Cost of Iraq War

[30A Skunkape]

I said nothing on bin Laden or 9/11, so quit throwing up that strawman. I?d love to move on Iran and behead the government. The Iranian populace is ready for it. Faster, please.

Easy there. I work with a guy from Iran who was there last month visiting family. The rational majority there are suffering economically and their fortunes took a dip under Abudibawhatever. They are trying to move up elections so he can be voted out of office. Let's just relax a little while-remember, Iran knows exactly where our troops in Iraq are and it is likely that any attack would result on an immediate strike at our guys in Iraq...You know I am no dove, but I think we can afford to chill for a good while.

 

[6thGen]

You may not have typed out those exact words, but you did unequivocally alluded to that statement. That being said start you own thread as you have been politely asked to do.

Now back to the real thread. Micro banking is a great idea, a great cause, and can be done for many areas in need around the world.

Grassroots of one country helping the grassroots of another.

If you would truly like to move to Iran, please do. I am sure we can arrange a micro loan if you need assistance.

Taunt me here and respond to me here and I?ll respond here. Don't tell me where to address an issue when you cannot do so yourself. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. It?s that simple. From the article that no one read.

"The point was whether Iraq was working with al Qaeda, not whether it was necessarily aware of and complicit in specific operations like 9/11. Al Qaeda exists ? its singular purpose is ? to carry out operations against the U.S. If you are helping al Qaeda at all, what on earth do you suppose you?re helping it do?

The issue is not rogue-state culpability for 9/11. After all, there?s no hard evidence that the Taliban was involved in 9/11. Yet we attacked and overthrew the Taliban ? a military incursion even liberal Democrats say they supported ? because the Taliban was aiding and abetting al Qaeda. No one contends that our rationale requires proof of direct Taliban involvement in 9/11.

Al Qaeda was headquartered in Afghanistan, not Iraq, so the evidence of Saddam?s assistance to the terror network is less blatant. But the principle is the same. Let?s pretend for a moment that there were no unresolved issues about Iraq and 9/11 ? no possible meeting between Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001; no Ahmed Hikmat Shakir (an Iraqi intelligence operative) at the January 2000 Kuala Lampur meeting involving two of the 9/11 hijackers. That is, let?s pretend 9/11 never happened. There would still be the little matter of Iraq aiding and abetting al Qaeda. That is what the invasion of Iraq was about ? the Bush Doctrine: You?re with us or you?re with the terrorists ... especially if there?s good reason to think you might share WMDs with the terrorists (and remember Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 that CIA believed Iraq and al Qaeda were working together on both WMDs and conventional weapons).

This talk by Tenet and his cohort about whether Iraq had a role in 9/11 is a red herring. We don?t know that Iraq was uninvolved in 9/11, but we do know Iraq was involved with al Qaeda. The fact that other regimes, like Iran, may be even more involved with al Qaeda than Iraq is an argument for addressing those regimes, not for leaving Saddam in power."

 

[30gAy]

Hey let's get N Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan and anybody else we don't agree with. How about Germany too; I hear they harbored and educated some terrorists involved in 9/11.
All these countries caused us some national security issues therefore meeting 6th gen's criteria for attacking them.

Let's not forget Boston and Chicago!

Remember, a large amount of the IRA's terrorism was funded by Irish Americans. If we're going after groups that sponsor and fund terrorism (and the places that house them) let's be consistent.

 

[6thGen]

Easy there. I work with a guy from Iran who was there last month visiting family. The rational majority there are suffering economically and their fortunes took a dip under Abudibawhatever. They are trying to move up elections so he can be voted out of office. Let's just relax a little while-remember, Iran knows exactly where our troops in Iraq are and it is likely that any attack would result on an immediate strike at our guys in Iraq...You know I am no dove, but I think we can afford to chill for a good while.

No election will be valid as long as the mullahs are involved. I'm not for dropping a nuke on Tehran today, but more overt pressure would be comforting.

 

[6thGen]

Hey let's get N Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan and anybody else we don't agree with. How about Germany too; I hear they harbored and educated some terrorists involved in 9/11.
All these countries caused us some national security issues therefore meeting 6th gen's criteria for attacking them.

Did I say that any national security issue should be dealt with militarily? I swear, I've never seen so many strawmen.

 

[30gAy]

For crying out loud- here's a quote from Andrew McCarthy, the U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the first WTC attack.

"If you want to say we shouldn?t have gone to Iraq, and should have anticipated the present chaos there, fair enough. But at least have the honesty to say you?d prefer the alternative: A Saddam Hussein, emboldened from having faced down the United States and its sanctions, loaded with money, arming with WMDs, and coddling jihadists."

Well if we are going for honesty; by all means wrap it up in lies about WMD and jihadists.

Maybe we should be honest and consider this alternative:

A civil war which leads to a Iranian allied mullah seizing control of Iraq and creating a Shia anti-American coalition which can threaten the oil producing gulf states.

I prefer a bottled up Saddam, to that.

 

[scooterbug44]

Saddam is dead, so that's not an option!

Any constructive suggestions?

 

[6thGen]

The idea is that by improving their living conditions (which we made worse when we invaded) we provide for our common defense.

Parents whose newborn babies are dying in hospitals because their incubators don't have power and whose children are starving because they lost their job at the state factory join the insurgency. Quantifiable improvements in their life make them support us. Violence is the outlet for their frustration and anger. Feed their kids, turn on the power, give them clean water and they tell Al queda to take a hike before they mess up the better life they've now got.

That's all well and good, but history shows you can't throw money at the problem. Oil for food, Hurricane Katrina, and pretty much every other assistance program of that nature have shown what corruption would ensue. We would have to maintain a military presence, which costs money, making the childish notion that you can just move money to buy air conditioners and appease the locals preposterous.

 

[6thGen]

Saddam is dead, so that's not an option!

Any constructive suggestions?

I'd say give General Petraeus more than a few months.

 

[rancid]

I don?t believe that we should be going into countries to improve that country?s citizens? living conditions. I supported and continue to support the war because I believe it is a national security issue. I know many will post articles that show how we are less safe, terrorism has increased, etc. but the analyses are in a vacuum. No one can quantify the damage had this country chose to sit on its hands rather than strike. I don?t know that and neither do they. The US was attacked because we continued to show complacency on smaller attacks in the past and because we continue to prove that we don?t have the stomach for war. The cartoon is more silly than serious.

6th gen, is this not your post?