Death toll - Is it worth it?

[juanesky 0]

It seems that the degree of their rage has been a constant regardless of the offense. Killings, jihad chanting, etc.

You were talking about how this Iraq war was fueling the growth of terror, and I agree, but there were other things fueling terror as well. Some as simple as a Cartoon, creates the same hate as being in Iraq.

The islamic extremists will fuel they hatred regardless, you seem not to be capable to see that it is muslims killing most muslims, otherwise how would you explain that most bombs explode in public places?

I have been there Bill, and have seen it, mix with and talked to Iraqis, helped Iraqies, even delivered Iraqi babies.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 3,080]

>It seems that the degree of their rage has been a constant
>regardless of the offense. Killings, jihad chanting, etc.

Don't know how you quantify "rage" but I'll give you that; perhaps they are as angry as ever. Because of the Iraq war, we are creating mroe people with that sort of rage.

>but there were other things fueling terror as well.

Definitely! This is just another factor making our country less safe - but is far from the only one.

>you seem not to be capable to see that it is muslims killing most muslims . . .

Right, and in 2001, americans killed five times as many americans as terrorists did. Which do you now dislike more? Americans or terrorists?

Again, Iraqis are not so different than we are.

[Enrique 0]

Quote

there were other things fueling terror as well. Some as simple as a Cartoon, creates the same hate as being in Iraq.

Lets not open the cartoon subject, because when Mexicans issued the Memin Pinguin postage stamp, certain Americans were outrageously offended. Nobody was killed, but still, the reaction was huge!

Quote

you seem not to be capable to see that it is muslims killing most muslims, otherwise how would you explain that most bombs explode in public places?

Yes, however the subject is: how many AMERICAN lives have been lost IN ADDITION TO 9/11. Almost 3,000 were lost due to the 9/11 attacks, and then the U.S. "retaliates" with 3,000 more deaths of its own!!!

Quote

I have been there Bill, and have seen it, mix with and talked to Iraqis, helped Iraqies, even delivered Iraqi babies.

I respect your courage and patriotism. It is clear that you are following orders. The question is: are the orders you are receiving justified? Are you still pursuing the same goal you were immediately after 9/11? IMHO, the answer is, no.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

You must have missed President Bush's speech yesterday, in which he pointed out some of the many attacks against the U.S. that happened long before we ever got involved in Iraq. Therefore, our presence in Iraq is not the reason that the Muslim terrorists hate us.

President Bush and his team have proven not to be a credible source of information.

The attacks listed by President Bush really happened and are a matter of public record. You can't ignore the truth just because you don't like hearing it from President Bush.

Well, you can, actually. But not without losing all credibility yourself, and becoming exactly like your own perception of President Bush.

Quote

The point is that more soldiers have died in Iraq than during the 9/11 attacks. The "solution" has proven worse than the original problem.

You presume that no more attacks would have occurred if the U.S. had responded by doing nothing. That is a fatal error in the logic of your argument. Quite the contrary would probably have been true. Just look at the additional terrorist plots that have been foiled around the world. When Clinton did nothing about the U.S.S. Cole attacks, for example, it emboldened the terrorists to commit yet more attacks. And likewise, if we pull out of Iraq immediately, you will give the terrorists a safe haven from which to operate, a large source of revenue, and the uplifted spirit to continue doing evil around the world. The terrorists love weakness in their enemy: it does not produce charity from them - it is to be exploited. The idea that if we leave them alone, that they will leave us alone, is false. They've already proven that, prior to 9/11. You have two choices: You can fight them, or bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

I see you bending over.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You must have missed the NIE summaries released recently. Our presence in Iraq is not the ONLY reason that radicals hate us, but it is certainly ONE reason they hate us. (In other words, there were indeed attacks against us before we invaded Iraq; those attacks are now more likely.)

What the mass media is presenting from that report is highly biased, as usual. There are also statements in there that support the war in Iraq as the best course of action to keep the terrorists weak and ineffective.

Thank you for acknowledging that even without Iraq, that the terrorists will still hate us and will still try to kill us.

I guess you're willing to accept some level of U.S. casualties from terrorism, as long as it isn't "too much". Good luck to you and your loved ones. Maybe they won't be the unlucky victims which result from a strategy of doing nothing to fight back against terrorism in their home base.

[billvon 3,080]

>You presume that no more attacks would have occurred if the U.S.
> had responded by doing nothing. That is a fatal error in the logic of
> your argument. Quite the contrary would probably have been true.

Not per our own intelligence estimates. They indicate that we are now MORE likely to be the target of a terrorist attack, due (in part) to animosity generated by the Iraq war. Here's a link that you may find interesting:

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

Indeed, we ARE seeing more attacks worldwide because of the actions we have taken. See attached graph.

>And likewise, if we pull out of Iraq immediately, you will give the
> terrorists a safe haven from which to operate, a large source of
> revenue, and the uplifted spirit to continue doing evil around the
> world.

Because of our invasion they HAVE a safe haven, a ready source of recruits and an ever-increasing source of revenue. Saddam Hussein hated Bin Laden's guts; today Al Qaeda operates freely within Iraq. The Iraq war has accomplished exactly the opposite you seem to claim. Again, this isn't from some liberal blog; it's from our own National Intelligence Estimate.

>You can fight them, or bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

Your choice now is pretty clear. More of the same, or a change that lets us get the upper hand in the war on terror. I'd prefer not to see another 3000 US troops killed to provide Al Qaeda with recruits, money and operating bases. But I fear that that's exactly what we will get, mainly from partisan politicians who are incapable of admitting they made an error, and thus incapable of changing from a losing path to a winning one.

And by just about any angle you look at it from, we ain't winning in Iraq now.

[billvon 3,080]

>Thank you for acknowledging that even without Iraq, that the
>terrorists will still hate us and will still try to kill us.

Absolutely. But with the Iraq war the problem is much worse.

[Enrique 0]

Quote

You presume that no more attacks would have occurred if the U.S. had responded by doing nothing. That is a fatal error in the logic of your argument.

I am not saying that you should have turned the other cheek. My point is that you (the US) allegedly went after Bin Laden following the 9/11 attacks, but when that effort failed, the sights were turned to Saddam and Bin Laden was almost forgotten... that the numbers of dead U.S. soldiers are now higher than the death toll of 9/11 and that doesn't seem like a good strategy.

Quote

The idea that if we leave them alone, that they will leave us alone, is false. They've already proven that, prior to 9/11. You have two choices: You can fight them, or bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

I see you bending over.

<-- Your final phrase is totally uncalled for... stick to the subject and we can continue to argue intelligently.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

The point is that more soldiers have died in Iraq than during the 9/11 attacks. The "solution" has proven worse than the original problem.

You presume that no more attacks would have occurred if the U.S. had responded by doing nothing. That is a fatal error in the logic of your argument.

He didn't suggest the U.S. should have responded by doing nothing. That is the fatal error in your logic.

The tie between the war on terrorists and the war in Iraq was tenuous at best when we began (it is stronger now, as we've created a breeding ground for terrorists there).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Enrique 0]

Quote

What the mass media is presenting from that report is highly biased, as usual.

Precisely my point when I hear the statements by GWB!

Quote

Thank you for acknowledging that even without Iraq, that the terrorists will still hate us and will still try to kill us.

The hatred did not originate spontaneously.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The shit that's going on today is really an extention of the 1991 gulf War. If we had stayed out of Iraq Saudi Arabia in 1991, things might be different.

Fixed it for you. ...and if we had done that, Iraq would have invaded Saudi Arabia next, and possibly would have moved on Jordan and definitely would have attacked Israel.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>You presume that no more attacks would have occurred if the
> U.S. had responded by doing nothing. That is a fatal error in
> the logic of your argument. Quite the contrary would probably
> have been true.

Not per our own intelligence estimates.

As I said, what is being reported from this is highly biased by the liberal media. Here's a few quotes from the report which we aren't hearing on TV:

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations...

Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse...

We assess that the Iraq jihad... perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight...

And so on it goes. So you see, this report is not all one-sided against President Bush, as you and the media are trying to present it.

If you want to allow the terrorists to have a safe haven, a large steady source of revenue to fund their plots, and a place to be centralized for organizing and training terror attacks - then by all means - withdraw from Iraq. And then bend over and kiss the asses of many of your fellow Americans goodbye.

[Enrique 0]

Quote

Quote

The shit that's going on today is really an extention of the 1991 gulf War. If we had stayed out of Iraq Saudi Arabia in 1991, things might be different.

Fixed it for you. ...and if we had done that, Iraq would have invaded Saudi Arabia next, and possibly would have moved on Jordan and definitely would have attacked Israel.

Gawain, you don't know that for sure. I recall that you are the guy that always asks for solid documentary evidence supporting every post made in this forum, so why base your statement solely on speculation. And even if you did know, wouldn't that be Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel's business and not the US?

[skymiles 3]

[Enrique 0]

Quote

If you want to allow the terrorists to have a safe haven, a large steady source of revenue to fund their plots, and a place to be centralized for organizing and training terror attacks - then by all means - withdraw from Iraq. And then bend over and kiss the asses of many of your fellow Americans goodbye.

Do you agree or disagree that the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq exceed the number of civilians dead during 9/11?

If you agree, do you think it is worth it?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I am not saying that you should have turned the other cheek.

Okay, what should have been the correct strategy, according to Enrique from Mexico?

Quote

My point is that you (the US) allegedly went after Bin Laden following the 9/11 attacks...

There's no "allegedly" to it - we did it. Your bias is showing again. Are you claiming that the whole search for Bin Ladin effort is some kind of sham? You're not a believer of the whacko conspiracy theories, are you?

Quote

...but when that effort failed, the sights were turned to Saddam

The effort to get Bin Ladin hasn't failed yet - we're still pursuing him. In order to be a failure, we would have to give up on it. We haven't. A lot of people also claimed that our efforts to get Saddam were a failure, until a soldier found him hiding in a shit hole. But even though Bin Ladin is still on the loose, he is highly marginalized, and a hell of a lot less effective than he would be if he had the entire nation of Iraq to hide in as a safe haven. Would you prefer to have him cornered, hiding, on the run, and unable to communicate or organize effectively? Or would you prefer that he be free to do whatever he pleases with great effectiveness and resources?

Saddam was not a substitute for Bin Ladin, but a separate issue.

Quote

stick to the subject and we can continue to argue intelligently.

You don't get to control the message content. People are going to say what they want to say. Deal with it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

so why base your statement solely on speculation.

You started this entire thread with speculation, in your message #1:

"maybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better."

Quote

And even if you did know, wouldn't that be Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel's business and not the US?

So you are not in favor of allies coming to the assistance of their friends when they are attacked? Do you believe that every nation should stand on its own, independent of outside help? Wouldn't that allow the strong to destroy the weak with impunity? Is that what you want the world to be like? Do you want the world to continue to ignore the genocide that is occuring in Darfur?

[Enrique 0]

Quote

Quote

...but when that effort failed, the sights were turned to Saddam

The effort to get Bin Ladin hasn't failed yet - we're still pursuing him. In order to be a failure, we would have to give up. We haven't.

The effort to get Bin Laden failed when the original plan was not to exceed one week and, after a few years, you are still looking for him. That, my friend, seems like a failed attempt to me.

[Enrique 0]

Quote

Quote

so why base your statement solely on speculation.

You started this entire thread with speculation:

"maybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better."

Look in the mirror.

That is a quote I borrowed from Speedracer. Read the post again and you will see.

[Enrique 0]

Quote

So you are not in favor of allies coming to the assistance of their friends when they are attacked? Do you believe that every nation should stand on its own, independent of outside help? Wouldn't that allow the strong to destroy the weak with impunity?

I am in favor of finding out why the hell Iraq hates the US so much and putting an end to it. It doesn't only affect the US, it affects the rest of the world as well. Remember, you are not alone in the planet and, although the US does now, it will not rule the world forever. History shows that all great empires have fallen. It is good policy to make friends and not enemies.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

so why base your statement solely on speculation.

You started this entire thread with speculation:

"maybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better."

Look in the mirror.

That is a quote I borrowed from Speedracer.

You used it. If you were against speculation, you shouldn't have. The fact remains, you used it in your introduction, and are now calling for others not to. That's a double-standard. You don't get to do one thing, while criticizing the same from others.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

So you are not in favor of allies coming to the assistance of their friends when they are attacked? Do you believe that every nation should stand on its own, independent of outside help? Wouldn't that allow the strong to destroy the weak with impunity?

I am in favor of finding out why the hell Iraq hates the US so much and putting an end to it.

In other words, you don't know, yet you're still ready to proclaim that the current strategy is wrong. That seems like jumping to a conclusion without facts.

And you didn't bother to answer any of those other pesky questions. It's really easy to criticize after the fact, but really tough to come up with proper strategies beforehand, eh?

[Enrique 0]

Quote

In other words, you don't know, yet you're still ready to proclaim that the current strategy is wrong.

Yes, I do know. The strategy sucks. Read post #1 and the link. More soldiers killed at war than civilians in 9/11

Quote

And you didn't bother to answer any of those other pesky questions.

If I recall correctly it was you who said something along the lines of "you don't get to control what other people post... deal with it"

I simply ask that you don't turn this personal, it is an open and public discussion about a topic that interests other people in the forum.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The shit that's going on today is really an extention of the 1991 gulf War. If we had stayed out of Iraq Saudi Arabia in 1991, things might be different.

Fixed it for you. ...and if we had done that, Iraq would have invaded Saudi Arabia next, and possibly would have moved on Jordan and definitely would have attacked Israel.

Gawain, you don't know that for sure. I recall that you are the guy that always asks for solid documentary evidence supporting every post made in this forum, so why base your statement solely on speculation. And even if you did know, wouldn't that be Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel's business and not the US?

What we know for sure is that OBL's focus to attack the US stemmed from Saudi Arabia allowing US and coalition troops to stage the liberation of Kuwait from there in the first place.

You're right, I'm "guessing" but it's not a pie-in-the-sky idea. If Hussein was able to secure Kuwait, after having ruined his country in an eight year war with Iran, he would likely have considered it as well, seeing even bigger dollar signs to rebuild his regime.

As for Israel, we know he would have because, well...he did. Jordan would have been in danger because it is a close US ally as well.

Given his history, I'm pretty sure I'm not the first one to express conjecture like this...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

In other words, you don't know, yet you're still ready to proclaim that the current strategy is wrong.

Yes, I do know. The strategy sucks. More soldiers killed at war than civilians in 9/11

Your criteria, above, for judging the validity of the war is ridiculous.

Using your methodolgy, we should have done nothing in response to the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor, and the world should have done nothing in response to Hitler's attacks against Europe. Just look at all the lives that could have been saved if we had just let evil have it's way with the world! Oh the horror!

Your method involves surrender to evil. And that just invites even more evil, and even greater losses of life than it takes to fight and win. It's a morally reprehensible position.

If someone breaks into your home and is attacking your wife, are you going to do nothing to defend her, because you might lose your life coming to her defense? After all, a life lost is worse than a battered woman. So shouldn't you just do nothing to defend her?