Have people forgotten about 9/11?

[angellous_evangellous]

Obama, angellous. We're talking about OBAMA.

:biglaugh:

Damn I need more coffee.

 

[kai]

You think it'll all just come to a stop when they come home?

i cant believe people are thinking like this don't you know you are at war, they will never stop, never give in ,they have god on their side and willing to die for the cause,
the security forces in the UK stop attacks literally every month, i don't know about the US or Australia but what i do know is theres no end , not for generations, its not about Iraq its about the great Satan and his allies , its about the return of the Caliphate , these people absolutely consider America and its allies evil, al quieda, hamas, Hezbollah all have one thing in common they want you dead or to "surrender"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:biglaugh:

Damn I need more coffee.

YouTube - A Few Good Men: Lunch With Jessup

 

[Smoke]

Actually, I'm pretty sure most of the hijackers were Egyptian, but I could be wrong.

15 Saudis, 2 from the UAE, 1 Egyptian, and 1 Lebanese.

We have to also remember that we didn't expect the Iraqis to start feuding. It was bad judgment on the Bush Administration's part, but our original intention WAS liberation. How could anyone have guessed it would have gotten as bad as it did?

Howard Dean, 17 February 2003:

It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.

It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities - on its turf, not ours - where precision-guided missiles are of little use. . . .

There are other risks. Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.

And last week's tape by Osama bin Laden tells us that our enemies will seek relentlessly to transform a war into a tool for inspiring and recruiting more terrorists.
​

Russ Feingold, 11 October 2002:

An invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could in fact be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security. ...

If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
​

Even more damning, we now know that the CIA, in its "Perfect Storm" paper, warned the administration in 2002 of the possible consequences, including al-Qaeda operatives taking advantage of a destabilized Iraq to establish secure safe havens from which they can continue their operations, declining European confidence in U.S. leadership, Hussein's survival and retreat with regime loyalists, Iran working to install a friendly regime "tolerant of Iranian policies," Afghanistan tipping into civil strife because U.S. forces were not replaced by United Nations peacekeepers and troops from other countries, and violent demonstrations in Pakistan because of its support of Washington. (Edit: Most of this paragraph is taken verbatim from a Washington Post story on the Perfect Storm paper.)

I would be just as angry about the war in Iraq as other people if there wasn't al-Qaeda there, but there is. Once we liberated Iraq, they moved in to try and make things difficult for us by perpetuating the civil discord.

Read what you wrote. We can't leave because al-Qaeda is there. Al-Qaeda is there because of our invasion. The chief problem in Iraq is a result of our invasion. This problem was predicted before the war.

 

[doppelganger]

Or how about Brent Scowcroft, 2002, "Don't Attack Sadaam" which was published right before the invasion?

For convenience, I've highlighted all the things he correctly predicted or that were confirmed by the 9.11 commission or other intelligence reports since the invasion.

We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities -- notably the war on terrorism -- as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.

That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail -- much less their actual use -- would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.

Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs.

Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority -- underscored repeatedly by the president -- is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.

The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.

If we are truly serious about the war on terrorism, it must remain our top priority. However, should Saddam Hussein be found to be clearly implicated in the events of Sept. 11, that could make him a key counterterrorist target, rather than a competing priority, and significantly shift world opinion toward support for regime change.

In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq -- any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.

In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counterterrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests -- including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world.

[FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]And from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.[/FONT]

 

[doppelganger]

So Junior should have listened to his father and his father's friends and not done it in the first place.

And Junior should have listened to his father's friends when they gave him a road map to begin extricating the U.S. from the all too predictable mess he made.

 

[tomspug]

i cant believe people are thinking like this don't you know you are at war, they will never stop, never give in ,they have god on their side and willing to die for the cause,
the security forces in the UK stop attacks literally every month, i don't know about the US or Australia but what i do know is theres no end , not for generations, its not about Iraq its about the great Satan and his allies , its about the return of the Caliphate , these people absolutely consider America and its allies evil, al quieda, hamas, Hezbollah all have one thing in common they want you dead or to "surrender"

So should we fight them here or fight them there?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So should we fight them here or fight them there?

I vote for fighting them there. But doing it wisely.

 

[tomspug]

So Junior should have listened to his father and his father's friends and not done it in the first place.

And Junior should have listened to his father's friends when they gave him a road map to begin extricating the U.S. from the all too predictable mess he made.

In hindsight, this is the correct view to look at the Iraq War. But the reason we STARTED the war was because EVERYONE, even Saddam's allies, thought he had WMDs. Were we supposed to call his bluff and risk the possibility that he HAD them?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In hindsight, this is the correct view to look at the Iraq War. But the reason we STARTED the war was because EVERYONE, even Saddam's allies, thought he had WMDs. Were we supposed to call his bluff and risk the possibility that he HAD them?

The link to terrorism is what made the war an act of absolute insanity. Terrorism thrives in places where there is no government, and we destroyed the government instead of finding WMDs first and then surgically destroying them OR using other forms of persuasion.:slap:

 

[sandandfoam]

The link to terrorism is what made the war an act of absolute insanity. Terrorism thrives in places where there is no government, and we destroyed the government instead of finding WMDs first and then surgically destroying them OR using other forms of persuasion.:slap:

Do you think that the Iraq war has weakened the US ?

 

[Smoke]

But the reason we STARTED the war was because EVERYONE, even Saddam's allies, thought he had WMDs.

Also false. As I wrote on another thread:

Fraser Nelson cites the Iraq Survey Report, but fails to note that it concluded that Saddam had suspended all his WMD programs in 1991 and had made no effort to re-start them. It also concluded that Iraq was in no position to manufacture WMDs.

Also, Saddam said he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, and allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002 to verify that fact.

Furthermore, George Tenet informed Bush in September 2002 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. This fact was known Bush and his administration, and we know now that they knew. Unfortunately, the administration deliberately concealed that information from Congress and from the American people. Whether Saddam lied about it or not is totally irrelevant. If Saddam did lie, Bush knew that he was lying.

The Bush administration based its case for Iraqi WMDs in part on forged documents that it knew to be unreliable -- because the CIA informed the administration that the documents were unreliable.

On the other hand, neocons in the Bush cabinet had advocated an invasion of Iraq for years, and the Cabinet had actually agreed on an invasion even before the 9/11 attacks.

Fraser Nelson quotes Tariq Aziz as saying that Saddam could have been two years away from building an atomic bomb. If Tariq Azis actually said that, he was lying -- and Bush administration officials knew it.

In short, there was no failure of intelligence. There was a deliberate campaign of disinformation calculated to deceive the United Nations, the Congress of the United States, and the American people.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you think that the Iraq war has weakened the US ?

Of course it has. It has embarrassed us and weakened our diplomatic relationships with every country on earth. This will make it much more difficult for us to wage war in the future against enemies that are actually a genuine threat.

 

[kai]

So should we fight them here or fight them there?

we are going to have to fight them everywhere , people will think i am joking or talking rubbish but they are in Iraq because we are there
they are in afghanistan because we are there ,they are trying to get in our home lands all the time because we are here! ,they spring up in our third generation immigrants because they are here! preaching hatred to young people, its not about Iraq or Afghanistan wahabism is 250 years old, its not the pan arabism of Nasser its the global islamic state of bin laden.

 

[sandandfoam]

we are going to have to fight them everywhere , people will think i am joking or talking rubbish but they are in Iraq because we are there
they are in afghanistan because we are there ,they are trying to get in our home lands all the time because we are here! ,they spring up in our third generation immigrants because they are here! preaching hatred to young people, its not about Iraq or Afghanistan wahabism is 250 years old, its not the pan arabism of Nasser its the global islamic state of bin laden.

Military Intelligence is the key winning such a war ?

 

[tomspug]

If we were deceived, then I would argue that Bush himself was deceived by his cabinet. People forget that compared to most conservatives, W. was a moderate. He was originally elected as a social conservative because of his social policies. It was 9/11 that elected him a wartime president. If we had known that this would have happened, the US would have elected McCain instead, hands-down.

If there is an argument that there was deception in the Bush Administration, then it was WITHIN that Administration. To argue that an ENTIRE administration is corrupt is not only ludicrous, but impossible! Bush had Democrats and Republicans in the White House, moderates and conservatives. What kind of country do you think we are?

 

[kai]

Of course it has. It has embarrassed us and weakened our diplomatic relationships with every country on earth. This will make it much more difficult for us to wage war in the future against enemies that are actually a genuine threat.

democracies are weak by their very nature they havnt the stomache for war only for quick victories ,the bin ladens of this world know this, we clamour at home to bring our soldiers back. while they walk a hundred miles to join the fdayeen, they wait for america to bring their troops home and then what build wall like the Israelis, or tighten security so much you wont have any civil rights left, because they will come!

 

[Smoke]

If we were deceived, then I would argue that Bush himself was deceived by his cabinet.

Do you have any evidence to support that argument?

 

[kai]

Military Intelligence is the key winning such a war ?

no its hearts and minds they are turning doctors into terrorists in my country how does a doctor try and explode himself in an airport ,tell me how you fight such an idea

 

[sandandfoam]

no its hearts and minds they are turning doctors into terrorists in my country how does a doctor try and explode himself in an airport ,tell me how you fight such an idea

I don't know, but I think intelligence.
I think the IRA had to stop because they were infiltrated to such an extent they couldn't operate e.g. what happened in Gibraltar and in Loughgall. The Islamists are a vastly bigger group but I imagine similar principles.
But then again this is a subject about which I know nothing.