American forces losing control in Iraq

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by DeathsHand

Or maybe no, they don't want the guy who started attacking them to be re-elected, but hey, maybe not being in Iraq happens to be better for our country as well (not that the terrorists care about that part of the situation)...

Isolationist philosophies have never been good for our country or the world for that matter, going all the way back to WW2.

War is never fun. War is never something that you go into joyfully. And the new wars are not truly 100% winable (in a conventional sense) because they are cultural more than they are governmental.

What we are doing in Iraq is finishing the job that Richard the Lionheart should have finshed hundreds of years ago. This is a crusade, but not a religious one and not a cultural one. It is a crusade to pull the Middle East out of Medeival times.

Why do we have a right to do that? Because he culture that their leaders have created has been to create hatred towards the West and inspire fanaticism to take attention away from themselves. They claim cultural imperialism (which is self-inflicted by their own people I might add) and call us the great Satan while their leaders absorb 99% of the wealth, build mansions and live like gods walking the earth while their people live in third world conditions.

Yet they've convinced their people that we are at fault because we are "infidels".

Now its come back to bite their leaders in the ass. This hatred that they've cultivated has gone too far by attacking us on our own soil and now their leaders have to deal with us and we aren't negotiating. We are attempting to create democracy in the Middle East and that scares their leaders more than any number of smart bombs or machine guns. Why? Because it means an end to their life of totalitarianism and Allah ordained priveledge. Why do you think even Saudi Arabia was very much against us going into Iraq, even when Iraq was their biggest threat and was right next door?

Now I understand that many people aren't going to believe that this is a reason. They'll go as far as to say its all about the oil, which is rediculous for several reasons, the most obvious being the price of oil right now and the fact that we're the only advanced country in the world that does not purchase oil from Iran. But I can see how people would want to be against war, any type of war, especially when the goals are so new and untested. This isn't a guarantee and more than a handful of people died during it so I can see how people can become nervous.

The fact is this has to be done. Flat out. The future of the world depends on it. In the next 10-15 years Western Europe will be over 50% muslim/islamic and if democracy is not imbued into their culture it will begin tearing apart ours. Its already started in Canada. In a province ( I think it was a province) in Canada there was a law put to vote that would allow muslims to be tried in a separate court according to the laws set by the Koran. This cannot happen and would only be the first of many changes if it were ever to go through.

You may say that this is a pointless war with nothing but tragic, uneeded dead... I say this war could very well prevent a cultural world war in the next 50 years.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Isolationist philosophies have never been good for our country or the world for that matter, going all the way back to WW2.

War is never fun. War is never something that you go into joyfully. And the new wars are not truly 100% winable (in a conventional sense) because they are cultural more than they are governmental.

What we are doing in Iraq is finishing the job that Richard the Lionheart should have finshed hundreds of years ago. This is a crusade, but not a religious one and not a cultural one. It is a crusade to pull the Middle East out of Medeival times.

Why do we have a right to do that? Because he culture that their leaders have created has been to create hatred towards the West and inspire fanaticism to take attention away from themselves. They claim cultural imperialism (which is self-inflicted by their own people I might add) and call us the great Satan while their leaders absorb 99% of the wealth, build mansions and live like gods walking the earth while their people live in third world conditions.

Yet they've convinced their people that we are at fault because we are "infidels".

Now its come back to bite their leaders in the ass. This hatred that they've cultivated has gone too far by attacking us on our own soil and now their leaders have to deal with us and we aren't negotiating. We are attempting to create democracy in the Middle East and that scares their leaders more than any number of smart bombs or machine guns. Why? Because it means an end to their life of totalitarianism and Allah ordained priveledge. Why do you think even Saudi Arabia was very much against us going into Iraq, even when Iraq was their biggest threat and was right next door?

Now I understand that many people aren't going to believe that this is a reason. They'll go as far as to say its all about the oil, which is rediculous for several reasons, the most obvious being the price of oil right now and the fact that we're the only advanced country in the world that does not purchase oil from Iran. But I can see how people would want to be against war, any type of war, especially when the goals are so new and untested. This isn't a guarantee and more than a handful of people died during it so I can see how people can become nervous.

The fact is this has to be done. Flat out. The future of the world depends on it. In the next 10-15 years Western Europe will be over 50% muslim/islamic and if democracy is not imbued into their culture it will begin tearing apart ours. Its already started in Canada. In a province ( I think it was a province) in Canada there was a law put to vote that would allow muslims to be tried in a separate court according to the laws set by the Koran. This cannot happen and would only be the first of many changes if it were ever to go through.

You may say that this is a pointless war with nothing but tragic, uneeded dead... I say this war could very well prevent a cultural world war in the next 50 years.

Very well said once again Strangler. I shall give you +rep.

[Neo]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

The fact is this has to be done. Flat out. The future of the world depends on it. In the next 10-15 years Western Europe will be over 50% muslim/islamic and if democracy is not imbued into their culture it will begin tearing apart ours. Its already started in Canada.

You may say that this is a pointless war with nothing but tragic, uneeded dead... I say this war could very well prevent a cultural world war in the next 50 years.

You make a good point but what I mainly question is the method by which we are going about it. Bush's policies have probably made us less safe from the terrorists we are trying to defeat. I'm not exactly sure what it means to "defeat" terrorism but that's another story. The attack on Iraq has not made us more safe but instead has propagated even more hate for the US. Al Qaeda should have no trouble recruiting new members and obtaining cash as the muslims are constantly fed such images as prisoner abuse and mangled civilians.

We of course had no choice but to go after the terrorists after 9/11 but the war on Iraq is a total distraction from this. Bush said that we would make no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbour them. Well that's all good and well but the 9/11 commission showed there were no direct links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Even if you believe they did have some communications that's a far cry from claiming they "harbour" terrorists.

In my opinion we went after Saddam WAY too early and in doing so have over-extended ourselves and become less effective on both fronts. We should have hit the terrorists hard in Afghanistan instead of diverting resources to Iraq on questionable intelligence. Now we find ourselves in a huge mess. We don't have enough troops to properly secure both Iraq and Afghanistan and we are unable to keep the people safe, something they are undoubtedly aware of.

Though what's done is done and arguing about what should have happened won't change that. We have no choice but to finish what Bush started. I just don't trust that he's the one to do it.

[Blackmane]

the 9/11 commission showed there were no direct links between Saddam and Al Qaeda

It's fairly obvious you didn't actually read the 9/11 commision report and only listened to news media's soundbites that were useful to them. It is true that they found no direct link between Saddam and 9/11, but they also said that their were definite links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, including possibly giving money to them. They have also harboured these men in the past. The evening news didn't tell the whole story.

I feel that a point is being missed here. See, most people in here listen to the news saying that the war in Iraq is going horrible, but that is just not true. I think gekko is right on about this. It is all the dumb agenda minded politicians that are undermining efforts to win this war and then the media turns it around into stories about incompetance on Bush. The story of the supposed 380 tons of missing explosives at Al Qaqaa under the US watch, which turned out to be only 3 tons that went missing before we got there.

Why doesn't the media show all the good things happening in the war? Do they want to turn everyone against the effort that is underway in the Middle East? Do they want the respect for the troops fighting and dying over there to dissapear? Why not, instead of talking about 3 tons of explosives that went missing, talk about the 400,000 tons of weapons, ordinance, munitions and explosives that have been captured/destroyed? Why not talk about the thousands of other ammo dumps that have been taken care of instead of one that could possibly have been looted?

I can't understand how a group can try to undermine the war effort so badly. These terrorists over in the Middle East hate us not because we attacked them. They hate us because we are us. We represent everything they don't. I doubt that are actions are changing that fact, although I don't have any proof. They attacked us on 9/11 without us having invaded, they have attacked embassies, cruisers, and such without us having invaded, so why should we believe that not going after them would have satisfied them?

[Neo]

The 9/11 commission wrote that they didn't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and the Al Qaeda operatives with regard to attacks on the United States. The terrorists were not being sheltered in Iraq by Saddam. Whether or not the war going badly is ultimately a subjective opinion. One of my best friends served a year and a half over there and has serious concerns about the lack of planning involved.

It's hard to strike a balance between protesting policy and actually undermining efforts. We certainly can't directly impede the war effort but the idea that we should shut up once the war starts is ludicrous. We can't simply roll over and give an administration a green light to do whatever they want.

On a related note, just how are we going to pay for all this? Bush is spending unprecedented amounts overseas and has limited funds coming in because of his tax cuts. He's turned Clinton's trillion dollar surplus into a 445 billion dollar budget deficit. He even dipped into the social security funds. Credit will only take us so far. Yeah it's nice to have these tax breaks but it's ultimately destroying the economy and we will soon be hurting badly.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Neo

Though what's done is done and arguing about what should have happened won't change that. We have no choice but to finish what Bush started. I just don't trust that he's the one to do it.

You would trust Kerry to finish what Bush started over Bush? If there is one thing that Bush has shown is that he is almost single minded in his quest to instill democracy in Iraq, so you are going to trust someone who has a record of being anti-military and has come out against the war and has changed his stance on the war 3 times since the election began?

Please explain...

EDIT: And Neo, if you've seen the video you know that you are manipulating that screen cap in your sig to mean something that it never did. Perhaps we should start calling you Neo Moore?

[Neo]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

You would trust Kerry to finish what Bush started over Bush? If there is one thing that Bush has shown is that he is almost single minded in his quest to instill democracy in Iraq, so you are going to trust someone who has a record of being anti-military and has come out against the war and has changed his stance on the war 3 times since the election began?

He hasn't truly changed his stance, he just doesn't agree with the way the war is being handled. Changing position doesn't indicate weakness anyway, it indicates a conscientious thinker who won't blindly follow a path once he's realized he's made a mistake. I don't believe Kerry will be weak on terror, and I don't see how he can muck up things more than Bush has.

EDIT: And Neo, if you've seen the video you know that you are manipulating that screen cap in your sig to mean something that it never did. Perhaps we should start calling you Neo Moore?

Ah yes, much like Bush manipulates the information coming out of Afghanistan to make it seem all nice and rosy, when international experts say the country is still under control by the drug warlords, our forces are insufficient, and women are more scared than ever.

I'm changing it soon anyway to something much better.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Neo

He hasn't truly changed his stance, he just doesn't agree with the way the war is being handled. Changing position doesn't indicate weakness anyway, it indicates a conscientious thinker who won't blindly follow a path once he's realized he's made a mistake. I don't believe Kerry will be weak on terror, and I don't see how he can muck up things more than Bush has.

Uh, how can you say he hasn't changed his stance? First he voted for the war and supported Bush 100%, then when politics came into play he said that Bush did everything wrong, then he says that he'll have troops out of Iraq within 6 months of his presidency, and then changes it to 4 years 2 months before the election. You might say he's a conscious thinker, I say he doesn't have a clue what he's going to do and anything he says now will not be what he does once elected.

Ah yes, much like Bush manipulates the information coming out of Afghanistan to make it seem all nice and rosy, when international experts say the country is still under control by the drug warlords, our forces are insufficient, and women are more scared than ever.

1) Sources please

2) Does Bush own the media? No, in fact most of the news media are pretty blatantly against him, so how is Bush manipulating it considering the media is where we get our information?

3) Afghanistan just had the first ever democratic elections in the history of the middle east, in which the interem president won with a massive majority. Women are voting, which they never have before and there was little violence before or during the elections. But you're right, Afghanistan is failing...

I highly recommend you watch the movie Khandahar. It might open your eyes on why we should be over there a bit more.

[Neo]

He voted for the war because he thought it was the right thing to do. He assumed Bush had a plan to win the peace which it turns out isn't entirely accurate. Also the cost of the war has gone what they promised it would. That shows a severe lack of planning. I believe he said we could reduce our presence by half in six months by replacing with UN troops.

Three years after the US-led invasion, Afghanistan is flooding the world with heroin, warlords reign in the provinces, women are scared and the new security forces are underarmed and undersized, analysts say.

"Bush has painted a rosier picture than exists on the ground... and expressed success prematurely," said Vikram Parekh, Afghan affairs analyst for the International Crisis Group.

"When Bush presents Afghanistan as a country which has made great strides towards democracy, those claims lack credibility," Riffat Hussein, head of strategic studies at Pakistan's Quaid-e-Azam University, told AFP.

Hussein and others cite three yardsticks for improvement in the war-torn central Asian land in the last three years: the creation of a national security force; eradicating opium poppies; and disarming warlords' militias.

"If we take these three or four areas to measure success, you will get a very mixed result," Hussein said.

"Militarily the country is under the control of the warlords and Karzai's government does not run beyond Kabul. Right now it's virtual warlord rule whether you look east, west, north or south of Kabul.

"One litmus test is Afghanistan's progress in setting up its own army. Initial goals were for 90,000 and they've not been able to raise beyond 15,000.
"This lack of a national army is directly related to the failure of the government to reign in opium poppies."

Poppy cultivation is set to jump 40 percent this year, the CIA predicts, after a bumper crop last year supplied 90 percent of Europe's heroin and three quarters of the worldwide supply.

It brought in 2.3 billion dollars to Afghanistan last year, 35 percent of gross domestic product, making it the crippled economy's biggest source of revenue.

Parekh points out last weekend's peaceful and well-attended election was "only half an election". Parliamentary elections are on hold until April, because of insecurity and logistical problems.


"That's still going to be a formidable task to administer," Parekh told AFP. "By postponing it, we haven't addressed the obligations that we the

Post-election claims by the US military that the Taliban are a spent force after failing to sabotage the elections, were "very much a premature conclusion," Parekh said.

Bush capitalised on the first vote on October 9 being cast by a refugee woman in Pakistan, to underscore women's emancipation from Taliban-imposed repression.

Outside Kabul however most are still in all-enclosing burqas, and women are scared to speak out.

Human Rights Watch said a "pervasive atmosphere of fear" persists for women involved in politics. "Many Afghan women risk their safety if they participate in public life," it said in a report this month.

Most Afghans told Human Rights Watch they were more afraid of local military commanders than the Taliban.

The crucial disarmament drive in one year has stripped just over 10,000 militiamen of weapons, but at least 30,000 are yet to surrender them.

Kerry accuses Bush of making "a colossal error of judgment" in diverting resources from the hunt for bin Laden to the war in Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...1503&ncid=2043

[Blackmane]

Originally Posted by Neo

He voted for the war because he thought it was the right thing to do. He assumed Bush had a plan to win the peace which it turns out isn't entirely accurate. Also the cost of the war has gone what they promised it would. That shows a severe lack of planning. I believe he said we could reduce our presence by half in six months by replacing with UN troops.

And yet, Kerry is going out this week, after saying that he would reduce troops in Iraq, now saying that Iraq is more dangerous than ever. How does he intend on removing troops from Iraq without more greatly endangering the troops that are still there. Remember, that France and Germany have already said they will not come to Kerry's aid to replemish troops, and his constant alienation of our allies might end up making them uncommit their troops to the war effort, which would mean we would actually need MORE troops down there longer. Also, remember that Bush has training of the Iraqies moving along well, which is the best way to take care of security down there. The answer is, Kerry does not have a better plan. His only answer in the debate was bringing more allies into it, and we have all seen how good he is at doing that.

Face it, if you look at Kerry's voting record in the Senate, he has been on the wrong side of almost every national security issue that has come up. That is the best indicator of where he will stand on Iraq. My gut tells me that he will do what is takes to RETREAT and be defeated there because he is so strongly against war. It is fairly obvious comparing his speeches to his voting that he is willing to say anything to get the votes he needs.