Why Should I Care About Iraq? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-03-2008, 12:31 PM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:54 AM
one can't kill flies with flypaper if the flypaper generates an unlimited number of new flies.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 01:08 PM   #17
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Most Al Quada activity around the world occurs in Iraq and it is vital to stabilize the country in order to prevent Al Quada from gaining a base there like they once had in Afghanistan prior to 2001.
Yes and where was the activity before we got there? And how do you guarantee stopping them from gaining a base, after we leave? How do you guarantee stopping them from gaining base anywhere else? Do you have any evidence that recruiting numbers are down or that there is any sign of ending them or other terrorist cells?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 01:31 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Most Al Quada activity around the world occurs in Iraq and it is vital to stabilize the country in order to prevent Al Quada from gaining a base there like they once had in Afghanistan prior to 2001.


what a great argument against invasion.



indeed, we have made ourselves, and others, less secure.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 02:46 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 02:54 AM
yeah but melon, don't you see? homosexuals ARE terrorists.

... or on par, anyway.

evil, evil people they are.

you should know! i mean... don't you KNOW inside that you're evil?

auch...

all kidding aside, i know what you mean. i don't care about iraq. i really don't.

you do realize though, that this makes the american government happy, right?
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 03:46 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yes and where was the activity before we got there? And how do you guarantee stopping them from gaining a base, after we leave? How do you guarantee stopping them from gaining base anywhere else? Do you have any evidence that recruiting numbers are down or that there is any sign of ending them or other terrorist cells?
Activity was elsewhere, but the removal of Saddam was a necessity despite the risks involved with rebuilding the country. The coalition can insure that Al Quada will not have a base like they did in Afghanistan by not withdrawing pre-maturely and following a sound counterinsurgency and nation building strategy.

The evidence from Iraq based on attacks shows that Al Quada activity is down over the past 6 months. There is much less hard data on recruiting so actual activity is a better metric to use. In any event, anyone inspired to join Al Quada is just as likely to join because of the US occupation in Afghanistan, yet I don't here you calling for withdrawal there or that it was a mistake to invade there.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 03:47 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




what a great argument against invasion.



indeed, we have made ourselves, and others, less secure.
Except, if there are threats that far exceed the risks involved with invasion. Both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq easily meet that test.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 03:49 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
anyone inspired to join Al Quada is just as likely to join because of the US occupation in Afghanistan, yet I don't here you calling for withdrawal there
Not to worry, the Canadian population is calling for withdrawal (and the troops will be leaving shortly).
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 03:52 PM   #23
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
one can't kill flies with flypaper if the flypaper generates an unlimited number of new flies.
So I take it this means your against the operation in Afghanistan?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 03:57 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Not to worry, the Canadian population is calling for withdrawal (and the troops will be leaving shortly).
Given the difficulty with which the Canadian military went through to transport several dozen heavy main battle tanks into Afghanistan, I really doubt it. The Canadian military is the only force on the ground in Afghanistan that has taken on that logistical hurdle given how remote and land locked Afghanistan is. They even had to rent the largest cargo transport plane that the Russian military has to get the tanks there. Even then, the transport could only carry one or two tanks at a time. Seems like there in there for the long haul, or at least until the next change in leadership in Canada.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 04:06 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Given the difficulty with which the Canadian military went through to transport several dozen heavy main battle tanks into Afghanistan, I really doubt it. The Canadian military is the only force on the ground in Afghanistan that has taken on that logistical hurdle given how remote and land locked Afghanistan is. They even had to rent the largest cargo transport plane that the Russian military has to get the tanks there. Even then, the transport could only carry one or two tanks at a time. Seems like there in there for the long haul, or at least until the next change in leadership in Canada.
That just shows that you don't know much about Canadian politics.

The parliament authorized the troops to remain only until February 2009. The opposition parties have all stated, more than once, that they will bring down the government if they try to extend the mission. Harper knows and gets that.

This is why he has started a commission to look into what kind of reduced, non-combat role the Canadian public could possibly accept for beyond 2009. Meanwhile, the majority of the Canadian public is not only disagreeable to that, but wishes for us to break the commitment and pull out prior to the 2009 date.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 04:26 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


So I take it this means your against the operation in Afghanistan?


only if we're going to pretend that all things are the same and see the world in sweeping, vast generalizations.

why don't you pause for a moment and ask yourself WHY so many view the operations in iraq and afghanistan in such different ways.

surely it's more than just not liking Bush.

unless that's the only way you can explain something to yourself.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 05:15 PM   #27
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Activity was elsewhere, but the removal of Saddam was a necessity despite the risks involved with rebuilding the country.
Nothing to do with Al Quada.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

The coalition can insure that Al Quada will not have a base like they did in Afghanistan by not withdrawing pre-maturely and following a sound counterinsurgency and nation building strategy.
How do you insure without staying there forever?

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

The evidence from Iraq based on attacks shows that Al Quada activity is down over the past 6 months. There is much less hard data on recruiting so actual activity is a better metric to use. In any event, anyone inspired to join Al Quada is just as likely to join because of the US occupation in Afghanistan, yet I don't here you calling for withdrawal there or that it was a mistake to invade there.
Well my point isn't that because we're in Iraq we're encouraging more to join, although this is probably the case, my point is that you don't end terrorism this way. And just because activity is down, doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. Activity has been up and down since the beginnings of Al Quada, this is part of their MO. Don't you think it would be productive for Al Quada to lay low while there is a surge and wait the surge to be reduced?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 06:20 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Nothing to do with Al Quada.

I 100% disagree with you.

Iraq was the driving force behind the policy that led to the growth of AL-Qaeda.

In my opinion the case for war was we need to remove Saddam to alter our foreign policy in the region. With Saddam in power, we could not do that.

I would also argue that the war in Iraq brought al-qaeda and its resources to Iraq to fight in a war. One in which we along with the Iraqi government, have been winning as of the last six months.

I did not say it was pretty. This administration did nothing to educate the public that Al-Qaeda was not tied to Iraq after 9/11 to suit its own needs for the case for war.

The reality is, Iraq had much to do with the shaping of our foreign policy in the 90's and the rise of Osama.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 06:56 PM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I 100% disagree with you.
"but the removal of Saddam was a necessity despite the risks involved with rebuilding the country."

That comment was specifically in response to this comment ^. What does that comment have to do with Al Quada...

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

Iraq was the driving force behind the policy that led to the growth of AL-Qaeda.
You mean after we invaded?

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

I would also argue that the war in Iraq brought al-qaeda and its resources to Iraq to fight in a war. One in which we along with the Iraqi government, have been winning as of the last six months.

I did not say it was pretty. This administration did nothing to educate the public that Al-Qaeda was not tied to Iraq after 9/11 to suit its own needs for the case for war.
I'll agree with most of this. And where as I agree we may be winning in Iraq, but I really don't see any evidence how this is winning the "war on terror", and that's my whole point.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

The reality is, Iraq had much to do with the shaping of our foreign policy in the 90's and the rise of Osama.
Yes, but just because you can play connect the dots doesn't mean the first dot is the cause.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 07:00 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox




Iraq was the driving force behind the policy that led to the growth of AL-Qaeda.


The reality is, Iraq had much to do with the shaping of our foreign policy in the 90's and the rise of Osama.
Really? Care to elaborate on that?
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com