Re: Re: Re: Iraq has made us less safe, end of story
Irvine511 said:
yes, because nothing has changed in 4 years? so you believe it in 2002, but ignore it in 2006 because you don't want to fess up to a massive failure?
[q]That shows that Democratic party plans to abandon Iraq are indeed a step in the direction that would help the Jihad movement as opposed to hindering it. [/q]
you're taking a step here that i'm not taking. i haven't advocated a withdrawal from Iraq. i think there are several options to consider, from the "three state" solution to the moving of all American troops to the Kurdish north where they can make tactical strikes akin to how they got Zarqawi. and only some Democrats are advocating full withdrawal. what everyone IS advocating is that the present strategy, or, more accurately, non-strategy, is clearly not working. that going into Iraq in the way that we did, and with the lack of postwar plan, has spurred the cause of Jihadism and given us very little in return. very little.
[q]The report does NOT say that invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power has made the United States "less safe". It says the that the Jihad movement has spread and Iraq is one of the underlining factors, but it cannot measure that this is the case with precision.[/q]
wow, you're really splitting hairs here. what more do you need for the report to say? does it say that the removal of Saddam Hussein has made us more safe? does it say that the removal of SH has lessened the Jihadist movement (the only true threat to the US mainland, as SH was NEVER a threat to new yorkers or washingtonians going to work on a Tuesday morning)?
[q]But Afghanistan, is just as much a rallying point for extremist Muslims as Iraq is, and if the United States were not in Iraq at the moment, you can be sure that these extremist elements would be focused on Afghanistan just as they did in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was there.[/q]
and? so give them TWO rallying points? give them TWO muslim countries under American/Western occupation? why didn't we actually stop and deal with Afghanistan and get the job done there?
[q]Saddam and the Taliban were both threats that had to be removed despite the obvious recruitment advertisment it would give the extremist elements in the region.[/q]
and around and around and around we go. i'm so sick of hashing out the same arguments and you giving off the same lines with the obligatory exclamation points.
Saddam is gone, but violence and, more importantly, TORTURE in Iraq is as bad as it ever was under SH and Iran wields far more influence than it did, and it is in the process of becoming nuclearized. the Taliban is not gone, in fact, it is resurgant.
so until we actually deal with these problems, you should stop listing them as accomplishments.
almost as absurd as the gratiutious World War 2 comparisons.
I did not ignore either the 2002 NIE or the 2006 one. No where in the 2006 NIE does it say that Iraq is "a massive failure" or that the "United States is less safe because of Iraq". It only says that the Jihad movement has grown and spread based on the information it has, although they cannot state this with any sort of precision.
Anytime the United States acts in the middle east, it becomes an advertisement for the radical Jihad movement. Based on your logic, the United States would have been safer if it had not deployed troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 and removed Saddam's military from Kuwait. What do you think the Cause Celebre was for Bin Ladin and Al Quada back then?
If the United States were not in Iraq at the moment, the NIE report would be talking about Afghanistan.
I've never suggested abandoning Iraq, thats what Democrats and as well as yourself are suggesting. What is often refered to is the "Kurdish North", is only a small 50 mile area along the Turkish and Iranian border. The big cities, Mosul and Kirkuk are not in that zone and are nearly 50% Sunni Arab. The United States already had troops in the "Kurdish North" prior the the March 2003 invasion. So pulling back to the "Kurdish North" is essentially abandoning the entire country to Sunni insurgents and radical Shia militia's. If you think things are unstable and bloody now, put that plan into action and see what happens.
The tatical strike that took out Zarqawi came from combat aircraft operating out of Kuwait. Most US aircraft in the air over Iraq every day fly out of bases in Kuwait or Carrier's in the Gulf. But what really got Zarqawi was on the ground intelligence, the type of intelligence that will dry up if the United States pulls all of its troops out except for a the small "Kurdish North" that only extends 50 miles into the country.
At this point, without US forces in the country, it would fall apart. Attempting to set up states that have never existed, like Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shiastan will not make the fundamental problems go away. Its recipe for creating more conflict and makes Iraq overall weaker and ripe for foreign intervention by neighbors with self serving intentions.
Far better to continue the current plan which builds an Iraqi military that will one day be able to handle the insurgency on its own and unites the various political parties and interest of the entire country. Its better to have these leaders talking and negotiating rather than isolated in new states preparing for an endless war. In addition, a united Iraq will be in a better position to protect against the unwanted intervention or influence of neighbors like Iran and Syria. Cut the country up into little pieces and you do the same to its ability to withstand such intervention and influence.
As for workers in New York and Washington going to work on a Tuesday morning, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would be more impacted by a global economic depression brought on through the seizure or sabotage of Persian Gulf Oil supply. Hell, those commuters would not be able to afford the the price of Gas to get them to work, that is if they still had a job in such an environment.
Whats more and unlike Al Quada, Saddam did have WMD and knew how to make it. No other country on the planet has used WMD more times than Iraq. In terms of money, and the ability to produce and use WMD, Saddam's abilities vastly exceeded anything that Al Quada has had in their department to date. Saddam's on record of using WMD thousands of times as well as killing thousands of people with it. How many times has Al Quada used WMD and how many people did they kill with it?
As far as Afghanistan, the United States does not have the luxury to simply ignore all the threats to it except one, so it can concentrate on that one and get the job done before going on to the next threat. In a disneyland setting, I suppose that would be possible, but in the real world, no country has the luxury to simply deal with one threat while the others grow and materialize.
Iran started trying to develop nuclear weapons back in the 1980s because of Saddam's program and use of WMD's. If you want to thank someone for Iran's push for a nuclear weapon, thank Saddam. Leaving Saddam in power would not slow Iran's push and desire to have nuclear weapons, it would have only increased it, especially after the massive casualties it suffered in the 1980s.
The Taliban is gone from power in Afghanistan and is no more in power there than elements of Saddam's regime are in power in Baghdad.