Iraq has made us less safe, end of story

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Macfistowannabe said:
Nazism?
Communism?



and we still have enemies today. we're still fighting.

the "war" movement is always looking for an enemy, gotta justify spending all that $$$ on all those bombs.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Okay, you ignored pretty much every point I made.

Actually I didn't. Your points all revolved around political/military manoeuvering AFTER the war started. My point was that the original rationale/strategy for going to war in the first place was not fully transparent nor well-understood beyond the "war on communism".

Macfistowannabe said:
The anti-war sentiment was bred in media, academia, and eventually Capitol Hill.

Did that make it wrong? :eyebrow:

Macfistowannabe said:
Unless you can prove otherwise, the "peace" movement has NEVER resulted in peace.

I'm not arguing that it has. But I did ask what was learned from Vietnam now that history has repeated itself and how that learning can be applied to winning...
 
Last edited:
AliEnvy said:
there was no clear exit strategy
And what was our "exit strategy" in World War II, or any war for that matter?

This whole "exit strategy" argument is such a cop-out. Why should we have an "exit strategy" before the enemy is defeated? It sounds defeatist to at best. If you think an "exit strategy" is how you win a war, I'd like you to sight an example.

We'll negotiate with Al Qaida after they waive the white flag on an unconditional surrender - by putting them all on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity just like the Nuremberg Trials.
 
Macfistowannabe said:

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Was 9/11 funded by the Saudi government?

If so, can you back it up?

You never asked that? :huh:

That's not what you stated. You are now changing your criteria. Sign of weak logic.
 
AliEnvy said:
Did that make it wrong? :eyebrow:
It influenced Capitol Hill Democrats to turn against Hubert Humphrey - who also pledged to win the war honorably, and it gave Lyndon Johnson all the more reason to keep the troops in guerilla warfare rather than bombing military targets. Once the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Democrats used it as an excuse to surrender in Vietnam and turn their backs on a faithful Ally - South Vietnam. As a result, we got Khmer Rogue.

So really, it depends on whether or not Pol Pot's massive slayings would be considered "wrong."

AliEnvy said:
I'm not arguing that it has. But I did ask what was learned from Vietnam now that history has repeated itself and how that learning can be applied to winning...
History is repeating itself in the sense that we don't have the balls to defend ourselves. What history could tell you from WWI (Vote for Woodrow Wilson, he kept us out of war!) and WWII (the naive public who believed that WWI was a hoax) is that we should have stopped the Nazis in the 1930s, rather than waiting until 1941 to get involved. Nearly 300,000 US soldiers lost their lives in that war, in case you like death tolls.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You never asked that? :huh:

That's not what you stated. You are now changing your criteria. Sign of weak logic.
Look back - I did.

You're dodging the question because you can't answer it.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Look back - I did.

You're dodging the question because you can't answer it.

I just looked back before I stated that and you are wrong you never did. You may want to follow our discussion before you embarass yourself.
 
Irvine511 said:




and we still have enemies today. we're still fighting.

the "war" movement is always looking for an enemy, gotta justify spending all that $$$ on all those bombs.
America fought:

Nazi Germany
Fascist Italy
Imperialist Japan
Soviet Union

All of them were threats to our survival.

You cannot expect the world hedgemon NOT to have enemies.

And I suppose by your logic, America can stand on its own if only we disarmed our nuclear arsenal.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I just looked back before I stated that and you are wrong you never did. You may want to follow our discussion before you embarass yourself.
Page 2:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
They're harboring more terrorist than Iraq was, where have you been?

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Who - the Saudi government? Do you have anything to back this up?
But go ahead and believe otherwise if you want to.
 
Irvine511 said:
war is good for business.
Interesting you would say that. My dad was in B2B sales at the time of the Iraq war selling security cameras. His sales flopped as a result of invading Iraq.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
And what was our "exit strategy" in World War II, or any war for that matter?



oh, i don't know, the surrender of Germany and Japan?


[q]This whole "exit strategy" argument is such a cop-out. Why should we have an "exit strategy" before the enemy is defeated? It sounds defeatist to at best. If you think an "exit strategy" is how you win a war, I'd like you to sight an example.[/q]

an exit strategy isn't an example of winning a war, it's how you win an occupation. big, big difference.


We'll negotiate with Al Qaida after they waive the white flag on an unconditional surrender - by putting them all on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity just like the Nuremberg Trials.

AQ doesn't have a white flag to wave. if you think so, if you think AQ is just another army, then you have completely and totally missed the discussion of the past 5 years.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Page 2:

But go ahead and believe otherwise if you want to.


Macfistowannabe said:

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Was 9/11 funded by the Saudi government?

If so, can you back it up?

Those questions seem to be different don't they? Mac, you may want to lay off the drink this early in the day.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Interesting you would say that. My dad was in B2B sales at the time of the Iraq war selling security cameras. His sales flopped as a result of invading Iraq.



and your single anecdote proves what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex


Eisenhower:

[q]A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
[/q]
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Those questions seem to be different don't they?
Again, way to dodge the question.

For the millionth time,
DID THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT FUND THE 9/11 ATTACKS?
If so, where's the proof?
 
Irvine511 said:
and your single anecdote proves what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex


Eisenhower:

[q]A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
[/q]
Boy did Eisenhower have a brain. He's dead on about how a world power has no choice but to have strong national defense in order to prevent attacks.

But to dismiss personal testimonials altogether dismisses any that you have used on this forum.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Those questions seem to be different don't they?
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
They're harboring more terrorist than Iraq was, where have you been?

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Who - the Saudi government? Do you have anything to back this up?

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Was 9/11 funded by the Saudi government?

If so, can you back it up?

JUST WHAT IS SO DIFFERENT ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS?
 
The very title of this thread is hilarious.

"Iraq has made us less safe, end of story"

Last time I checked, we haven't had an attack on US soil since 9/11.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
The very title of this thread is hilarious.

"Iraq has made us less safe, end of story"

Last time I checked, we haven't had an attack on US soil since 9/11.



i'm sure the Australians in Bali, the citizens of London and Madrid, the Iraqis and the Turks, are all happy for us.

read. the. report.

Iraq has given angry young men a "cause celebre" that is drawing more and more and more of them to Jihadism.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Boy did Eisenhower have a brain. He's dead on about how a world power has no choice but to have strong national defense in order to prevent attacks.

But to dismiss personal testimonials altogether dismisses any that you have used on this forum.



1. did you read the whole thing?
2. care to flesh out your anecdote, or are you just going to hold it up there?
 
Irvine511 said:
i'm sure the Australians in Bali, the citizens of London and Madrid, the Iraqis and the Turks, are all happy for us.

read. the. report.

Iraq has given angry young men a "cause celebre" that is drawing more and more and more of them to Jihadism.
Honestly, Irvine - you think all those attacks are America's fault?

Or do you think that they are in fact results of Islamic Jihad against infidels and Muslims who don't convert by the sword?
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Honestly, Irvine - you think all those attacks are America's fault?

Or do you think that there IS in fact a result of Islamic Jihad against infidels and Muslims who don't convert by the sword?



i think there are a variety of factors, but one undeniable factor is the American response since 9-11, the ceterpiece of which is Iraq, that has rallied thousands of angry young men to the Jihadist movement against the west and resulted in the bombings i've highlighted (and Morocco, i forgot about the Morocco bombings).

George Bush and his thugs are making things worse, not better.
 
Al-Qaida in Iraq: 4,000 foreign fighters killed
Attacks urged during Ramadan in new tape purportedly from group's leader

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq purportedly said Thursday in an audio message posted on a Web site that more than 4,000 foreign militants have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 — the first apparent acknowledgment from the insurgents about their losses.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044435/
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
They're harboring more terrorist than Iraq was, where have you been?

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Who - the Saudi government? Do you have anything to back this up?

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Was 9/11 funded by the Saudi government?

If so, can you back it up?

JUST WHAT IS SO DIFFERENT ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS?

You don't see a difference in harboring and funding?:huh:

Come on Mac!!! This is that stubborn thing I was talking earlier about...
 
Irvine511 said:
i think there are a variety of factors, but one undeniable factor is the American response since 9-11, the ceterpiece of which is Iraq, that has rallied thousands of angry young men to the Jihadist movement against the west and resulted in the bombings i've highlighted (and Morocco, i forgot about the Morocco bombings).
The Islamic Militant movement is nothing new, it's been around for centuries.

However, when Al Qaida declared a Jihad - translated "struggle" in English (ahem, Mein Kampf, anyone?) against the United States, the warriors packed up from both sides. Americans joined the military with a boost of patriotism that motivated them to fight for their nation's survival. Jihadists spewed out anti-Western hatred in order to recruit more terrorists.

It appears that you refuse to take sides in this matter, only to throw punches at a president you and many others don't agree with on socio-economic policies. If the Republicans did the same thing under FDR, it would be very tough to imagine the end result.

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=AlQaida-Organization.htm

There have been no attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, but al Qaeda appears to be persevering in its efforts. The New York Times quotes a U.S. intelligence official who says that six Arab men have been secretly arrested in the U.S. on suspicion that they were scouting new targets to hit. The chief worry remains that al Qaeda will somehow obtain weapons of mass destruction and strike a major blow within the U.S.

It is time to realize what we're up against.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You don't see a difference in harboring and funding?:huh:
How about harboring by funding?

Do you believe that the Saudi government had anything to do with 9/11?
What can you prove?
 
Macfistowannabe said:
How about harboring by funding?

Do you believe that the Saudi government had anything to do with 9/11?
What can you prove?

LOL now you are stretching. Harboring by definition does not require funding, it can, but by definition doesn't need any funding involved.

I never stated the Saudi government had any direct part in 9/11.

But this wasn't the original issue. The original issue was you said we went after those who harbored terrorist. That is indeed not the case.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
The Islamic Militant movement is nothing new, it's been around for centuries.


no one is saying it's new, we're saying it's getting worse because of American policies in the Middle East.

[q]However, when Al Qaida declared a Jihad - translated "struggle" in Arabic (ahem, Mein Kampf, anyone?) against the United States, the warriors packed up from both sides. Americans joined the military with a boost of patriotism that motivated them to fight for their nation's survival. Jihadists spewed out anti-Western hatred in order to recruit more terrorists.[/q]

is this a novel you're writing? i don't understand what you're talking about here at all.

[q]It appears that you refuse to take sides in this matter, only to throw punches at a president you and many others don't agree with on socio-economic policies. If the Republicans did the same thing under FDR, it would be very tough to imagine the end result.[/q]

okay, that's it. take your McCarthyism and shove it up your ass. i have been very clear on my opinions, and not once have i equivocated between nihilistic jihadism and american foreign policy. how dare you twist my words to render me into some sort of masturbatory fantasy liberal who sympathizes with terrorists. i know people who died on 9-11. i know people who ran out of the burning buildings. i live in a primary target for future terrorism. don't, FOR A SECOND, stand there and lecture to me about the threat we face and that you somehow have a greater, more visceral understanding of it than i do. we disagree on how to ADDRESS this threat, and one of the reasons i am getting so ticked off is that it's because of people like who who want to pretend they're in some sort of apocalyptic video game and want to play sheriff that i am LESS SAFE than i was on september 10, 2001. it is your jingoism, your cowboy dick swinging, your certitude, your righteousness, your zealotry, your absolutism, your cultural vanity, that has enabled a president to destroy this nation's integrity and put the liberty of individual americans in peril.



It is time to realize what we're up against.

firstly, you are probably 40,000x more likely to die in a car accident than be killed by a terrorist, so let's not go around overestimating our own importance.

the REAL threat we face is not the jihadist, but WHAT THE JIHADIST CAN FORCE US TO DO UNTO OURSELVES THROUGH THE PERCEPTION OF THREAT AND THE FEAR IT CAUSES.

and the fact that the current torture bill is going to set our civilization back 900 years is evidence of ANOTHER major al-qaeda victory.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I never stated the Saudi government had any direct part in 9/11.
Exactly - so why the bloody hell would you invade a country just because 19 Al Qaida hijackers were responsible for 9/11 - without government involvement?!

BonoVoxSupastar said:
But this wasn't the original issue. The original issue was you said we went after those who harbored terrorist. That is indeed not the case.
If you can't comprehend that Saddam did in fact fund Islamic Terrorism, then that explains just about everything.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Exactly - so why the bloody hell would you invade a country just because 19 Al Qaida hijackers were responsible for 9/11 - without government involvement?!

If you can't comprehend that Saddam did in fact fund Islamic Terrorism, then that explains just about everything.

I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD INVADE SA. I SAID GIVEN YOUR LOGIC WE SHOULD HAVE. YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT WAS FAULTY!!!

LOOK BACK AT WHAT YOU STATED!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom