Invasion of Iraq good or bad for War on Terror?

[TheDarkling]

Do you deny that?

We stated that we went into Iraq because it had connections to terrorism. Regardless of what kind of internal housecleaning we might need to do because of it, other "rogue" states were still presented with a clear message: shape up, or we'll come to your place, too.

Which is why the other two nations in the Axis of Evil are acting like your lap dogs now, right?

[General Zod]

Do you deny that?

We stated that we went into Iraq because it had connections to terrorism. Regardless of what kind of internal housecleaning we might need to do because of it, other "rogue" states were still presented with a clear message: shape up, or we'll come to your place, too.

which is exactly why other nations hate us. our own government's pretty fucked up, and people wind up thinking we expect them to conform to our government's ideals just because we might not like how their system works. regardless or whether or not that's what's actually intended or happening, that's the impression the US gives off, and only makes other countries want to shun the States even more.

[SirNitram]

Axis Kast is still too stupid to see the hypocrisy inherent in his position(No one else can tell the US what to do, so the criticisms of how the US handles the war mean nothing, yet the US can decide what governments are 'rogue states' and reform them if it wants). That hypocrisy is the biggest problem, really.

[Axis Kast]

Which is why the other two nations in the Axis of Evil are acting like your lap dogs now, right?

They were never going to act like our lap dogs in the first place. The point is to put pressure on their ruling elite to avoid making decisions which might oblige us to launch air strikes or strike an even more aggressive posture.

which is exactly why other nations hate us. our own government's pretty fucked up, and people wind up thinking we expect them to conform to our government's ideals just because we might not like how their system works. regardless or whether or not that's what's actually intended or happening, that's the impression the US gives off, and only makes other countries want to shun the States even more.

The fate of every superpower in any system. Bush might have been more diplomatic about it, but nobody could have avoided a firestorm of criticism for this kind of strategy. It simply doesn't fit the security needs or concerns of our closest allies - which is a new occurance in the post-Cold War world. It's something we'll need to deal with, but we were going to run up against it sooner or later.

Axis Kast is still too stupid to see the hypocrisy inherent in his position(No one else can tell the US what to do, so the criticisms of how the US handles the war mean nothing, yet the US can decide what governments are 'rogue states' and reform them if it wants). That hypocrisy is the biggest problem, really.

And what would you have had us do?

Confine our efforts to Afghanistan and then maintain pressure on the terrorists only through international manhunts for individual groups or cells? That's incredibly stupid policy.

[SirNitram]

Axis Kast is still too stupid to see the hypocrisy inherent in his position(No one else can tell the US what to do, so the criticisms of how the US handles the war mean nothing, yet the US can decide what governments are 'rogue states' and reform them if it wants). That hypocrisy is the biggest problem, really.

And what would you have had us do?

Focus on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden is a good idea.

Confine our efforts to Afghanistan and then maintain pressure on the terrorists only through international manhunts for individual groups or cells? That's incredibly stupid policy.

No, an incredibly stupid policy would be invading an unrelated country and miring your military there.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Do you deny that?

We stated that we went into Iraq because it had connections to terrorism. Regardless of what kind of internal housecleaning we might need to do because of it, other "rogue" states were still presented with a clear message: shape up, or we'll come to your place, too.

How does it send that message? Rather, we fucked up, and proved to have poor intelligence-gather abilities. We also now lack the political, financial, and manpower resources to engage in any futher adventures.

Yes I'm sure they're terrified.

[Andrew J.]

We stated that we went into Iraq because it had connections to terrorism. Regardless of what kind of internal housecleaning we might need to do because of it, other "rogue" states were still presented with a clear message: shape up, or we'll come to your place, too.

Actually, the message is "When it comes to telling whether your country holds terrorists, our record is about fifty-fifty." Not to mention that there were lots of better candidates for invasion (including Syria and Saudi Arabia) that would have been a better use of time, money, effort and manpower.

[Axis Kast]

Focus on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden is a good idea.

No, it's an incredibly stupid idea.

Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are primary targets, but hardly the only targets of our efforts. Capturing or killing Osama will not win us victory in the War on Terror. As for al-Qaeda, they're already on the run. We've made important strides toward choking them off from the funds and secure bases that they've relied on so long.

The War on Terror, however, will not be won by pursuing merely reactive policy. We must ensure that it is understood: sponsors of terrorism will be removed.

No, an incredibly stupid policy would be invading an unrelated country and miring your military there.

Iraq is far from unrelated, and no M1 is going to help us find Bin Laden.

How does it send that message? Rather, we fucked up, and proved to have poor intelligence-gather abilities. We also now lack the political, financial, and manpower resources to engage in any futher adventures.

Yes I'm sure they're terrified.

You think the leaders in Tehran and Damascus are sitting any prettier today than before last March? For some reason, I doubt that highly.

Actually, the message is "When it comes to telling whether your country holds terrorists, our record is about fifty-fifty." Not to mention that there were lots of better candidates for invasion (including Syria and Saudi Arabia) that would have been a better use of time, money, effort and manpower.

Neither of those two would have been as easy as Iraq. We can stick around in Iraq. To stick around in Saudi Arabia would be much more difficult, and to fight Syria would have been much more difficult.

[Andrew J.]

Neither of those two would have been as easy as Iraq. We can stick around in Iraq. To stick around in Saudi Arabia would be much more difficult, and to fight Syria would have been much more difficult.

First of all, Iraq has been proving itself to not be anywhere near "easy." Second of all, so what? When you've set yourself a goal like fighting terrorism, you've got to put your workboots on, take on some difficult tasks, and make sacrifices. You can't just go and blow up some country tangentially related to terrorism because you already destroyed most of their army a decade ago. Hell, if you're gonna be like that, it would have been easier to let our troops stay home this entire time, too. Probably would have had the same or better effects on global terror, actually.

[SirNitram]

Focus on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden is a good idea.

No, it's an incredibly stupid idea.

Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are primary targets, but hardly the only targets of our efforts. Capturing or killing Osama will not win us victory in the War on Terror. As for al-Qaeda, they're already on the run. We've made important strides toward choking them off from the funds and secure bases that they've relied on so long.

So actually completing your primary objectives is an 'incredibly stupid idea'. Once again, your blind stupidity amazes me to new levels.

The War on Terror, however, will not be won by pursuing merely reactive policy. We must ensure that it is understood: sponsors of terrorism will be removed.

So when will the US go after the supporters of Terrorism, exactly? Or are you again going to try and claim Iraq had a claim to A-Q, when even Bush's lackleys, paid for their sycophanting, have abandoned it?

No, an incredibly stupid policy would be invading an unrelated country and miring your military there.

Iraq is far from unrelated, and no M1 is going to help us find Bin Laden.

You proving that Iraq is related would be a brilliant plan. Of course, you're just going to repeat what was refuted months ago, so maybe it's better you're now just relying on outright lies.

[Rakuseki]

I won't front. I did support the war in Iraq, mainly because I believe it gives us a strong foothold in the Middle East and a chance to change the climate of that region. Of course, the main problems with all of this is that it comes at a high cost.

We know we can defeat any military force in the region. That's a given. It's the aftermath that we weren't ready for.

But to the question at hand: If you wanted to fight terrorism, why go after exclusively Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia? After all, weren't 19 of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Why not Syria? Haven't they sponsored more terrorism than Iraq has?

It seems as if we went after Iraq because it was the easiest target to justify an attack against.

I really don't give a shit about the international community's opinion of it all. If they don't hate us for going into Iraq, they'll find an entirely different reason to hate us. Maybe that's just my jaded side about foreigners coming out.

[Vympel]

Jesus Christ. Take your head out of your ass for just a second and look the hell around. Don?t tell me you can?t put two and two together.

What?s the greatest source of tension between the United States and the rest of the international community today? The War on Terror. Why? Well, it?s certainly not that there?s any dispute over whether it must be fought (at least from the major players). It?s that our strategy is inherently different than everybody else?s.

Most of the rest of the world prefers to approach terrorism as a problem of domestic security. They counter the threat of bombings and assassination by deploying more police, bolstering first-responders, and coordinating action against individuals or organizations using their intelligence agencies. From time to time, they?ll come down on a state like Iran by using the United Nations, but the game is decidedly defensive. It?s a responsive strategy.

The United States, on the other hand, prefers proactive efforts. Bush and his advisers have declared terrorism a problem of international security. It?s a plague for the system. They use the military to force states ? which they see as the most important benefactors, sources, and instigators of terrorism ? rather than only individuals or organizations into submission. The question of whether this is cost-effective and who should be involved has spun out into this whole controversy over whether war was the best choice in Iraq.

Bush sees Iraq as no different from the terrorist sponsors of Afghanistan or Iran.

And he was fucking WRONG, who gives a fuck what that retard thinks?

It just so happens that all of the state sponsors of terrorism are so-called ?rogue? states ? that is, they are dictatorships diametrically opposed to American interests. Iraq fits that shoe, too. By knocking down their door, we give a strong warning to everyone else. Whether or not Iraq was really behind terrorism, and whether or not they have WMD becomes irrelevant to the message we send by going there in the first place.

The above spiel makes fucking zero sense. You admit it's about a war on TERRORISM, then you promptly do an about face and say "it's irrelevant" and expect anyone to think you have a remotely coherent point. The only thing anyone could possibly glean from your "argument" is that "we invaded Iraq even though they had shit to do with absolutely nothing because it'd scare the REAL terrorists". Brilliant. As was said, I'm sure those terrorist sponsors are just terrified of a US with no available manpower, pissing troops and money up against a wall, and reeling from a "you have zero credbility" problem.

Well, let?s see. Syria. State sponsor of terrorism. Iran. State sponsor of terrorism. Iraq. State sponsor of terrorism.

Ah, I see it's the return of the invincible The US must expend blood and treasure for Israel argument because it must because it must because it must argument. I know that the right-wing ideologues are joined with Israel at the hip, but why don't you think of a country that actually threatens the US for once?

North Korea. Sells weapons to the highest bidder. Iraq is among the nations that need to be sent a message. Saddam?s downfall can be linked to their own. If we go after Iraq, it?s clear that we?ll go after them, too.

*gasp!* Oh no, a country sells weapons to someone who'll pay the most! Let's all pretend it's terrorism!

And I'm sure NK is quaking in its boots.

If, as the article claims, it was merely Lockerbie that stalled Libya from handing over its WMD, why the huge quantity of time between the close of their negotiations with the United Kingdom and the start of their ?coming clean? before the United States?

Your article is the one with the false cause fallacy. It's attempting to argue: "WMD after Lockerbie, and therefore because of that." But if so, why the huge amount of time that elapsed?

In case you didn't know, Libya was offering compensation for Lockerbie in early 2002- a long time before Iraq was even certain to be invaded to outside persception.

[Symmetry]

Will the invasion of Iraq make more terrorist attacks on the US less likely? Ask me in 20 years. I can see how it could, but I'm still not sure.

First of all, there is the "democratic middle east" argument in favor. If Iraq turns into a shining bastion of liberty and prosperity, and if that serves to make the rest of the Middle East more democratic, that would probably help to reduce terrorism. Unfortunatly, that's three steps where it could go wrong, and even if it works it won't work quickly.

Second, there's the honeypot theory of Iraq. By being in Iraq, we've created a place for international terrorists to go where they'll be fighting trained, prepared soldiers rather than defenseless civilians. Of course, it seems that at least in the beggining most of the attackers were Iraqi's paid by what remained of the Iraqi government before they ran out of money (thanks in part to the capture of Saddam's bank accounts along with Saddam), and it isn't at all clear that the individual terrorists acting in Iraq would have been working against the US or our allies. To what could the resources Al Queda has spent in Iraq have been used in the US? Unknown.

Certainly the war in Iraq mostly drains different resources than we would use in a more traditional police approach to terrorism (how do you use an army division to prevent a hijacking?), but it still drains the public treasury, the national attention span, and various intilligence resources. I suppose Iraq will have been a worthwhile honeypot if we drain Al Queda's resources more than our own, but without hindsight I can't say.

Finally, there is the issue of Al Queda's prestige being hurt if they fail to remove us from Iraq, but whenever we leave they'll claim to have done it, so again I can't say whether this will be believed.

[The Albino Raven]

What?s the greatest source of tension between the United States and the rest of the international community today? The War on Terror. Why? Well, it?s certainly not that there?s any dispute over whether it must be fought (at least from the major players). It?s that our strategy is inherently different than everybody else?s.

War on Terror? How can you wage war on an idea? Invading states that sponsor will not stop terrorism any more than killing the terrorists themselves. Terrorism is an ideal, and it something you are not going to eliminate, ever. Plain and simple. Therefore, anything other than a defensive approach is a waste of time, money, and lives.

[Vympel]

War on Terror? How can you wage war on an idea? Invading states that sponsor will not stop terrorism any more than killing the terrorists themselves. Terrorism is an ideal, and it something you are not going to eliminate, ever. Plain and simple. Therefore, anything other than a defensive approach is a waste of time, money, and lives.

Of course it is- when normal people think "war on terror", they think, well, defending themselves from terrorism, catching terrorists etc. However, Kast is just taking the neoconservative line lock stock and barrel: use it as a catch all excuse to do whatever you want (primarily making the world safe for Israel, it seems, at the cost of purely American resources), and invent flimsy justifications for it after the fact.

[Slartibartfast]

Focus on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden is a good idea.

No, it's an incredibly stupid idea.

Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are primary targets, but hardly the only targets of our efforts.

Again, Axis Kast shows his stupidity about everything.

In any mission, the "definition" of Primary Target is "what must be accomplished at any costs, otherwise the mission is a failure"
The "definition" of Secondary Target is "if you have time, please do this, if you would be so nice, k thx"

Have you heard any bombs lately around your home, Axis? I think you're starting to get a bit of stress.

[PainRack]

Here's why I think the war on Iraq was a bad deal for the war on terror.

According to the NYT, the US has decided to enact a law that states ships coming into the US from international ports must fulfill certain security obligations. The problem is this, poor countries like Honduras and the like can't afford the security measures to be put in place prior to the june deadline. In the past, money would had been greased into the proper hands to facillate this, not to mention Special Forces A teams on the ground, CIA and State department people swarming around and so forth. However, this time around, the only thing coming out of the US is political pressure and the threat of an economic blockade.

The US can't pull this off. They're a maritime trading power. 95% of their cargo comes in by ships, and a helluva lot of those ships are not properly secured.

The UN has been sending notice after notice talking about their security for nearly a year now, the US current stance is probably the most.... "loud" action so far in the need for maritime security worldwide. Australia has been pissed off at PNG for the poor state of their security checkpoints, allowing a person to bring an concealed firearm onboard an aircraft.

Elsewhere in the US, powergrids and waterworks remain relatively unsecure and the newest equipment at Los Angeles International airport is not getting there, and a whole lot of it is due to the lack of funds.


And here we have, a war, that's costing millions and probably billions of dollars. Certainly, all this expenditure is having an oppurtinity cost in terms of hardening soft targets.

[Darth Wong]

Before the war in Iraq, the American military seemed utterly invincible. Now, even though they won, their limits have been laid bare. Everyone and his dog throughout the entire Middle East knows that American military manpower is now stretched to its limits in holding down the fort in Iraq.

Also, excuses such as the "honeypot theory" completely ignore the fact that recruitment in terrorist organizations and general anti-Americanism has shot up dramatically as a result of this war. In short, the War in Iraq has created more terrorists and it has revealed some of America's limitations.

[The Albino Raven]

Also, excuses such as the "honeypot theory" completely ignore the fact that recruitment in terrorist organizations and general anti-Americanism has shot up dramatically as a result of this war. In short, the War in Iraq has created more terrorists and it has revealed some of America's limitations.

Additionally, our conduct in Iraq has made it more likely that the Shiite majority will take power in the coming years, and could possibly end up producing even more anti-american sentiment. In otherwords, we got fucked. Twice.

[Chardok]

Honeslt I think all it did was allow Bush's 10-year Hard-on for killing Saddam hussein finally subside. Nothing more. In fact, I would go so far as to say it was HORRIBLE for the war on terror, as all it seemed to do was piss off MORE fundie groups. In my mind I see them redoubling their efforts now. Spite is a POWERFUL slavemaster.

As an aside, the new leader of Hamas said today

"We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon," Rantissi said. "The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas."

Can Arabs PLEASE start making some original name? Or, barring that, use something besides a combination of the words: Abdul, (Abdel), Aziz, Ali, Mohammed, Sheik, Ibrahim, bin (anything), Yass(suffix here) or abd(something)? It's getting out of hand.


At any rate, I recall Hamas not LIKING the west, but this guy has openly declared war on the U.S. and Isreal. Would these statements have been made had the U.S. stuck to rooting Bin Laden out of Afghanistan and NOT invaded Iraq on lies of WMD's, no, ridding the world of a tyrant, No wait, the THREAT of POSSIBLE WMD's MAYBE in the future, no, A Free Iraq, No, a freee Mosul, and BAGHDAD, and TIKRIT, and MANDALI, AND ASSALLAMANDUMQUASARANDNUKAYIBANDSINJARANDQAL'AT'DIZAH YEEEARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!

[Pablo Sanchez]

Can Arabs PLEASE start making some original name? Or, barring that, use something besides a combination of the words: Abdul, (Abdel), Aziz, Ali, Mohammed, Sheik, Ibrahim, bin (anything), Yass(suffix here) or abd(something)? It's getting out of hand.

Yeah, and what's the fucking deal with Europeans naming their kids after apostles? BORING!

At any rate, I recall Hamas not LIKING the west, but this guy has openly declared war on the U.S. and Isreal. Would these statements have been made had the U.S. stuck to rooting Bin Laden out of Afghanistan and NOT invaded Iraq on lies of WMD's, no, ridding the world of a tyrant, No wait, the THREAT of POSSIBLE WMD's MAYBE in the future, no, A Free Iraq, No, a freee Mosul, and BAGHDAD, and TIKRIT, and MANDALI, AND ASSALLAMANDUMQUASARANDNUKAYIBANDSINJARANDQAL'AT'DIZAH YEEEARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!

Your point becomes much more coherent if you actually attempt to express it.

I'm mostly undecided about the invasion of Iraq. As far as I can tell it has actually had no effect upon the war on terror as of yet, though very likely in a few months the large new recruiting base opened to the terrorists will make itself felt.

[The Kernel]

Before the war in Iraq, the American military seemed utterly invincible. Now, even though they won, their limits have been laid bare. Everyone and his dog throughout the entire Middle East knows that American military manpower is now stretched to its limits in holding down the fort in Iraq.

The US Military was simply not designed for this kind of action. Our military is an excellent club, but it isn't very useful for the finer peacekeeping work. This has been proven time and time again in various peacekeeping operations in hostile countries.

What we really need is the Iraqi equivalent of the LAPD.

[Pablo Sanchez]

The US Military was simply not designed for this kind of action. Our military is an excellent club, but it isn't very useful for the finer peacekeeping work. This has been proven time and time again in various peacekeeping operations in hostile countries.

What we really need is the Iraqi equivalent of the LAPD.

You mean the guys being ambushed and shot up by guerrillas every day? That isn't going very well. Just about the only mechanism I can think of that could really put the damper on the guerilla activity in Iraq would be that Shiite militia that has been proposed by some Imams in Iraq. And that would be like burning the whole house to get rid of the termites.

[Chardok]

Yeah, and what's the fucking deal with Europeans naming their kids after apostles? BORING!

I was joking. Should have put a smiley, I suppose.
here:


Better?

Your point becomes much more coherent if you actually attempt to express it.

My most sincere apologies for the abstract reference. I'll break into easily digestible, bite-sized chunks for you.

1. Hamas Dislikes the West, the U.S. specifically.

2. Former leader of Hamas is really more concerned with the EVIL israelites.

3. U.S. invades Iraq.

4.Isreal sends a hellfire missile up former leader's ass. (Which, interestingly, leaves on wheel of the guy's wheelchair intact. (And honestly, how on earth is it so hard that it takes israel years to cacth up with a guy in a wheelchair?)

Oops, forgot the smiley again, sorry.


5. New Hamas leader takes power. This leader, like the last one, disliked the U.S., but, harbors a new, deep, abding hatred for them since the U.S., unprovoked and illegally, invaded a sovereign muslim nation, ENSALVED the free peoples with martial Law, Ousted their DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader, and embarassed him on international T.V.

6. New Hamas guy professes this deep, abiding hatred for the U.S. in a published statement, changing Hamas' focus from not only ridding the Middle east of the EVIL JEWS, But also destroying the OVERLORDS OF THE UNIVERSE, THE EPITOME OF ALL EVIL IN THE WORLD, THE ENEMY OF GOD, The United States of America.

[Perinquus]

War on Terror? How can you wage war on an idea? Invading states that sponsor will not stop terrorism any more than killing the terrorists themselves. Terrorism is an ideal, and it something you are not going to eliminate, ever. Plain and simple. Therefore, anything other than a defensive approach is a waste of time, money, and lives.

Of course it is- when normal people think "war on terror", they think, well, defending themselves from terrorism, catching terrorists etc. However, Kast is just taking the neoconservative line lock stock and barrel: use it as a catch all excuse to do whatever you want (primarily making the world safe for Israel, it seems, at the cost of purely American resources), and invent flimsy justifications for it after the fact.

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on whether the invasion of Iraq will be good or bad for the war on terror. It could still go either way, depending on how stable and democratic a government can be built up in Iraq.

But this idea that you can only deal with terrorism defensively I could not disagree with more. What are you supposed to do? Never go after them in their bases? Should we have left Al Quaeda running around loose in Afghanistan, and just hoped to catch them every time they tried to attack us? Is that what you mean?

Going on the offensive against Al Quaeda, and toppling the regime in Agghanistan that supported them was both necessary and smart. You never leave your enemy secure in his base. If you leave him a place to retreat to and rebuild his strength he'll go and do just that. And you will never solve the problem. And of course, you couldn't possibly hope to intercept every attack. Some would still get through. How the hell would you ever hope to solve the problem with a purely defensive strategy?