Invasion of Iraq is now officially pointless

[jegs2]

Speaking of which:

Suspicious shells found in southern Iraq

Mortars thought to hold blister agent left over from war with Iran
Saturday, January 10, 2004 Posted: 4:32 PM EST (2132 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Danish troops have found suspicious mortar shells in southern Iraq that officials believe contain blister agents, the United States and Denmark announced Saturday.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, said Saturday that the 120 mm mortars were filled with liquid.

The shells are at least 10 years old, and a U.S. Army official said he suspects the ordnance was surplus from the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-1980s. Blister agents are used in chemical weapons.

[SirNitram]

If it weren't for the number of times 'suspicious weapons' were found to be nothign of hte sort, I'd be more optimistic something was found. Since we live in reality though, I have my doubts.

[Iceberg]

That and the shells were buried in 1994, and probably subsequently forgotten about.

Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence, and the middle east has incompetence in huge volumes.

[Bob McDob]

There's one possible advantage to the Iraq invasion that I don't think anyone has addressed. By shifting the focus to Iraq, we've effectively split the forces of terrorism between Iraq and Afganistan - a "divide and conquer" tactic. The US can afford it, barely - can the terrorists?

[SirNitram]

There's one possible advantage to the Iraq invasion that I don't think anyone has addressed. By shifting the focus to Iraq, we've effectively split the forces of terrorism between Iraq and Afganistan - a "divide and conquer" tactic. The US can afford it, barely - can the terrorists?

Based on the unproven notion that there is a fixed number of terrorists, instead of the fairly-well-supported notion that by invading Iraq, we now have Iraqis angry with us.

[Bob McDob]

There's one possible advantage to the Iraq invasion that I don't think anyone has addressed. By shifting the focus to Iraq, we've effectively split the forces of terrorism between Iraq and Afganistan - a "divide and conquer" tactic. The US can afford it, barely - can the terrorists?

Based on the unproven notion that there is a fixed number of terrorists, instead of the fairly-well-supported notion that by invading Iraq, we now have Iraqis angry with us.

True - but those Iraqis stay mainly in Iraq. They're insurgents, not jihad-monkeys. And even if we didn't invade Iraq, I doubt the Jihadists would stay quiet - they'd rise in ever increasing numbers, as they are now, only they'd be heading to Afganistan, not Iraq.

I suppose it might not make logical sense. That's why I said it was a possible advantage, not a hard one.

[SirNitram]

There's one possible advantage to the Iraq invasion that I don't think anyone has addressed. By shifting the focus to Iraq, we've effectively split the forces of terrorism between Iraq and Afganistan - a "divide and conquer" tactic. The US can afford it, barely - can the terrorists?

Based on the unproven notion that there is a fixed number of terrorists, instead of the fairly-well-supported notion that by invading Iraq, we now have Iraqis angry with us.

True - but those Iraqis stay mainly in Iraq. They're insurgents, not jihad-monkeys. And even if we didn't invade Iraq, I doubt the Jihadists would stay quiet - they'd rise in ever increasing numbers, as they are now, only they'd be heading to Afganistan, not Iraq.

Or the US has generated more terrorists by invading two sovereign nations, one with almost no legitimate claim. Come on; the flypaper argument was smacked down ages ago.

[phongn]

There's one possible advantage to the Iraq invasion that I don't think anyone has addressed. By shifting the focus to Iraq, we've effectively split the forces of terrorism between Iraq and Afganistan - a "divide and conquer" tactic. The US can afford it, barely - can the terrorists?

I've heard that, in addition to using Iraq to suck up local terrorists (fixed or variable number), we're using it as a smokescreen to distract the attention of sundry other ground. For example, we've sent troops out to the Phillippine Islands -- what's the last you've heard of their activities? You don't hear much about the US forces in Afghanistan either, or any number of nations that may have active campaigns going on (abliet much lower in intensity than in Iraq).

[Rubberanvil]

Now Americans here mean American soldiers since almost every American in Iraq today is a military personnel.

You've forgotten the rather large number of U.S. civilian contractors working in Iraq along with their foreign counterparts.

[Sarevok]

Now Americans here mean American soldiers since almost every American in Iraq today is a military personnel.

You've forgotten the rather large number of U.S. civilian contractors working in Iraq along with their foreign counterparts.

Yes but the Iraqi resistence see things a little differently than you do. To them anyone working for the Coaltition is an enemy. That is why there has been numerous attacks on non-American targets.

[KrauserKrauser]

Now Americans here mean American soldiers since almost every American in Iraq today is a military personnel.

You've forgotten the rather large number of U.S. civilian contractors working in Iraq along with their foreign counterparts.

Yeah just yesterday my dad went to do accounting for the Ministry of Justice (/prays for his safe return)

[Vympel]

Didn't Coalition forces find buried MIG fighter jets in the sand a while back? Apparently, those birds were detected by no national-level collection assets, and they were stumbled upon after a sandstorm partially uncovered them. Seems to me that if the bad guys could hide a few fighter jets, then they'd likely not have much trouble burying WMD stockpiles in remote parts of the desert either (along with any 'talkative types' that might have known about it). I think we will eventually find some of that stuff, but it may be many years down the road when they are stumbled on, perhaps during construction digging...

And why would you want to bury useless, past-their-useby date and/or wholly hypothetical WMD stockpiles? I've posted extensively on why practically every claim made pre-war was bullshit, for either/both of those two reasons. Either the weapons referred to are long since useless, or were hypothetical, worst-case scenario guesses with no evidence for their existence at all- there's only *one* exception, and that's mustard gas, which can stay pure for a long time. Except that Iraq's unaccounted for number of mustard gas shells (out of tens of thousands destroyed) would be insufficient to pose any real threat to anyone, and you know it's not a 'weapon of mass destruction' at all. And furthermore, do you really think it's likely that the people who supposedly know where these things are buried are going to forgo the reward money? For who? Fear of Saddam? Behind bars.

[Howedar]

After all the times we've heard about the WMDs we found this time in Iraq - "Oh, this time we're sure it's not a false positive!" - I'm not holding my breath.

[The Yosemite Bear]

There's one possible advantage to the Iraq invasion that I don't think anyone has addressed. By shifting the focus to Iraq, we've effectively split the forces of terrorism between Iraq and Afganistan - a "divide and conquer" tactic. The US can afford it, barely - can the terrorists?

meanwhile in some bunker in Oregan, Idaho, California, Utah, or Nebraska, Neo-nazi's plan their next bank robbery with little fear of federal detection, after all all the US assests are focused on the middle east,,,,

[Joe]

There's one possible advantage to the Iraq invasion that I don't think anyone has addressed. By shifting the focus to Iraq, we've effectively split the forces of terrorism between Iraq and Afganistan - a "divide and conquer" tactic. The US can afford it, barely - can the terrorists?

meanwhile in some bunker in Oregan, Idaho, California, Utah, or Nebraska, Neo-nazi's plan their next bank robbery with little fear of federal detection, after all all the US assests are focused on the middle east,,,,

All our domestic security forces are currently in the Middle East?

[SirNitram]

There's one possible advantage to the Iraq invasion that I don't think anyone has addressed. By shifting the focus to Iraq, we've effectively split the forces of terrorism between Iraq and Afganistan - a "divide and conquer" tactic. The US can afford it, barely - can the terrorists?

meanwhile in some bunker in Oregan, Idaho, California, Utah, or Nebraska, Neo-nazi's plan their next bank robbery with little fear of federal detection, after all all the US assests are focused on the middle east,,,,

All our domestic security forces are currently in the Middle East?

While certainly not all, there were noticable drops in police forces in places I know, because a number of the officers were called up.

[Axis Kast]

Or the US has generated more terrorists by invading two sovereign nations, one with almost no legitimate claim. Come on; the flypaper argument was smacked down ages ago.

Is this thinly-veiled criticism of our decision to invade Afghanistan? Come now; you can construct a strong argument that the United States somehow threatened the sanctity of international relations by ousting the Taliban?

It's also important to note that the Carnegie analysis is merely opinion. They present no new evidence to back their claims, and as the Danish reminded us today, there's still a lot of ground to cover.

[Sarevok]

The US has created more terrorists than it has defeated in the War against terrorism.

Regarding the Taliban there is no question that they deserved to be destroyed. But the way Bush executed the Afghan war was wrong. He went to war without presenting any real evidence whatsoever. This is the main reason why there were people opposed to an otherwise just war.

[The Yosemite Bear]

actually since the establishment of the Department of Homwland security police, airtraffic controllers etc, now are pulling double duty, seven days a week, with no overtime, the situation for police is just as bad. As per the union rolls, state & county municipalities have had to lay off large numbers of police and firefighters, due to the realocation of federal funds, and the fact that many of the duel cival service types have been called away for overseas duty.

[Joe]

The US has created more terrorists than it has defeated in the War against terrorism.

Numbers?

Regarding the Taliban there is no question that they deserved to be destroyed. But the way Bush executed the Afghan war was wrong. He went to war without presenting any real evidence whatsoever. This is the main reason why there were people opposed to an otherwise just war.

They were giving bin Laden and al-Qaeda safe haven and logistical support, for god's sake! They made no attempt to deny this! What kind of evidence were you looking for?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also of note, we haven't caught the terrorists behind the Antrax incidents.

we traced it down to a down to a strain that was cultured by a Utah based neo-nazi/fundamentalist mormon group. We still have no idea who mailed it since the retired doctor who cultured it is still serving a life sentance (since his anthrax lab was descovered in the early 1990's)and not talking.

I would say that is a major unanswered blow by a domestic terrorist.

[Master of Ossus]

[Bush] went to war without presenting any real evidence whatsoever. This is the main reason why there were people opposed to an otherwise just war.

You gotta be shitting me. Repeated polls showed that the number one reason people opposed the war was in anticipation of civilian casualties and/or humanitarian concerns. A shocking 60% of people who opposed the war also opposed American involvement in WWII (leading to the belief that the majority of Afghan war criticism was caused by out-and-out pacifism, though hard numbers on that are impossible to find).

Frankly, there was no doubt that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were directly linked. Many Al Qaeda leaders and agents had houses or other property in Afghanistan, and the Taliban was also known to be a leading financer of several Al Qaeda operations, particularly within the Middle East. The question I have is how the US was able to separate Pakistan from the Taliban, so as to go to war with one nation and not the other, but I digress....

[Joe]

They were Mormons?

"Terrorist" and "Mormom" are words that you typically don't associate with one another.

[Master of Ossus]

They were Mormons?

"Terrorist" and "Mormom" are words that you typically don't associate with one another.

Okay, I have to have missed something, here.

[Sarevok]

Numbers?

Exact numbers unknown but more people dislike America than before. There are far more people willing to be terrorists today. During the Afghan war young men from many countries traveled to Afganistan to fight for OBL and his band of terrorists. Many of them came from western countries like Britain. Similarly during the Iraq war foreign fighters continue to play an important role. So how can you claim that the number of terrorists has decresed ? The truth is more and more people are willing to give up their regular life and join the terrorists.