Why Should I Care About Iraq?

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

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.
 
Irvine511 said:




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?
 
anitram said:


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.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

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 said:

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?
 
yolland said:
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. . .
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


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 said:


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.
 
Strongbow said:


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? :lol:

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...
 
Strongbow said:
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.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


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.
 
Strongbow said:

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.
 
LemonMelon said:


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.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


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? :slant:
 
i'd argue that it's not poverty that causes terrorism, but the sense of national and personal humiliation.

and, hey, what better way to humiliate than through occupation!
 
LemonMelon said:


How would ending poverty stop terrorism? :slant:

Povery is often linked with gangs, KKK, cults, terrorism, etc... Reaching out to those that feel like they have no out is the greatest recruiting tool available.

There may be rich gangsters or terrorists, but it's the poor desperate ones that actually sign up for their doing, it's the poor that sign up for suicidal bomber or hitman.

If you convince those that have nowhere to go that if you do this their family has a way to live then you have a followning. You eliminate that desperation, you have nothing...

How many rich KKK members do you have in the states? You have them, but they are the few, and they aren't the ones acting violently. Same with gangs and terrorism...
 
Irvine511 said:
i'd argue that it's not poverty that causes terrorism,

And by no means am I saying it's the sole cause. Just like I don't think religion is the sole cause.

But there is something to be said for the numbers and their standings within their cells, gangs, mob, etc...
 
true, being poor probably helps you feel humiliated.

but the leaders of all of these movements are middle class (mohammad atta, bin laden). the recruits tend to be more poverty stricken.
 
Irvine511 said:




why waste my time?

it's blindingly obvious to everybody but you that Iraq and Afghanistan are two different countries under very different circumstance.



Two muslim countries, previously ruled by dictators, overthrown through invasions led by the United States. Each country has deep ethnic or religious differences within which makes governing the country difficult. Both face terrorism and home grown insurgencies attempting to topple the elected government. Both have national governments that are attempting to extend their reach beyond simply the capital with varying degrees of success. Both are trying to develop new military and police forces. Both are trying to revive the economy and provide more services for the people. In both countries the US led coalition is pursuing counterinsurgency and nation building activities that are either similar are exactly the same. In both countries the US led coalition is trying to win over the support of the population that is most unsurportive of the newly elected government in each. The insurgency/Al Quada in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan both use many of the same tactics to target the coalition and population and attempt to destroy any reconstruction projects that are started. These are some of the things that are fundamentally the same about both countries and the task they are facing. There are certainly differences in the degrees of violence(much worse in Iraq) and poverty(much worse in Afghanistan). Iraq is certainly the more important country to US security given its location and natural resources. Iraq is where Al Quada has devoted most of their resources. But fundamentally, the problems the United States faces inside both countries are the same. Both will require years of US military and economic aid in order to get on their feet and be able to provide for their own needs without the large deployment of foreign civil and military forces.
 
Strongbow said:

Two muslim countries, previously ruled by dictators, overthrown through invasions led by the United States.

What dictator ruled Afghanistan?

And when are you invading Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Wow, you've got to be kidding...

You want jobs and stable government in 7 years? :lol:

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...


I think Iraq may be able to provide for its own internal security in 7 years which means most US military forces could be withdrawn. 9 of Iraq's provinces currently have their security provided by the Iraqi military and not the coalition. 3 years ago, the Iraqi military was not providing security for any of the provinces. Jobs are already increasing and as the violence continues to decrease, the economy will continue to improve. Economic improvement will bring about political compromise at the national level. Economic and political development though difficult is possible in any country if you can provide the necessary level of security either through foreign forces or the development of country's security services. Although it takes years and sometimes decades, the world is filled with development success stories from the Marshall Plan after World War II, to countries in East Asia like South Korea and Bosnia and Kosovo recently.

Bosnia faced a far worse crises and war than Iraq has ever faced, yet today it has a standard of living higher than Russia or Brazil.
 
Strongbow said:


Bosnia faced a far worse crises and war than Iraq has ever faced, yet today it has a standard of living higher than Russia or Brazil.

How can you even say that with a straight face?
 
anitram said:


What dictator ruled Afghanistan?

And when are you invading Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?

Mullah Mohammed Omar.

The United States is not invading an ally that has helped fuel US prosperity for the past 60 years, unless the relationship or Saudi Arabia's actions dramatically changed to the detriment of the United States.

Pakistan under Musharraf has been one of the biggest contributers to capturing top Al Quada leadership. The United States would only invade under extreme circumstances probably involving some sort of collapse of the government and military leading to the potential loss of nuclear weapons or a devastating terrorist attack coming from inside the country that Pakistan could not effectively respond to on its own.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


How can you even say that with a straight face?

5% of Bosnia's population was wiped out in 3 years(1992-1995) and now the country has a standard of living higher than both Russia and Brazil according to the latest Human Development Index from the United Nations. Iraq by contrast on a per capita basis suffered less than a tenth of the casualties that Bosnia suffered in nearly double the time period. Bosnia was in fact a real civil war with three ethnic groups and massive ethnic cleansing through out the country. Iraq has seen heavy sectarian violence and increased segratation in some of the larger cities, but none of the same level of violence and ethnic cleansing seen in Bosnia on a per capita basis.
 
Last edited:
Strongbow said:


Mullah Mohammed Omar.


LOL.


The United States is not invading an ally that has helped fuel US prosperity for the past 60 years,

Of course not. The fact they have possibly the worst human rights record in the world is meaningless. The fact that their royal family is so corrupt and despised by the citizens as well as Arabs in general helps feed the support for terrorism doesn't matter. You don't deal with problems after all; you only deal with their consequences. And so long as you get to buy cheap crap at Walmart and fill up your Buicks with cheap gas, why would you go about fixing this problem?
 
anitram said:


LOL.




Of course not. The fact they have possibly the worst human rights record in the world is meaningless. The fact that their royal family is so corrupt and despised by the citizens as well as Arabs in general helps feed the support for terrorism doesn't matter. You don't deal with problems after all; you only deal with their consequences. And so long as you get to buy cheap crap at Walmart and fill up your Buicks with cheap gas, why would you go about fixing this problem?

Sorry if you never heard of the leader of the Taliban.

While the Saudi's human rights record may be terrible, they are not actively trying to promote or support terrorism against the west except perhaps indirectly in some ways with Israel. Their not interested in biting the hand that feeds them, and certainly do not the desire the destruction and instability that Al Quada is trying to create. They have gone after Al Quada and its leadership in Saudi Arabia. Plus, lets not forget that Bin Ladin and Al Quada are not seeking to develop an ideal human rights based society in Saudi Arabia to replace the Royal family. So the idea that Saudi's are joining Al Quada because of human rights abuses is rubish. Poverty and a lack of direction and education perhaps, but Al Quada is not the organization one joins when upset about human rights abuses.

Regimes that either support terrorism or engage in other hostile activity or countries where the government has collapsed and cannot effectively respond to terrorist are the problem. Had Afghanistan made a successful transition to a stable government in the early 1990s and Iraq had been ruled by a leader not interested in regional conquest and the planets main source of energy, there would be no war in either country at the moment.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You mean after we invaded?

No I mean for the years prior to 9/11 our policies, in direct response to the existence of Saddam Hussein led to the rise of Al-Qaeda.

If you look historically, we were under attack long before 9/11, much of it, if not all of it due to the policy of containment, verses removal of Saddam after the 1st Gulf War.

I DESPISE this administration for NOT being aggresive in presenting the case in this manner.
 
ntalwar said:


IMO, Iran's influence in quelling any violence (and overall influence in most of Iraq) is underrated and under-reported.

That could very well be true. Al-Sadr has backed down and Iran apparently holds his strings.

Do you have links to information to help me appreciate this point?
 
Back
Top Bottom