U.S losing focus on terriosm by going into Iraq?

S

Sexybeast

Banned
do u think U.S is losing focus on terriosm by going into Iraq?

9/11 terriost attack changed the world i believe,
brings up a bunch of wars, start by anti-terriosim, but now in Iraq, that war turns out not to be doing anti-terroism as top piority, but rather bringing democracy,

do u think it is a bit losing focus
 
Technically we went in there to stop terrorism. Maybe there weren't acctuall terrorists in the country but money was being funnelled to them through Iraq so we never lost focus.
 
But they do have connections with others. Even stopping the small terrorist groups from getting money is doing the world a huge favor.
 
It is a positive in the U.S. column in the war on terror and is certainly going a long ways towards protecting the homeland for both intentional and unintentional reasons.
 
I wonder if US's foray in Iraq was really furthering the 'war on terror'

The 9/11 Commission has indicated that the connection was dubious between AQ and Saddam, though Saddam did pay money to rehab the Palestinian 'freedom fighters'.

Saddam was pathologically ruthless with Islamic bigotry. He suppressed Islam and his own population with a very heavy hand.

Obviously, that was not the ideal passport for endearment to the fanatical Wahabi AQ or the autocratic monarchies and obscurantist Islamic nations of the Middle East. Therefore, Saddam was a loner and despised in the Arab and Islamic world.

Therefore the rationale that rendering international terrorism impotent was contingent on waging war on Iraq is faulted since a ‘Christian’ invasion on a Moslem country would galvanise Islamic ranks and foment greater vigour, rather than neutralising or eliminating the Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist marauders and murderers.

Further, why it is extraordinary that the US attacked Iraq is that as per the Military Principles of War, 'Selection and Mainetnece of Aim" Concetration of Force' are two principles which are important.

Thus, even before the business in Afghanistan was over (and it still isn't). the attention not only shifted to Iraq, but it became the main front!
:shock:

Thus, the Selection and Maintenence of Aim went for a six.

Now, troops were at a premium. Therefore, dividing troops, some to Afghanistan and some for Iraq violated the Concentration of Force principle.

It is not Oil alone. One should read the Defence Policy Guidance and National Energy Policy of Cheney. It gives some insight.
 
We didn't go into Iraq because of AQ everyone thinks we did. We went in to stop the flow to terrorist org. whether they were AQ or not and to stop a brutal dictator who killed his own people. Stop saying we went into Iraq cause of AQ.
 
We barely have any forces left in Afghanistan and most of them that where origionally in Afghanistan where rotated to Iraq to build up the occupation force early on. So pretty much all of our forces is concentrated on Iraq.

The problem comes in the fact that our army needs another division or 3 of army soldiers to effectively pacify Iraq in 2003 but the army wanted to go in with what it had. So now we are slowly pacifying the country and I have no doubt that by the end of 2005 it will be relatively peaceful in comparison to the anarchy of 2003.
 
OutcastHuman said:
We didn't go into Iraq because of AQ everyone thinks we did. We went in to stop the flow to terrorist org. whether they were AQ or not and to stop a brutal dictator who killed his own people. Stop saying we went into Iraq cause of AQ.
Click to expand...

With due regards, the rationale for going to Iraq was:

President Bush was emphatic, including in his State of the Union address that the reasons for going to war with Iraq were to oust Saddam Hussein because:
• Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which was a threat to the US.
• It would abate international terrorism and threat to the US since Saddam has ties with the Al Qaeda and WMD.
• ‘Liberating’ Iraq from Saddam would bring ‘Freedom and Democracy’ in Iraq and in the Middle East.

The unfolding of events, the internal debates in the US (both official and unofficial) and the various Senate hearings indicates that the ostensible reasons articulated by Bush were, at best, suspect

The acutal reason lies in the Defence Policy Guidance.

The collapse of the USSR literally pitch-forked the USA as the sole global superpower.

Given the global geo-strategic realties, this lifetime opportunity for global supremacy was too lucrative to pass. Quite naturally, therefore, the Grand Strategy was to extend this advantage (as the only superpower) as far into the future as feasible.

The danger to this paramountcy was the nations inimical to the USA that harboured ambitions as alternate power centres and the US apprehension that the supremacy might not be in perpetuity. Therefore, rightly, it became essential to re-engineer the world political and strategic matrix in favour of the US, or, neutralise antagonism to US interests. This dictated arraigning world strategic resources within the ambit of US control.

In this connection the Testimony of the Unocal boss to the Senate Committee investigating the CAR connection is relevant.

>

I have heard this logic of to stop a brutal dictator who killed his own people before. Yet the facts don't quite add up and none can really explain.

The brutal dictator killed his own people in the 80s.

President Regean took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations in Feb 82 against the wishes of the Congress.

Therefore, it is rather paradoxical that Iraq is now a terrorist nation (when a very conservative President decalred that they were not) as also this belated action to avenge the immorality of 'brutal killing of his own people'. Indeed, if such was the desire, it should ahve been done then. After all, Justice delayed is justice denied.

North Korea also brutally kills their own people so we are told. Mao Tse Dong killed a whole lot of own people during the Cultural Revolution, much more than Sadam.

Therefore, logically China, should have been first on the sights.[/i]

>

Whispering Death wrote:


The problem comes in the fact that our army needs another division or 3 of army soldiers to effectively pacify Iraq in 2003 but the army wanted to go in with what it had. So now we are slowly pacifying the country and I have no doubt that by the end of 2005 it will be relatively peaceful in comparison to the anarchy of 2003.
Click to expand...

The elections concluded in Iraq gives hope.

That the Shias are amenable to giving seats to the Sunnis, even though they practically boycotted the lections also gives hope.

However the following requires watching:

1. The role of Iran since the Shia have loyalty to them and quite a few of the Shia leaders are from Iran, studied in Iran or have relatives in Iran.

2. #1 will be more complicated if the US 'sorts out' Iran on the nuclear materiel issue.

3. How the Shia will react to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri of Lebanon which is being reported on TV as I write. It has Shia and Syrian and Saudi connections as per the TV reports coming in.

4. Transparency (without political and the war on terror hoop la) in the trial of Saddam who should be legally dealt with as would any other mass murderer be dealt with.

There is no doubt that the election has been a very major step in the right direction.

Very pragmatically observing the events without giving way to emotional fissures, one would jsut ahve to wait it out. And as Bush has said, no time limit for withdrawal can be given.

Indeed, there is no rquirement to raise hopes and then dash it. It is a bad job and one ahs to grin and bear it as the British would say.
 
He tried to commit Genocide in the 80s hes killed so many people. If you haven't noticed the Kurds always fought Saddam because he was trying to kill them off. If you cant see that he was a brutal dictator you are a complete :cen: .

mod edit: We don't allow name calling.
 
Don't forget the UN resolutions against Iraq which were totally ignored. He broke all and only one was needed to go back in. Our planes were constantly fired on while patrolling the no-fly zone.
 
OutcastHuman said:
He tried to commit Genocide in the 80s hes killed so many people. If you haven't noticed the Kurds always fought Saddam because he was trying to kill them off. If you cant see that he was a brutal dictator you are a complete :cen: .
Click to expand...


I would request you to read my posts and not presume what I have written.

I maybe a moron but I don't think that should perturb you. Thank you.

He gassed them in the 1980s.

Bush attacked in the 2000s.

Why was this brutal dictator not taken on earlier in the 1980s because the crime was committed then

That is is the issue.

His killing his own people is not the bone of contention in my post.

Heard of Poject SHAD?

Don't forget the UN resolutions against Iraq which were totally ignored. He broke all and only one was needed to go back in. Our planes were constantly fired on while patrolling the no-fly zone.
Click to expand...

True. Then go for him when he cocked a snoot.

If the US could do without the UN this time, then it could do it then too!

Yes, the planes were partrolling and got fired upon. If planes flew over the White House would the US also shoot on them?
 
Peter Pan said:
OutcastHuman said:
He tried to commit Genocide in the 80s hes killed so many people. If you haven't noticed the Kurds always fought Saddam because he was trying to kill them off. If you cant see that he was a brutal dictator you are a complete :cen: .
Click to expand...


I would request you to read my posts and not presume what I have written.

I maybe a moron but I don't think that should perturb you. Thank you.

He gassed them in the 1980s.

Bush attacked in the 2000s.

Why was this brutal dictator not taken on earlier in the 1980s because the crime was committed then

That is is the issue.

His killing his own people is not the bone of contention in my post.

Heard of Poject SHAD?

Don't forget the UN resolutions against Iraq which were totally ignored. He broke all and only one was needed to go back in. Our planes were constantly fired on while patrolling the no-fly zone.
Click to expand...

True. Then go for him when he cocked a snoot.

If the US could do without the UN this time, then it could do it then too!

Yes, the planes were partrolling and got fired upon. If planes flew over the White House would the US also shoot on them?
Click to expand...

i agree with u this time.

well because in the 80s, US need saddam to fight Iran.

Saddam only killed separatists, therefore abusing human rights, but russia bombed the hell out of chenchya and abusing human rights too, but what did US do? well i guess we all know
 
Remember, Saddam was giving sanctuary to the likes of Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Al Zarqawi (the lattter of which is a direct ally of AQ) and trained hammas executioners. Not to mention his self-admitted stocks of anthrax and other chemical and biological weapons. He was in a position to arm any terrorist group with substances.

Then the whole, democracy throughout the middle-east deal, with honest governments around, the terrorist would be under siege and could not spread their idealogy of hate.

That's the "war on terror" side of it. Throw in the facts that he violated the first gulf war treaty, and then 1441. The UN did not hold their deal.

So bam.
 
i guess i got to agree with Peter Pan this time, (finally huh? :D peter pan seems to be an experiened soldier and commander, very interesting to talk to him)


it does not make much sense for U.S to enter iraq IF we look U.S's own report on Saddam's connection with Laden...(no connection)

but i certainly believe it is positvie to liberate Iraqis...

and therefore, i vote U.S can do both at the same time
 
I am only stating the facts as I know.

I am neither rooting for nor condemning any country since each country does what is in her own national interest..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top