The deception of linking iraq with the "war on terror"

Bush regurgitates this mantra time and again. As if Iraq was a card carrying member of Al-Qaida.

Another tired phrase he likes to use that needs to be rebutted is practically an admission by him that Iraq was NOT a threat. It goes something like this...

"Sept. the 11 taught us that we need to eliminate threats to our security before they materialize"...

Well then, why don't you just declare war on the world because, though they may not be a threat now, they may be in the future, so you better go kill them before they even think about becoming a threat...

Is not this the policy of a madman?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What makes you think declaring war on the world isn't his eventual goal? He's just doing it one country at a time. He's not quite dumb enough to challenge the whole world at once.

Whether or not he actually thinks this is terrorism prevention, though, I don't know. To me it seems obvious that conquering a country does not reduce the chances of the average citizen of said country deciding that they really hate America and wouldn't mind doing some terrorism, but it could be that our government really hasn't thought of that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

amen, beryl.

couldnt have said it better myself.

leave those poor people alone, and maybe...just maybe they will stop thinking of ways to knock down our buildings!

oh yeah, i forgot...they do it because they dont want me to drive a lexus, and they REAAAALLY hate freedom...
idiocy.

every post, beryl...i have agreed with. keep on thinking!! most americans dont anymore. they let foxnews do it for them!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey, don't forget about "jealousy" too..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Does that also include leaving them alone to find their own medicines and technologies?
Does that include leaving them alone to solve their problems with abject poverty and sickness?
Does that include leaving them alone so that their own leaders can oppress them and murder them at will?
Does that include leaving them alone and letting them oppress the women of their culture?
Does that include leaving them alone and letting them oppress the minorities of their culture?
Does that include leaving them alone by not allowing their children any proper education?
Does it also include leaving them alone to fight violent wars and conflicts with their neighbors?

What exactly do you mean by "leave those poor people alone"? Is that one of those idealistic statements or are you being selfishly selective about it?

Baron Max

 

JUST leave our country.

Even if U did capture all the countries in this world, but make mistake of leaving alive all thoes whoes relatives U killed in doing so then U Multiply the number of terrorist waiting to take U down.

 

The devil inside: Iraq and al-qaida are about the most opposite of two things inside the middle-east. Without knowing it you have linked Iraq to 9/11. This is propoganda that this administration has engraved in 95% of americans heads. This administration has had more dealings with al-qaida than Iraq has had with al-qaida.

 

This post should be called "liberals deception in de-linking Iraq and the War on Terror".

 

It's a thread, btw, moron. You have proof that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are linked? Show it. If you could, it would be plastered all over the conservative (ie. not liberal, not fair and fucking balanced) media. Brutus my ass. More like pussy.

 

anyways I am happy , becuase now most of the iraqis are ready to die helping OSAMA, Thanks for the free recruitments. now we can choose the best candidates.

 

Yeah, now that the US-coalition has removed Saddam from office, the Iraqis are FREE to choose .......like they've never been free before.

By the way, in your statement "....most of the Iraqis are ready to die for Osamm...", could you provide substantiating evidence for it? "Most"? I don't think so ...not by a long shot.

Baron Max

 

nice try

 

But not a nice try on your part. Anomalous- I would be happy to cheer you on if you would follow through a bit more with your thinking and responses to Barom Max, because it might help others to understand. I won't attempt to speak for you, but only continue along the line your sparse words have suggested to me.

A majority of Iraqis are disgusted with the US agenda in their country. They have commenced both a civil war and a war of liberation. The objectives that Osama bin Laden spelled out plainly for his al-Qaeda (so much imitated since his death) are very well-served by developments in Iraq. As a dissident Saudi revolutionary and exile, Osama would be very pleased with the instability that the Bush Administration has triggered if he were alive today. This conflict is going to have immense regional and geoecomic implications, including a recession in the USA and the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy.

In a rather hyperbolic but descriptive sense, a large number of Iraqis are sadly preparing to "die for Osama". They will struggle for historic change in this still-escalating war between the USA and her collaborators against a complex groundswell of moderate, radical, honorable, terrorist, xenophobic, fratricidal, Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Christian, Druze, violent, pacifist masses unified mainly in the intense shared desire to see any American agenda in the Mideast thwarted.

The greatest single impact by far that US intervention has had in Iraq is in the recruitment of an inexhaustible reserve of enemies of the USA of every stripe, from mullahs to mujaheddin. When the dust finally settles in this cataclysm that the neoconservatives so ignorantly ignited, the victors will be not unlike Osama bin Laden in sharing similar fundamentalist religious convictions, and in sharing a severely jaundiced (pardon the pun) outlook toward the West. They will thrive and gain much power in the bloody years ahead, and the US forces will inevitably pull out humiliated, out of gas, and out of money.

This is not to say that everyday and worldly Iraqis or Saudis will be able to revel in their inevitable eviction of US forces, and overthrow of American-friendly regimes. Iraq is already dead as a nation, and fundamentalists are preparing an abbreviated re-enactment of Europe's Dark Ages for the Mideast. Even as Iran is emerging from the darkness that tainted their liberation from highly-repressive American proxy-rule, Arabia is poised to follow a similar populist-fundamentalist path toward momentous change.

 

Those words are easy to type, but do you have any subtantiating evidence to make such statements? Or are you just using what you hear/see on the news media ...which is/can be highly suspect and full of their own political agendas.

Please ...if you say "a majority", you should show some actual, credible evidence for it. Otherwise, nothing you say can be taken as anything but your own opinion/bias.

Baron Max

 

"Sept. the 11 taught us that we need to eliminate threats to our security before they materialize"...

Hence a war on terror!!!

Well then, why don't you just declare war on the world

I hate to break it to you, dude. But essentially this is a world war, the thing that is missing is a world wide theater in displaying the problem: terrorism.

Simply because lefties say that linking Iraq with terrorism is deceptive, does not mean that it is true.

No one in their right mind would say that Iraq was directly involved with 9-11. But anyone in their wrong mind would say their is no connection between Iraq and terrorism.

Here is what many lefties do not get. Just because one supports the war does not mean the following:
1. That person is limited intellectually.
2. That person always sides with force as an answer.
3. That person has no passion about the lives lost in war.

No one wants or looks forward to war, but unfortunately we have an enemy that has not progressed enough in our society to simply accept differences between us. Sometimes, unfortunately, force is the only way to respond in effort to survive. Right or wrong, sometimes doing what is best may mean war.

I personally would rather there be no more wars. But reality says differently, and until we realize that ideas have consequences we will continue to devolve into war as an answer for survival.

 

This is the result of elitism. Follow your own logic: leave those poor people alone, and maybe...just maybe they will stop thinking of ways to knock down our buildings

What were we doing when 9-11 happened? Nothing, but we still had 9-11.

Has there been anymore 9-11 since we "started bothering those poor people?" No, you do the math.

 

You keep misfiring don't you?

 

Do you really believe all this stuff you wrote? You know that if we desired so, we could totally eliminate Iraq right now and that region would be a parking lot. Instead, we have chosen to be about as diplomatic as one can be while still using force.

I wonder if your "dead" buddy Osama would be thrilled if that were to happen? In turn the immense regional and geoeconomic implications would wane a great bit.

But personally, I do not believe that you truly believe all this junk you wrote. I am being fair and assuming you did write them and didn't cut and paste from moveon.org or any other lefty treasure site.

 

Well, we weren't doing anything. Clinton told Bush that al-qaida was a grave threat and Bush did nothing. Bush had plenty of evidence that something of this would be tried by al-qaida, but he yet again did nothing. When told that this was happening he continued reading "to children".

There were the Madrid bombings, and the London bombings. And by the way who are these poor people? Iraqi's? PEOPLE 9/11 AND IRAQ ARE NOT LINKED TOGETHER. IF I HAD A NICKEL FOR EVERY TIME BUSH MENTIONED 9/11. I WOULD HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FUND THE CAPTURE OF BIN LADEN. (God, i love the daily show.)

 

Not much polling in Iraq but:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6168
http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17append.html




The presence of U.S. troops is increasingly unpopular in Iraq as well. Forty-six per cent of Iraqis polled in a survey conducted in March and April said the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good. At the same time, 61 per cent said Saddam's ouster was worth the price.

Forty-seven per cent of respondents in that CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq are unjustified, while 52 per cent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.

From: http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050727/w072796.html