islamist government that would sweep the Muslin world.
When the U.S. invaded and easily swept away both the Taliban government, Al Qaeda and put Bin Laden on the run, it was a serious moral and religious blow. Some interpreted the loss as punishment from God. The Center for Islamic Study and Research, a group linked with Al Qaeda, said on its web site, ???When retreat followed retreat in Afghanistan ??? despair began to creep among many .. and feelings of impending defeat and the end of the mujahidin there began to overtake them. During the course of these feelings, mutterings began here and there that the mujahidin had made a mistake in their calculation, and that they were taken by surprise by something they had not expected, and that they had been overhasty, and forced themselves into an unequal conflict.???
Inspiration From Iraq[/b]
When the U.S. decided to invade Iraq, not only did Islamists find new inspiration, they found Americans in their own backyard to attack, kill and humiliate.
To many Islamists, the invasion of Iraq proved their theory that the U.S. was out to occupy Muslim land and destroy their culture.
While things seemed clear to the Islamists, the U.S., newspapers and analysts in the West were confused about their goals. To many it seemed that the foreign fighters and homegrown Iraqi insurgents were just interested in blowing things up, namely Americans, while not putting forward any political demands or programs. In fact, their strategy was clear, kill Americans, kill foreigners allied with the U.S. , kill Iraqis working with the U.S., and ensure that the U.S.???s plans of rebuilding Iraq failed.
Suddenly the same Islamists who felt defeated in 2002 after Afghanistan, now felt jubilant about Iraq. Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, wrote in a memo to his followers, ???There is no doubt that the Americans??? losses are very heavy because they are deployed across a wide area and among the people and because it is easy to procure weapons, all of which makes them easy and mouthwatering targets for the believers.??? A website by Jamaat ud-Daawa in Pakistan said, ???We believe these infidels have lost their minds. They do not know what they are doing. The keep on repeating the same mistake.??? Repeatedly Islamist sites and statements have said that the U.S. is repeating the same actions and mistakes the Russians made in Afghanistan that ended in their defeat.
Creating a New Generation of Islamists[/b]
Not only did the U.S. invasion of Iraq inspire the ???old guard??? that had been with the Islamist movement since the days of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the 2nd wave that had been trained in Al Qaeda???s camps in Afghanistan, but also created a brand new generation of radicalized young Muslims.
The largest group of foreign fighters comes from Saudi Arabia, one newspaper estimated that about 2,500 from that country had gone to Iraq since the invasion. There are also foreign fighters from throughout West Asia and North Africa.
2 studies of these foreign fighters found that they had all been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being Islamists beforehand.
An Israeli scholar Reuven Paz analyzed the biographies of 154 foreign fighters killed in Iraq. ???The vast majority of [non-Iraqis] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.??? According to Paz, these young men felt that the U.S. invasion was part of a war on Islam and that they had to act.
Another study for Saudi researcher Nawaf Obaid done for the Washington based Center For Strategic and International Studies looked at Saudies who had gone to fight in Iraq found similar things. The Saudis in the study had been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being radical Islamists beforehand. Obaid looked at 300 Saudis captured in Iraq and three dozen others who had killed themselves in suicide attacks. ???The largest group is young kids who saw the images [of the war] on TV and are reading the stuff on the Internet. Or they see the name of a cousin on the list or a guy who belongs to their tribe, and they feel a responsibility to go.???
The Creation of An International Terrorist Superstar[/b]
The invasion of Iraq has also propelled Zarqawi into the heir apparent to Bin Laden. Before the war, Zarqawi was trying to forge an Islamist revolution in Jordan to mixed results. After Afghanistan he ended up in Kurdish northern Iraq. The Bush administration claimed that he was a major Al Qaeda operative, but this was a false claim meant to make the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Rather several Western intelligence services believed that he was a rival to bin Laden. When the U.S. invaded he quickly established himself as the leading Islamist terrorist by bombing the U.N. building, killing the U.N. envoy and basically making the U.N. pull out of the country. Since then he has carried out various other dramatic bombings. The U.S. has also propelled his fame. The U.S. likes to blame him for every suicide bombing and claims that he is a leader of the insurgency. This is partly for propaganda purposes to connect the Iraq war with the war on terrorism, but it has definitely made him a household name to many Americans as well as to the international audience.
Terrorism Comes Home[/b]
In September 2003 Vice President Dick Cheney said, ???Our military is confronting the terrorists, along with our allies, in Iraq and Afghanistan so that innocent civilians will not have to confront terrorists violence in Washington or London or anywhere lese in the world.??? By Cheney???s own standards then, the war Iraq is failing because Islamist terrorists have attacked Spain and London because of the U.S. invasion.
On March 11, 2004 3 trains were struck by 10 bombs in Madrid, killing 191 and wounding 1,800 more. The bombings not only caused mass chaos but brought down the Spanish government, and led the new one to withdraw its troops from Iraq. The U.S. blamed Al Qaeda for the bombings, but in fact, it was carried out by a cell of 15 young Arabs who had created and carried out this attack all on their own. They were inspired by the words of Osama Bin Laden and emboldened by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On 10/19/03 Bin Laden released two statements about the war in Iraq. One of them mentioned Spain for the first time as a country that had to be chastised for supporting the U.S. The next day, the cell began planning their attack. They acted because they felt that Spain needed to be punished for supporting the war in Iraq. Only one member had been involved in an Islamist group before, and they probably learned how to make their bombs off the internet. It only took them 6 months after the Bin Laden statements to bomb the trains for a total cost of $50,000.
The July 7, 2005 bombings in London follow a similar pattern. Rather than being Al Qaeda operatives or a sleeper cell in England, the group appeared to be a self-starting terrorist cell of 3 Britons of Pakistani descent and a Jamaican who had converted to Islam. Some of them might have gained bomb training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan that they visited. Again, like the cell in Spain, they attacked London???s transportation system to punish the Blair government for its involvement in the war in Iraq.
Not only did the invasion of Iraq revive the Islamist movement who had felt defeated after Afghanistan, but it has provided new recruits to carry out attacks both in Iraq and in Western Europe. Rather than stop terrorism, it seems the war in Iraq has increased it.
Can any supporter of the war answer these questions for me:
1) What was the Bush administration's stated reasons for invading Iraq and have they proven to be right?
2) How is the war in Iraq helping the war on terror?
3) What is the Bush administration's plan for victory and is it working?
Maybe I'm asking for to many facts with these questions.
1. Confront the possibility that Iraq would provide weapons to terror states that would use them.
2. Asking the question in reverse "would leaving Iraq help the war on terror?" provides the answer.
3. 4 years with no attacks in US, and lots of dead jihadists.
And now you tell me the Democratic plan to confront terrorism. Negative feedback?
1) This is truly laughable and shows your lack of knowledge in this area. There is not a shread of evidence that Saddam would have been willing to work with any other nation state that was interested in sponsoring terror in the west (he was willing to aid suicide bombers in Israel but this had nothing to do with WMD). In fact, he was the mortal enemy of the one middle eastern state, Iran, that has any real serious thoughts of terror outside of the middle east.
2) We have no idea what will happen if we pull out. It is not at all certain that terrorists will find it any easier to pursue terror outside of Iraq than they currently are. After the most recent reports of torture and human rights violations by the Kurds and Shiites, i think it is unlikely that things would improve for terrorists under their watch. The real threat that worries the intelligence community should we pull out in the near future is the widening of regional instability, with Iran and Turkey getting drawn into ethnic and religious conflicts, not the spread of islamist terror.
3) I hate to have to reiterate what Motown has already pointed out so clearly but your stupid, pithy remark requires a rebuttal. The number of lives lost to terrorist attacks in the West has greatly increased since 9/11 (Bali, London, Spain, etc). On a purely numerical level the number of Americans killed in Iraq already dwarfs all previous terrorist events outside of 9/11 (even if we throw in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon). What is pretty obvious from the more frequent and increasingly deadly attacks is that the worldwide threat of Islamic terror is stronger than ever. We have smashed the back of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and it has shattered into a million aligned and sympathetic groups around the world.
Sabadabada=very funny satirizing of liberal stances/figures but a total lack of ability to put forth a cogent and persuasive argument of his own.
1) What was the Bush administration's stated reasons for invading Iraq and have they proven to be right?
1. Confront the possibility that Iraq would provide weapons to terror states that would use them.
1) This is truly laughable and shows your lack of knowledge in this area. There is not a shread of evidence that Saddam would have been willing to work with any other nation state that was interested in sponsoring terror in the west (he was willing to aid suicide bombers in Israel but this had nothing to do with WMD). In fact, he was the mortal enemy of the one middle eastern state, Iran, that has any real serious thoughts of terror outside of the middle east.
You can add the fact that most of the regional powers in the area connected with terorism Libya, Syria, Iran, Pakistan all had more advanced WMD programs than Iraq had, plus half of them didn't get along with Saddam anyways. He was friendy with Sudan however, but they probably would've just used WMD to gas their own people.
If you're thinking terrorism than you need to give some proof. Richard Clarke head of anti-terrorism during the Clinton and early Bush administraiton said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that Iraq hadn't conducted any anti-Western terrorism since 1993. If you're thinking terrorists in general, there were two old and retired Palestinian terrorists chilling in Baghdad. They're last terrorist act was killing a rival member of Arafat's Fatah group. There were also several CIA reports on terrorism that found no serious links between Iraq and terrorism and also said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorist groups because: 1) He didn't control them, 2) He'd used his own intelligence service before and he'd probably use them in the future.
This is the CIA and Clarke, who was a hawk on terrorism, saying Saddam wasn't connected to terrorists. This isn't some news report, or a liberal think tank. These are the people and the organizations within the Bush administration responsible for informing the government about threats.
Please pay close attention to Sabababaloo's follow-up to our posts since he opened his funny little yap. You are about to see a typical conservative in action. He will make no attempt to rebut any of the points that Motown or I have argued today. He may not even chose to post any response at all. Want to know why? Cause he doesn't know anything about what is going on. Also, expect that he will talk about my momma, my wife and my daughter. Anything to distract from the fact that he has nothing of substance to say about the war on terror.
Please pay close attention to Sabababaloo's follow-up to our posts since he opened his funny little yap. You are about to see a typical conservative in action. He will make no attempt to rebut any of the points that Motown or I have argued today. He may not even chose to post any response at all. Want to know why? Cause he doesn't know anything about what is going on. Also, expect that he will talk about my momma, my wife and my daughter. Anything to distract from the fact that he has nothing of substance to say about the war on terror.
Wu
All your arguments with regard to (1) are based on what we know now rather than what we knew then. Or that X was more of a threat than Y and we haven't done anything about Y?
As for being attacked prior to 9/11, you seem to forget the first WTC bombing.
Also, my point was that there were no attacks in the USA not "the West". You list terrorist acts in other countries because that seems to fit your argument.
Comments
Are you Batman?
IMO Saddam made one of the stupidest political gambles ever. He knew that the UN would find nothing and yet flouted inspections to the end. My guess is that he expected that Bush wouldn't get European support for an invasion and wouldn't go to war without it. Some reports from Republican Guard brass detail a very looney Saddam at the outset of the war, wantonly ordering troops to places that would have insured their slaughter. Order which the generals politely declined. Crazy or stupid? Take your pick. In any case, no one really knows why he did what he did.
I for one do not think all conservatives are stupid. However, I think that many are willing to ignore the obvious mendanciousness of this administration with regard to Iraq. This lack of honesty on the conservatives part is galling and very destructive to the future of this country.
My father-in-law is a case in point. He constantly tells me that the war in Iraq has prevented futher attacks on the US by distracting all of the terrorists. It is true their has not been any new attacks on the homeland since 9/11. But when I press him to take into account the costs to American lives abroad, the cost in taxpayer monies etc., he refuses to acknowledge that there were/are alternatives to the way that Bush wants to prosecute the war on terror or that we may be suffering more because our choices. He simply says this is how it has to be done. He usually ends his discussion by saying that "these people can't be negotiated with anyway". In other words kill em all. I can't be bothered to figure this thing out. To me that is the ultimate in unitelligent or honest debate.
Another example. When I talk to my conservative dishwasher repairman about Vietnam, he boldly states that "we were winning the war until the protesters got involved". When I ask what evidence he bases this upon, he simply says that "he has his sources". When I point out that the architect of the war, former secretary of defense Bob MacNamara, says that we had no idea what we were doing militarily. He says, "well you have your sources and I have mine". So I find that most conservatives are unwilling to look at facts or to even present facts. Does this make them stupid, no, but it sure don't make them look too smart either.
BTW my dishwasher repairman claims that there was WMD in Iraq and that it was removed to Syria. Motown anything to that claim?
when i talk to my ecuadorian dishwasher/repairman about vietnam, he boldly tells me "i don't speek english."
This goes back to what the Spliffer was saying about the conservative echo chamber. The right in this country have spent the last 25 years assembling their own little world with it's own intelligentsia (conservative "think tanks")and media (Fox News), in which propaganda rules and spin can be (and is) manufactured for every contingency. As a result it doesn't matter what the truth is, because the folks on the right get to have their own "truth", which they carry clutched to their breast like an item of religious devotion.
Case in point: John Kerry, served in (and was wounded in) the Vietnam war = coward
George Bush, dodged the Vietnam war and seems to have reneged even on his NG duty, towering hero.
The right wing regularly tests the WTF sensors of the few Americans that are left paying attention. Unfortunately for them that small segment of society seems to be growing a little more every day. Every time they come out and call someone like Cindy Sheehan a traitor, a few more people snap out of their fog and wonder what the fuck's going on.
I don't think conservatives are stupid either. I do however think they are dishonest.
To clarify, I also dont think all conservatives are stupid. On many of the domestic issues i discussed in my last post, I find conservative positions self serving, willfully ignorant and vaguely racist. However, I recognize that conservative economic positions (as opposed to social) are not inherently bad, and I can respect a difference of opinion. What really drives me nuts is foreign policy of Bush and Co, particularly the degree to which they've adopted neo-conservatism, particularly the wolfowitz school of thought, and seemingly brought it into the mainstream, as well as the way this war has been sold to the public, including the shameless, repeated citings of the 9-11/ Saddam link and the scare tactics during the election, both of which Bush has never responded to. The lack of preparation and planning for Iraq seems to me to be directly related to the confidence these decision makers had that their "academic" theories would apply to the real world. How else could Cheney say with a straight face that we would be greeted in the streets with flowers and that the insurgency is on its last legs. Again, this is willful ignorance, in that whatever doesn't fit into their version of the story is ignored as unimportant or a fluke. Theres always an excuse. As much as I think they have hurt this country domestically, the international damage to our reputation is something Americans are going to be dealing with for a long time.
was "willful ignorance" on the talking points memo this morning? Mine still reads "colossal misjudgment"?
It's NOT Batman!
I'd say self-serving, willfull ignorance is pretty much standard for these guys. You disagree?
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother???s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thy say to thy brother, "Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother???s eye.
he probably gets grants.
Cute, I'm talking about real life consequences for actual people, he's quoting the bible, why does this sound familiar. Oh yeah, contemporary political discourse...
some would say you're just talking bullshit.
not me though.
Sabadabadathroat................
Cosine. More people need to "step outside of one's self" more often. I don't care what side your on.
That claim was based upon Donald Rumsfeld I believe when they couldn't find any WMD. I'm not at home right now, but there were follow up reports by the weapons inspector teams after the war I think that found no proof to suppor this claim. When I get home I'll try find the specifics.
Maybe I'm asking for to many facts with these questions.
1. Confront the possibility that Iraq would provide weapons to terror states that would use them.
2. Asking the question in reverse "would leaving Iraq help the war on terror?" provides the answer.
3. 4 years with no attacks in US, and lots of dead jihadists.
And now you tell me the Democratic plan to confront terrorism. Negative feedback?
Seeing as how I'm not a Democrat I don't really give a fuck.
1. I thought Iraq WAS the terror state. Or do you mean give them to terroists? Which terrorists were Iraq connected to that they were going to give these WMD to?
2. Leaving Iraq NOW would make it worse because there are plenty of Islamists in Iraq, who'd probably take it on the road after the U.S. was gone. Were they there before though or did the U.S. invasion bring them there?
3. So by your definition of success then we were "winning" the war on terror before 9/11 because we were never attacked? So when Al Qaeda attacked the 2 U.S. embassies in East Africa and attacked the Cole, those didn't really matter. It was only 9/11 that counts. So after 9/11 when Islamists have attacked Spain, England, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia a couple times, etc. none of that counts either. There have been more Islamist terrorist attacks AFTER 9/11 than before so are we winning? And if only 3-10% of the insurgents in Iraq are Islamists and foreign fighters, how many are "lots of dead jihadists"?
"Iraqis, rather than foreign fightesr, now form the vast majority of the insurgents who are waging a ferocisou guerilla war against United States forces in Sunni western Iraq, American commanders have revealed. Their conclusion, disclosed to the Sunday Telegraph in interviews over 10 days in battle-torn Anbar province, contrdicts the White House message that outsiders are the principal enemy in Iraq. Of the 1,300 suspected insurgents arrested over the past five months in and around Ramadi, none has been a foreigner.[/b] Col. John Gronski, senior officer in the town, Anbar's provincal captial, said that almost all insurgent fighting there was by Iraqis. Foreigners provided only money and logistical support."
"Assesing Iraq's Sunni Arab Insurgency" - Washington Institute for Near East Policy Dec. 2005
"U.S. officials ahve estimated that the insurgency consists of perhaps 3,500 fighters and 12,000-20,000 total members (although the actual figure may well be much higher) and another 1,000 or so foreign jihadists.[/b]"
"Among Insurgnets in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found" - Washington Post 11/17/05
"Before 8,500 U.S. and Iraqi soldiers metodically swept through Tal Afar two months ago in the year's largest counterinsurgency officen, commanders described the northern city as a logisitics hub for fighters, including foreigners entering the country from Syria, 65 miles to the west. 'They come across the border and us Tall Afar as a base to launch attacks across nothern Iraq,' Col. H.R. McMaster, commander of the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which led the assault, said in a briefing the day before it began. When the air and ground operation wound donwn in mid-September, nearly 200 insurgents had been killed and close to 1,000 detained, the military said at the time. But interrogations and other analysts carried out in recent weeks showed that none of those captured was from outside Iraq. According to McMaster's staff, the 3rd Armored Cavalry last detained a foreign fighter in June.[/b]"
"The relative importance of the foreign component of Iraq's two-year-old insurgency, estimated between 4 to 10 percent of all guerrillas,[/b] has been a matter of growing debate in military and intelligence circles, U.S. and Iraqi officials and American commanders said. Top U.S. military officials here have long emphasized the influence of groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, an insurgent network led by a Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. But analysts say the focus on foreign elements is also an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency in the eys of Iraqis, by portraying it as terrorism foisted on the country by outsiders. 'Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency,' said Anthony H. Cordesman, a foremr Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.[/b] 'It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism,' he continued."
"In much of the country, including the north and center, commanders say, the insurgency is led and populated almost entirely of Iraqis,[/b] many of them former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, who do not work closely with Zarqawi's group."
April 2002 suicide bombers killed 16, mostly German tourists on the Tunisian island of Djerba
October 2002 Indonesian group Jemaah Islamiya detoned car bombs in Bali that killed 200 people, most of them Australian tourists
Novemeber 2002 al Qaeda attacked an Israeli owned hotel and attempted to shoot down an Israeli charter plane in Kenya
May 2003 al Qaeda attacked three housing complexes for foreigners in Saudia Arabia killing 30
August 2003 Jemaah Islamiya bombed a hotel and Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia
November 2003 Islamists in Turkey bomb 2 synagogues, British bank and British consulate in Istanbul
March 2004 Madrid bombings kill 191
July 2005 London bombings kill 56
Novemeber 2005 bombings in Jordan kill 57
Numerous car bombings and IED's in Iraq against U.S., coalition and Iraqi security forces
Defeat in Afghanistan[/b]
Followers of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda believed that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was the first step in recreating the mythical Islamist government that would sweep the Muslin world.
When the U.S. invaded and easily swept away both the Taliban government, Al Qaeda and put Bin Laden on the run, it was a serious moral and religious blow. Some interpreted the loss as punishment from God. The Center for Islamic Study and Research, a group linked with Al Qaeda, said on its web site, ???When retreat followed retreat in Afghanistan ??? despair began to creep among many .. and feelings of impending defeat and the end of the mujahidin there began to overtake them. During the course of these feelings, mutterings began here and there that the mujahidin had made a mistake in their calculation, and that they were taken by surprise by something they had not expected, and that they had been overhasty, and forced themselves into an unequal conflict.???
Inspiration From Iraq[/b]
When the U.S. decided to invade Iraq, not only did Islamists find new inspiration, they found Americans in their own backyard to attack, kill and humiliate.
To many Islamists, the invasion of Iraq proved their theory that the U.S. was out to occupy Muslim land and destroy their culture.
While things seemed clear to the Islamists, the U.S., newspapers and analysts in the West were confused about their goals. To many it seemed that the foreign fighters and homegrown Iraqi insurgents were just interested in blowing things up, namely Americans, while not putting forward any political demands or programs. In fact, their strategy was clear, kill Americans, kill foreigners allied with the U.S. , kill Iraqis working with the U.S., and ensure that the U.S.???s plans of rebuilding Iraq failed.
Suddenly the same Islamists who felt defeated in 2002 after Afghanistan, now felt jubilant about Iraq. Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, wrote in a memo to his followers, ???There is no doubt that the Americans??? losses are very heavy because they are deployed across a wide area and among the people and because it is easy to procure weapons, all of which makes them easy and mouthwatering targets for the believers.??? A website by Jamaat ud-Daawa in Pakistan said, ???We believe these infidels have lost their minds. They do not know what they are doing. The keep on repeating the same mistake.??? Repeatedly Islamist sites and statements have said that the U.S. is repeating the same actions and mistakes the Russians made in Afghanistan that ended in their defeat.
Creating a New Generation of Islamists[/b]
Not only did the U.S. invasion of Iraq inspire the ???old guard??? that had been with the Islamist movement since the days of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the 2nd wave that had been trained in Al Qaeda???s camps in Afghanistan, but also created a brand new generation of radicalized young Muslims.
The largest group of foreign fighters comes from Saudi Arabia, one newspaper estimated that about 2,500 from that country had gone to Iraq since the invasion. There are also foreign fighters from throughout West Asia and North Africa.
2 studies of these foreign fighters found that they had all been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being Islamists beforehand.
An Israeli scholar Reuven Paz analyzed the biographies of 154 foreign fighters killed in Iraq. ???The vast majority of [non-Iraqis] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.??? According to Paz, these young men felt that the U.S. invasion was part of a war on Islam and that they had to act.
Another study for Saudi researcher Nawaf Obaid done for the Washington based Center For Strategic and International Studies looked at Saudies who had gone to fight in Iraq found similar things. The Saudis in the study had been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being radical Islamists beforehand. Obaid looked at 300 Saudis captured in Iraq and three dozen others who had killed themselves in suicide attacks. ???The largest group is young kids who saw the images [of the war] on TV and are reading the stuff on the Internet. Or they see the name of a cousin on the list or a guy who belongs to their tribe, and they feel a responsibility to go.???
The Creation of An International Terrorist Superstar[/b]
The invasion of Iraq has also propelled Zarqawi into the heir apparent to Bin Laden. Before the war, Zarqawi was trying to forge an Islamist revolution in Jordan to mixed results. After Afghanistan he ended up in Kurdish northern Iraq. The Bush administration claimed that he was a major Al Qaeda operative, but this was a false claim meant to make the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Rather several Western intelligence services believed that he was a rival to bin Laden. When the U.S. invaded he quickly established himself as the leading Islamist terrorist by bombing the U.N. building, killing the U.N. envoy and basically making the U.N. pull out of the country. Since then he has carried out various other dramatic bombings. The U.S. has also propelled his fame. The U.S. likes to blame him for every suicide bombing and claims that he is a leader of the insurgency. This is partly for propaganda purposes to connect the Iraq war with the war on terrorism, but it has definitely made him a household name to many Americans as well as to the international audience.
Terrorism Comes Home[/b]
In September 2003 Vice President Dick Cheney said, ???Our military is confronting the terrorists, along with our allies, in Iraq and Afghanistan so that innocent civilians will not have to confront terrorists violence in Washington or London or anywhere lese in the world.??? By Cheney???s own standards then, the war Iraq is failing because Islamist terrorists have attacked Spain and London because of the U.S. invasion.
On March 11, 2004 3 trains were struck by 10 bombs in Madrid, killing 191 and wounding 1,800 more. The bombings not only caused mass chaos but brought down the Spanish government, and led the new one to withdraw its troops from Iraq. The U.S. blamed Al Qaeda for the bombings, but in fact, it was carried out by a cell of 15 young Arabs who had created and carried out this attack all on their own. They were inspired by the words of Osama Bin Laden and emboldened by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On 10/19/03 Bin Laden released two statements about the war in Iraq. One of them mentioned Spain for the first time as a country that had to be chastised for supporting the U.S. The next day, the cell began planning their attack. They acted because they felt that Spain needed to be punished for supporting the war in Iraq. Only one member had been involved in an Islamist group before, and they probably learned how to make their bombs off the internet. It only took them 6 months after the Bin Laden statements to bomb the trains for a total cost of $50,000.
The July 7, 2005 bombings in London follow a similar pattern. Rather than being Al Qaeda operatives or a sleeper cell in England, the group appeared to be a self-starting terrorist cell of 3 Britons of Pakistani descent and a Jamaican who had converted to Islam. Some of them might have gained bomb training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan that they visited. Again, like the cell in Spain, they attacked London???s transportation system to punish the Blair government for its involvement in the war in Iraq.
Not only did the invasion of Iraq revive the Islamist movement who had felt defeated after Afghanistan, but it has provided new recruits to carry out attacks both in Iraq and in Western Europe. Rather than stop terrorism, it seems the war in Iraq has increased it.
1) This is truly laughable and shows your lack of knowledge in this area. There is not a shread of evidence that Saddam would have been willing to work with any other nation state that was interested in sponsoring terror in the west (he was willing to aid suicide bombers in Israel but this had nothing to do with WMD). In fact, he was the mortal enemy of the one middle eastern state, Iran, that has any real serious thoughts of terror outside of the middle east.
2) We have no idea what will happen if we pull out. It is not at all certain that terrorists will find it any easier to pursue terror outside of Iraq than they currently are. After the most recent reports of torture and human rights violations by the Kurds and Shiites, i think it is unlikely that things would improve for terrorists under their watch. The real threat that worries the intelligence community should we pull out in the near future is the widening of regional instability, with Iran and Turkey getting drawn into ethnic and religious conflicts, not the spread of islamist terror.
3) I hate to have to reiterate what Motown has already pointed out so clearly but your stupid, pithy remark requires a rebuttal. The number of lives lost to terrorist attacks in the West has greatly increased since 9/11 (Bali, London, Spain, etc). On a purely numerical level the number of Americans killed in Iraq already dwarfs all previous terrorist events outside of 9/11 (even if we throw in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon). What is pretty obvious from the more frequent and increasingly deadly attacks is that the worldwide threat of Islamic terror is stronger than ever. We have smashed the back of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and it has shattered into a million aligned and sympathetic groups around the world.
Sabadabada=very funny satirizing of liberal stances/figures but a total lack of ability to put forth a cogent and persuasive argument of his own.
At least he's trying?!?!!
You can add the fact that most of the regional powers in the area connected with terorism Libya, Syria, Iran, Pakistan all had more advanced WMD programs than Iraq had, plus half of them didn't get along with Saddam anyways. He was friendy with Sudan however, but they probably would've just used WMD to gas their own people.
If you're thinking terrorism than you need to give some proof. Richard Clarke head of anti-terrorism during the Clinton and early Bush administraiton said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that Iraq hadn't conducted any anti-Western terrorism since 1993. If you're thinking terrorists in general, there were two old and retired Palestinian terrorists chilling in Baghdad. They're last terrorist act was killing a rival member of Arafat's Fatah group. There were also several CIA reports on terrorism that found no serious links between Iraq and terrorism and also said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorist groups because: 1) He didn't control them, 2) He'd used his own intelligence service before and he'd probably use them in the future.
This is the CIA and Clarke, who was a hawk on terrorism, saying Saddam wasn't connected to terrorists. This isn't some news report, or a liberal think tank. These are the people and the organizations within the Bush administration responsible for informing the government about threats.
Please pay close attention to Sabababaloo's follow-up to our posts since he opened his funny little yap. You are about to see a typical conservative in action. He will make no attempt to rebut any of the points that Motown or I have argued today. He may not even chose to post any response at all. Want to know why? Cause he doesn't know anything about what is going on. Also, expect that he will talk about my momma, my wife and my daughter. Anything to distract from the fact that he has nothing of substance to say about the war on terror.
Wu
All your arguments with regard to (1) are based on what we know now rather than what we knew then. Or that X was more of a threat than Y and we haven't done anything about Y?
As for being attacked prior to 9/11, you seem to forget the first WTC bombing.
Also, my point was that there were no attacks in the USA not "the West". You list terrorist acts in other countries because that seems to fit your argument.