Libruls, It's YOUR fault, damnit!

[U2@NYC]

Also lets remember that Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. when there was no war in Iraq.

There had been wars before.

 

[Irvine511]

They have not been vindicated. They may have been proven correct in their assessment that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the threat of terror attacks at home, but that in itself does not prove the moral invalidity of those wars. Big difference.

and the flip side: that the wars could be morally invalid, and London would be attacked. Iraq could have been a smashing success, and London would be attacked. we could have the head of OBL sent in a cooler back to CIA headquarters in Langley, and London would be attacked.

Iraq provides a justification, not a *motivation*, for an attack that was always going to happen, involved in Iraq or not.

i predict a Paris attack. a Milan attack. a Berlin attack. a Toronto attack.

and i also do not support the war in Iraq. but that makes little difference in the minds of these particular thugs. my worry is that Iraq is creating more of these thugs.

 

[MaxFisher]

My point was that democracy comes with a price. Certain individuals or groups will go to great lengths to intimidate and thwart efforts to establish freedom because it threatens their control and power. The attacks in London are an attempt to shake the resolve of those commited to reform, democracy, and the liberalization of countries living under ruthless regimes.

No, we should not invade Iran because of todays attacks. We should simply take todays attacks as reminder that democracy is so repugnant to Al Qaeda that they will do anything in their power to stop its advancement. Unfortunately for them, their side is losing.

 

[U2@NYC]

Unfortunately, the concept of democracy has been bent too much by some government officials...

 

[speedracer]

and the flip side: that the wars could be morally invalid, and London would be attacked. Iraq could have been a smashing success, and London would be attacked. we could have the head of OBL sent in a cooler back to CIA headquarters in Langley, and London would be attacked.

Fair enuf.

and i also do not support the war in Iraq. but that makes little difference in the minds of these particular thugs. my worry is that Iraq is creating more of these thugs.

I'd say no, because al-Qaeda's message has been consistent from the outset: they went all traces of Western influence removed from the Middle East and surrounding lands so that they can establish martial law in the area, and they will not stop until this is accomplished.

But of course, we can't beam to an alternate universe where we did not invade Iraq, so this is all conjecture.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

I was reading some of the yahoo message boards this morning and the anger towards America was amazing.

 

[Judah]

To add to Irvine's comments, I think some would say that the presence of U.S. soldiers in Iraq has actually resulted in fewer attacks in other Western cities.

After 9/11 I thought "here we go; America (or Canada) is now going to become another Israel; now we're going to be getting suicide bombers at Bloomingdales or at the Mall of America or in the Times Square Virgin Superstore, etc."

Al Qaeda and it's partners have easier "white" targets in Iraq, where they can blend into the population and pick off the soldiers and their allies at their whims, it seems. They don't have to worry about the Patriot Act, racial profiling and all U.S. Intelligence Services monitoring their phones and e-mails and whatnot.

Certainly the increase in the number of terrorists into Iraq from other countries and the relative lack of attacks after 9/11 in the West may be evidence of that.

London today, and Madrid last year (and Bali), being the obvious brutal exceptions.

 

[VertigoGal]

For God's sake people...you'd think we could wait maybe 24 hours before everyone started blaming America for the fact that some insane fundamentalists blew up 40 innocent people.

 

[verte76]

I think terrorism is something we're stuck with, and even if Tony Blair hadn't participated in the Iraq thing London would have been struck sooner or later. It's one of the big time important cities.

 

[melon]

My point was that democracy comes with a price. Certain individuals or groups will go to great lengths to intimidate and thwart efforts to establish freedom because it threatens their control and power. The attacks in London are an attempt to shake the resolve of those commited to reform, democracy, and the liberalization of countries living under ruthless regimes.

I've often questioned if this is about democracy or freedom or even capitalism; or if it is just about having full American access to their resources and markets. Hence why we can tolerate nations like Saudi Arabia and even China, while we get angry at nations like Iran and Cuba.

I'm not opposed to the idea of "spreading freedom," per se, but, for me, it is a question of consistency and credibility. I often think that the Bush Administration fails on both fronts, unfortunately.

Melon

 

[melon]

I think terrorism is something we're stuck with, and even if Tony Blair hadn't participated in the Iraq thing London would have been struck sooner or later. It's one of the big time important cities.

This often reminds me of the years following "Pax Romana" where the Roman Empire took on hundreds of years of "barbarian" attacks until it collapsed. In many ways, our attitudes towards the Muslim world is little different than attitudes the Romans had towards the "Germanic" peoples, both of whom were/are perceived as unsophisticated with a language we perceive as gibberish.

Melon

 

[trevster2k]

The terrorists who committ these acts are doing it for specific reasons. Yes, these are acts of violence designed to inflict death, and terror but they are hardly just "attacks on freedom or our values" Such comments simplify the complex issues which motivate such actions.

 

[STING2]

The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had Chemical weapons, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were
wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had aerial craft capable of reaching the US, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had missiles that could reach its neighbours, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9-11, to this day, no connection has been found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that they didn't know how long the war in Iraq would take, but it certainly wouldn't take 2 years. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Iraqis would greet us with open arms, not small arms. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that we were bringing democracy to Iraq. And then they closed down Baghdad's largest newpaper. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that we would go to war as a last resort. And then Bush told the weapons inspectors to get out of Iraq. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Saddam was cruel to his people. And after we invaded Iraq we needed to build 2 more prison camps in Iraq. Seems Saddam didn't have enough prisons to suit the 'liberators'. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

1. It is a fact that as of today Saddam's regime has failed to account for over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 bio/chem capable shells according to United Nations inspectors. The fact that such items have not been found since the Iraqi invasion does NOT change the fact of Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of such materials according to the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement, nor does it in anyway change the necessity of the operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 or the subsequent nation building phase the country is now in with coalition troops. The current occupation has been approved by the United Nations with 3 different resolutions. No one lied, but those on the left still dream they might be able to get some political points from this.

2. You are WRONG in stating that Iraq did not have missiles to reach its neighbors. Iraq in fact fired several ballistic missiles into Kuwait during the 2003 war, most of them were shot down by new advanced Patriot Missile batteries. I had friends in several of the area's that were targeted and they told me of their experience of scrambling to get their Chemical suits and mask on as well as making it into their shelters.

3. The Bush administration never said that Saddam was behind or connected to 9/11, but they did state that Saddam had been involved with terrorism in the past and one could not rule out the possiblity that Saddam could work directly with Al Quada in the future.

4. The Bush administration NEVER set a timetable under which US troops would be home in under 2 years. No one ever said the war would take 1, 2, 4 or 6 years.

5. Most Iraqi's have been supportive of the occupation. 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces where the majority of the population lives are for the most part peaceful. It is only in the 4 Sunni provinces and Baghdad where you have many elements of the population that are hostile to the occupation. Have you forgotten the election in January when millions of Iraqi's went to vote? How many times did Iraqi's get to freely vote under Saddam?

6. If the Irish Times was advocating overthrowing the Irish Government through terrorist action, torture and murder of various individuals, I'm sure the Irish government would close down the paper as well!

7. The inspectors job was to verify the destruction of Saddam's WMD, it was never their job to play a cat and mouse game with Saddam's military in the search for WMD. It was incumbent upon Saddam to account for all his WMD and either give the inspecters intact weapons or show the inspectors where the weapons had been dismantled. Saddam did neither making it impossible for the inspectors to do their job which is why military action became a necessity. Without Saddam's cooperation, unarmed UN inspectors could never accomplish their mission.


8. Saddam murdered over a 1 million of his people through executions and the wars that he started. The prison camps the United States has built in Iraq have been used to house dangerous people intent on killing innocent Iraqi people and coalition forces. Such camps keep dangerous people from committing terrible acts. This saves lives. A huge contrast from Saddam's 25 year reign where often such camps were used to murder and rape tens of thousands of people.

 

[speedracer]

I've often questioned if this is about democracy or freedom or even capitalism; or if it is just about having full American access to their resources and markets. Hence why we can tolerate nations like Saudi Arabia and even China, while we get angry at nations like Iran and Cuba.

China is a bad example. Given their might (economic and military), do we really have an alternative to "gently scolding them about their treatment of liberal freedoms but not really doing anything about the way they treat their people and Taiwan, while sort of hoping that a revolution materializes from within"?

 

[verte76]

I didn't mean to imply that the Arabs or Muslims or whoever are stupid. The terrorist groups are made up of a small minority of these people. Most Arabs, and most Muslims, are ordinary people who work hard, raise their kids. and just generally mind their own business. I have no doubt about this. I know some Muslims, not well, but I've met several, they're very nice, and I'm known around here for liking Turks and their culture in particular. I'm not that crazy about some of their politics, lilke the whole Kurdish thing, it's the culture that I think is really cool.

 

[STING2]

I've often questioned if this is about democracy or freedom or even capitalism; or if it is just about having full American access to their resources and markets. Hence why we can tolerate nations like Saudi Arabia and even China, while we get angry at nations like Iran and Cuba.

I'm not opposed to the idea of "spreading freedom," per se, but, for me, it is a question of consistency and credibility. I often think that the Bush Administration fails on both fronts, unfortunately.

Melon

Saudi Arabia has been a business partner and ally of the United States ever since Roosevelt started the United States partnership with Saudi Arabia back in the early 1940s. Much of the planet runs on energy that comes from Saudi Arabia. While the country is socially backwards and undemocratic, it has been an ally when it comes to defense issues and a strong business partner for over 60 years now.

While China is still essentially a communist dictatorship, the country has embraced capitalism and the government is rapidly turning state run industries into privately run industries. China is starting to embrace democracy at the local government level.

Cuba under Castro is a country that has not embraced capitalism and private ownership like China has and is a Communist Dictatorship that has sent troops to Africa and Central America to aid in Communist revolts and attacks in those area's in the past.

Iran has been a key supporter of terrorism against Israel through its support of the terrorist organizations Humas and Hezbollah. It has held positions and views that are hostile and unfriendly towards the United States for the past 25 years as well as being involved with terrorist that have killed American citizens.