Jaguar b. p.

You need to work on your definition of "terror".
Believe it or not, terrorism is not defined as "Anything that Americans dislike".
Those weapons were in all likelihood intended for resistance to U.S. occupation

May I remind you that your country attacked Iraq on a made-up false claim of WMD. Let's not lose sight of who started this and why.

Billo_Really

That's not how I look at it. It breaks down to this: I would have had no problem us going into Iraq if we had obtained UNSC authorization to do so. But we didn't. We just attacked and became the most hated nation on earth.

BTW, I think our defense budget is obscene! I'd rather see money we spend on defense going to give teachers better salaries.

Gladiator

Dear Billo Really,

Here is my rant in response to your ideas:

Law: Congress makes Laws, and Bush had at least a color of authorization from Congress to invade Iraq. Congress intended the authorization to be used as a threat, but Bush took the LAW and interpreted the plain language, authoirzing the invasion of Iraq.

I sugggest Common Sense is more important than LAW.

UN:

The UN is a real disappointment, because the US guages its Foreign Aid to get the governments of the World to vote for US policy. The first 3 years of Powell's Secretary of State term was spent armtwisting other countries to support an exemption for the US from International War Crimes Tribunals.

US Foreign aid does not go to help the other countries develop. US Foreign Aid goes to programs run be relatives of the Leaders of the countries, so the Leaders will vote with the US in the UN.

After prisoner abuse in Abu Gharab was widely publicized, the US bid to get exemption from the International War Crimes Tribunal was dead. Secretary Powells term in office was therefore mostly a waste.

OIL:

You do not mention WWII Treaties. If the Middle East Politics deteriorates, how do you plan for the US to keep its obligations to supply oil to Japan?

If the US defaults on its WWII treaty with Japan, and the US is unable to supply sufficient Oil for Japan's needs, then Japan is no longer bound to limit the size of its military. Didn't factor that in, did you?

So in 2009, or some point in the near future, the US has defaulted, Japan is into a full military build-up to aquire strategic power to acquire oil, as Japan was, just befor Pearl Harbor, and what are you expecting the Japanese military to do, and not do? What are Japan's military options? Who can Japan directly attack to get oil? What manufacturing facilities, in what countries, should be destroyed for using too much of the world's oil?

Your suggestion of WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ is overly simplistic and not well thought out. You say people don't like us for invading Iraq. Most polls are bologna, because they don't ask the question from the future looking back to various results. The questions to be asked should not be:

A. Do you like the US?

B. Do you like what the US is doing in Iraq?

C. Do you think the US was right to invade Iraq?

The REAL questions are:

1. If the al Qaida is too tough for the US, and the US fairly quickly pulls out of Iraq, do you think that any attrocities following withdrawal should be blamed on the US, or should the US be given some credit for having tried?

2. If the US is able to stand up the Iraq government and withdraw progressively, will you feel the US should be forgiven for invading Iraq in the first place?


end of Rant



.

SouthernDemocrat

Or, the functioning local governments is simply evidence of the tribal nature of the various ethic groups in Iraq. Even in a state of total civil war, without any hope of national reconciliation, you generally see functioning local governments. In fact, local governments generally fill the role that their national governments had.

There is no doubt that some Sunni areas are growing tired of the Al Qaeda inspired extremist elements. Many of these areas were fairly secular under Saddam. However, it still remains to be seen whether they will ever have any real interest in a unified Iraq.

In contrast to some local governments, the national government in Iraq has shown no signs at all of taking any positive steps toward reconciling the differences between the different factions.

__________________
“A drink a day keeps the shrink away”

- Edward Abbey

SouthernDemocrat

Yes, Saddam, though he was largely a secular dictator, did, just like every other regime in the Middle East, provide at least some financial support to radical Islamists in Israel.

However, in terms of terrorist supporting nations, Iraq under Saddam was near the bottom of the list in the Muslim world. Saddam provided token support to anti-Israel terrorist factions simply for propaganda means.

I might add, that while Iraq was not a haven for radical Islamists under Saddam, it is today.

__________________
“A drink a day keeps the shrink away”

- Edward Abbey

Gladiator

Can you more finitively delinieate what you mean?

Many supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq were in the former Military under Saddam Hussein. As the City, Provincial and Central Governments of Iraq begin to function, and the economy picks up, the ISI members will fold back into the community.

The word "Haven" was accurate in Afghanaistan where there were camps, and in Iraq in 2006, there were safe houses set up in Sunni neighborhoods. Iraq is not a haven for Terroists. The number and convenence of safe houses in Iraq are being reduced for 2007.

It does not appear that you have carefully read the cites I have previously given on this thread. If you disagree with the conclusions or facts in my references, then you would give a more detailed reasoning to your contradiction. The terms you are using seems to be from the mass media, not from detailed source documents I have Linked for you.



.

Billo_Really

This is a new twist I never considered. I always have thought of the Japanese as Pacific Rim American's.

This is not true and if you read everything I have posted on Iraq, I don't see how you could make a statement like this.

The two REAL questions are a little too convaluted for a poll question. But I will say on No. 1, that all atrocities following the invasion are the US's responsibilty. Everything from the moment of the invasion on, is on us.

For No. 2, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Obviously, anything that turns out to work in acheiving peace in the region, there will be some forgivness. To what extent, I do not know.

SouthernDemocrat

The sites you are posting are virtually all DOD sites, thus they are going to be overly optimistic in nature. I prefer to go with the declassified portions of the NIE from this year and last year as with it, there is no agenda. Both show that the war in Iraq has greatly helped radical groups across the Muslim world, has helped foster an environment where the next generation of radical islamists are now coming out of war torn neighborhoods in Iraq, and has severely weakened the cause of moderate factions in Iran, Pakistan, and throughout much of the Muslim world.

Even last year we knew this:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 24, 2006; Page A01

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

Read more here: Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight - washingtonpost.com

All Muslims are not out to destroy the west. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims are not out to destroy the west. Put yourself in the shoes of the average Joe Iraqi. Here you are, the United States is occupying your country. Your life as a result from your countries Civil War is in complete disarray. There is little work, you fear for your life, family members have been killed in sectarian violence, and you are losing hope of a positive future. Radical Islamic groups tell you like the aim of the United States is to occupy your land, convert you to Christianity, use your land to help Israel, your government is nothing but a puppet government of the United States, they want your oil, and so on and so forth. You see a government that is corrupt, cannot protect you, your houses of worship are being targeted, your markets are being targeted, your neighborhoods are getting more and more segregated and radicalized, and you begin to believe those radical Islamists after a while. It is a fact that in times of shear desperation, people, especially young people, tend to migrate to the most radical forms of their faith. This is the fruit of the war in Iraq, its is the next generation of radical Islamists.

Now the problem is that yes we have this surge, and yes it is helping to provide better security to some areas. However, when people get indoctrinated into radical religious beliefs, a bettering of the security situation around them is usually not enough to get them to leave their radical religious beliefs behind. Its easy to get someone indoctrinated into a cult, and radical islam is indeed a cult, but its much harder to get them out of it. In fact, at times they then even begin to revolt against the modernization around them. So whether this surge will truly work or not in the long term remains to be seen. I certainly think its a better strategy than what the Bush Administration had before, but judging by history, it may well be far too little, far too late.

__________________
“A drink a day keeps the shrink away”

- Edward Abbey

oldreliable67

Not true. Way too simplistic and sophomoric. At the risk of re-starting a tired debate that has been hashed over many times: We, and the UN inspectors, knew he had WMDs,mainly, chemical and biological weapons and precursor agents. It is true that the destruction of substantial portions, indeed, quite a lot of them were accounted for--but a significant portion remain unaccounted for. Saddam, through various delaying and obfuscation tactics, refused to facilitate a complete accounting. In short, we knew he had them; we knew a large portion were destroyed; we did not, and still do not know what he did with a remaining significant portion of them; we knew that plans were in effect to reconstitute the chemical and biological weapons programs. Those were the facts as we, the UN, and the intelligence agencies of other nations knew them at the time.

To this day, large portions are still unaccounted for. That doesn't mean that they didn't then, or even still exist, only that, even today, they remain unaccounted for. The dominant presumption now seems to be that they were largely destroyed but that destruction was concealed by Saddam in an effort to game the UN (and his own generals) and save to face in the Arab world. Remember, at the time of the invasion, even his generals thought they existed and were quite surprised when Saddam failed to call for their use against the US forces.

oldreliable67

The surge is not and was never intended to be a long-term strategy.