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, 02:47 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:38 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, 02:49 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:38 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, 02:52 PM   #23
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:38 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, 02:57 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:38 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, 03:06 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:38 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, 03:26 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:38 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, 04:15 PM   #27
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:38 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, 05:20 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:38 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, 05:56 PM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:38 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, 06:00 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 04:38 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  
Old 01-03-2008, 06:43 PM   #31
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:38 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, 06:51 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,903
Local Time: 05:38 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, 07:05 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:38 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, 07:17 PM   #34
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:38 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, 07:35 PM   #35
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:38 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, 08:56 PM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:38 AM
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, 09:19 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 04:38 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, 10:12 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:38 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, 10:15 PM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:38 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 offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 10:18 PM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:38 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.
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  
 

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 04:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×