Muqtada Al Sadr' is a Shi'ite radical, he looks no further than to dominate Iraq with shi'ite favor. Same goes for the Sunni radicals. They are not stupid enough to fight merely for "peace" for they are the ones causing war.

Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer

Muqtada Al Sadr' is a Shi'ite radical, he looks no further than to dominate Iraq with shi'ite favor. Same goes for the Sunni radicals. They are not stupid enough to fight merely for "peace" for they are the ones causing war.

You misunderstand my point he may be a shiite but its doubtful that he represents many of them(the same goes for radical sunni clerics). The bulk of his supporters are not even from Iraq

I know he doesn't represent many of them. But he is a shi'ite, and in the power vaccum I think, just like other factions, he sees this as a opportunity to grab power. Despite the fact a large portion of his fighters are from Iran, they still serve his eventual cause. Course, some folk say he's a direct puppt of Tehran and seeks to grab a slice of power out of Iraq. Either way, I don't see how, right at the moment, it makes the US security worse. If Iraq were to fall to a radical faction(s), then yes, then it would be trouble for the US.

It poses a threat in that there are many more recruits that aren't going to Iraq who will carry out Attacks all over the world including in the US (or they will try to)

Originally Posted by venom928

It poses a threat in that there are many more recruits that aren't going to Iraq who will carry out Attacks all over the world including in the US (or they will try to)

wait, didn't you just say recruits are going to Iraq? And sence they are, isn't it better that they are getting blown away by a trooper than plotting somewhere else?

Meaning many more that are not going to Iraq.

Uh, you said that there were recruits going into Iraq. Guess you're changing positions. But I don't get your point, what's the difference between plotting in Iraq than another country? You act as if having plotters in Iraq is better than somewhere else. We have to knock out terrorist hideouts everywhere they go, if they move somewhere else, we will follow. We can't attack everyone at once.

Besides, some plotters, like Al Zarqawi, have decided to salvage Iraq and help towards the goal of making it a terrorist hideout, so not all plotters run.

Ok i need to be more clear
There are many new recruits Many go to Iraq and others get training to carry out attacks all over the world

There is no Special terrorist hiding place that we can just go and get them they hide among Civilians it would next to impossible to weed them all out.

My basic point is that we cant win by just killing them all they don't wear uniforms they don't come out and say who they are they hide and plot we will Never be able to find them all
The only Effective way to combat terror is by making it difficult for them to get new recruits which like i said in my original post is to change the way people think.

Yeah I know all about the whole "you can't kill them all" and "they don't wear uniforms" but if I was going to plot a bomb attack somewhere in the world, I sure as heck wouldn't go get my ass blown off in Iraq. I honestly don't think there is hardly any terrorist receiving international attack training in Iraq, merely knowledge of how to combat coalition forces and terrorist attacks on the Iraqi people, I doubt many would go through the the risk of fighting the US to receive "training" in Iraq.

Though that argument is thin now, what with places like Fallujha open for business. If these "bad guy" fortress cities weren't around, my argument could be bought easier.

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

Bad decision. Poorly planned. The American public will get tired of this fiasco. Honestly, do you really think you can win the peace in Iraq. Afghanistan is not looking to good these days either but I guess you don't want to talk about that one.

By the American public do you mean the left wing biased media? Do you honestly think that we have not already made a considerable difference in both Afghanistan and Iraq?

I don't know your background so I will not make assumptions. However this is coming from the fingers and mind of someone that is on the ground in the war torn country. Millions of Iraqi people now have the following things that we count on having everyday and they once considered to be luxuries.
Running potable water, electricity, Functional hospitals, schools for their beloved children, opportunities for employment, an interim government, a soccer team that did well in the Olympics, a new currency that does not have a picture of the former dictator on it. This is just to name some of the improvements.

For the few insurgents and terrorists there are millions of people that want their country to succeed. They want to have a vote in who their next leader will be.

Afghanistan has also received many of the same "luxuries" that Iraq now has. We are also still fighting and removing/destroying the Al Quadi ring that once ruled their country.

I think that we (all of the forces fighting to improve these countries) are on the road to peace, it might be a long and hard road but it will be endured by the people.

I would like to be there when you tell a family that has lost a father, son, mother, daughter, or other relative that their family member only died due to poor planning and a bad decision. I think that congress also voted to use force in Iraq, have you talked to your state representative about how they voted????