Why Should I Care About Iraq? - Page 3 - 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, 07:43 PM   #31
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:44 AM
To address "the growth of al-Qaeda" one would need to go back to the 1980s, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US-Pakistani 'Operation Cyclone' to arm and train mujahideen (with Saudi funding and support), Bin Laden's connection to all that via the Afghan-Arab Maktab al-Khidamat, Brzezinski's infamously dismissive "What's most important to the history of the world?...Some stirred-up Muslims [i.e. the Taliban] or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?", etc., etc. That road didn't begin in Iraq, and it's not likely to end there either.

I can agree that what unfolded in Iraq in the '90s was pivotal in the sense that Bin Laden finally broke with the Saudi government over its having allowed US troops to use Saudi Arabia as a base during the Gulf War, and that ultimately that led him back to his first power base along the Afghan-Pak border. That doesn't, however, add up to an argument that pursuing military engagement with Saddam's regime was ever a logical way to address "the growth of al-Qaeda," which I thought was what BVS was responding to.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 07:51 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

One in which we along with the Iraqi government, have been winning as of the last six months.
IMO, Iran's influence in quelling any violence (and overall influence in most of Iraq) is underrated and under-reported.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 08:05 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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.
I already know the basis and need for both operations. Others in this forum continue to make statements about Iraq which contradict their stances on Afghanistan. While there are differences in the situation on the ground in both countries there are many things that are fundamentally similar.

But hey, why don't you give your detailed answer as to why Iraq and Afghanistan are so different in 2008 and why Afghanistan deserves a continued US presence at the current level and Iraq does not, if that is in fact how you stand on the issues?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 08:17 PM   #34
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


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.
It seems a bit strange that the Canadians 6 years into the conflict would elect to bolster their force in Afghanistan with large Main Battle Tanks if they were planning to completely pull out by February 2009. It took them months to get several dozen tanks into the country and it will take months to pull them all out. Seems like a waste of money and resources.

If Canada really pulls out from Afghanistan, the Taliban and possibly Al Quada will benefit, both in recruiting and propaganda.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 08:35 PM   #35
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Nothing to do with Al Quada.


How do you insure without staying there forever?



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?
Doesn't matter. Removing Saddam was a necessity regardless of its impact on Al Quada.

They only way to insure that Al Quada will not have a base in Iraq like they did in Afghanistan without staying forever is through developing the government, economy, and security forces of Iraq. Jobs and political stability will make Iraqi's less susceptible to recruitment by Al Quada and will make it much more difficult for Al Quada to operate within the country. An Iraqi military and police force that can handle the internal security of the country independent of coalition ground forces will also insure that the United States will not have to stay forever in the country. It is precisely the same general strategy that is being followed in Afghanistan.

Well, the results of the surge have also led to an increase in intelligence from the local population which has allowed coalition and Iraqi forces to capture and kill greater numbers of Al Quada personal in Iraq than in any of the previous years. So its not only the decrease in attacks, but also the increased ability to detect and engage Al Quada cells which shows that the strategy continues to work. By continue to secure and aid the local population, there by decreasing support among the population for Al Quada, the Al Quada network in Iraq is gradually drying up.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 09:56 PM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

They only way to insure that Al Quada will not have a base in Iraq like they did in Afghanistan without staying forever is through developing the government, economy, and security forces of Iraq. Jobs and political stability will make Iraqi's less susceptible to recruitment by Al Quada and will make it much more difficult for Al Quada to operate within the country. An Iraqi military and police force that can handle the internal security of the country independent of coalition ground forces will also insure that the United States will not have to stay forever in the country.
So let me ask you, how long in your estimation will this take?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 10:19 PM   #37
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: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
To address "the growth of al-Qaeda" one would need to go back to the 1980s, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US-Pakistani 'Operation Cyclone' to arm and train mujahideen (with Saudi funding and support), Bin Laden's connection to all that via the Afghan-Arab Maktab al-Khidamat, Brzezinski's infamously dismissive "What's most important to the history of the world?...Some stirred-up Muslims [i.e. the Taliban] or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?", etc., etc. That road didn't begin in Iraq, and it's not likely to end there either.

I can agree that what unfolded in Iraq in the '90s was pivotal in the sense that Bin Laden finally broke with the Saudi government over its having allowed US troops to use Saudi Arabia as a base during the Gulf War, and that ultimately that led him back to his first power base along the Afghan-Pak border. That doesn't, however, add up to an argument that pursuing military engagement with Saddam's regime was ever a logical way to address "the growth of al-Qaeda," which I thought was what BVS was responding to.
Yeah, this is the history I'm familiar with. I'm curious as to what book Strongbow is reading from. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 11:12 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So let me ask you, how long in your estimation will this take?
Provided the United States remains committed to the effort and does not withdraw prematurely, a minimum of 7 years at this point.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 11:15 PM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Provided the United States remains committed to the effort and does not withdraw prematurely, a minimum of 7 years at this point.



but it won't stop there under current policies.

heck, McCain is fine with us staying there for 100 years.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-03-2008, 11:18 PM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Provided the United States remains committed to the effort and does not withdraw prematurely, a minimum of 7 years at this point.
Wow, you've got to be kidding...

You want jobs and stable government in 7 years?

Sting, look at you own country and look at the dificulties it's having, most economist don't see us returning to what we could be in 7 years. You honestly think a new developing government that is striken with termoil is going to be able to?

What are you basing this on? I would love to hear...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 11:23 PM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Provided the United States remains committed to the effort and does not withdraw prematurely, a minimum of 7 years at this point.
In 2003, when I was 12, I saw my President of the United States tell me that we were going to war to stop the evil guys out there who had hurt us in 9/11. I believed him. I saw him standing there, the same guy who'd looked strong on September 20th, 2001. I knew what we were doing must be right.

Funny how it's gone down. Really, it is.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 11:27 PM   #42
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,793
Local Time: 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But what does this have to do with Iraq?
Indeed. The "war on terrorism" and the Iraq War are two completely different things. One is about bringing terrorism to its knees, the other is far from. The sooner the entire nation figures this out, the better.
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 01-03-2008, 11:43 PM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

But hey, why don't you give your detailed answer as to why Iraq and Afghanistan are so different in 2008 and why Afghanistan deserves a continued US presence at the current level and Iraq does not, if that is in fact how you stand on the issues?


why waste my time?

it's blindingly obvious to everybody but you that Iraq and Afghanistan are two different countries under very different circumstance.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-03-2008, 11:46 PM   #44
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LemonMelon


Indeed. The "war on terrorism" and the Iraq War are two completely different things. One is about bringing terrorism to its knees, the other is far from. The sooner the entire nation figures this out, the better.
I'm glad you're aware the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq are two different things...

BUT, you have to realize there is no way to bring terrorism to it's knees. Terrorism is already on it's knees... they are either on their knees begging for a better life, or they are on their life praying to a distorted version of a religion.

The only way to end terrorism is to somehow end the extremist versions of religions and end poverty.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 12:00 AM   #45
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,793
Local Time: 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I'm glad you're aware the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq are two different things...

BUT, you have to realize there is no way to bring terrorism to it's knees. Terrorism is already on it's knees... they are either on their knees begging for a better life, or they are on their life praying to a distorted version of a religion.

The only way to end terrorism is to somehow end the extremist versions of religions and end poverty.
Well, yes, the "war" on terrorism is a neverending battle, simply because it's not attached to one race/nationality and isn't something that can be rationalized or discussed politically. Taking out one country would be a ridiculous, mind-boggling way of combating something that is begun in the minds of the homicidal.

How would ending poverty stop terrorism?
__________________

__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now  
 

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 12:44 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