Why Should I Care About Iraq?

[phillyfan26]

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.

[LemonMelon]

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.

[Irvine511]

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.

[BVS]

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.

[LemonMelon]

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?

[Irvine511]

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!

[BVS]

Originally posted by LemonMelon


How would ending poverty stop terrorism?

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...

[BVS]

Originally posted by Irvine511
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...

[Irvine511]

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.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




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.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Irvine511
the recruits tend to be more poverty stricken.

And that's my point...

Would these leaders have anything without poverty?

[anitram]

Originally posted by Strongbow

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?

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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...

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.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Strongbow


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?

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by anitram


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.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Strongbow
[B]

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?

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by anitram


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.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by ntalwar


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?