Calling of a Generation

[Tolstoyevsky]

In today's address, President Bush called the War on Terror, "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century". He also said that preventing Islamists from creating a global empire is the "calling of a generation". Right on!

 

[Meridian]

He also unfortunately based the entire effort on the war in Iraq, and essentially marginalized Afghanistan.

His biggest argument (well to me) about staying in Iraq was that if Coalition forces (ie the US) leave, then it will just be one more country that can breed terrorism, and they will have the additional resources (re: oil) to fund extremism.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

He also unfortunately based the entire effort on the war in Iraq, and essentially marginalized Afghanistan.

His biggest argument (well to me) about staying in Iraq was that if Coalition forces (ie the US) leave, then it will just be one more country that can breed terrorism, and they will have the additional resources (re: oil) to fund extremism.

Iraq is more problematic, I think...

 

[Meridian]

Its problematic because his exit strategy is ineffective because of the civil/sectarian issues that country is facing.

 

[onecat]

Iraq is porblematic, because it never should of happened in the first place.  Afghanistan is and where the terrorist are.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

Iraq is porblematic, because it never should of happened in the first place.  Afghanistan is and where the terrorist are.

There are no terrorists in Iraq? Really? I guess Al-Zarqawi was nothing but a tourist who decided to stay for a while and enjoy the beautiful scenery of the banks of the Euphrates...

 

[cplcaldwell]

Interesting, but al Zarqawi started out in his native Jordan, went to Afstan, sojourned briefly in Europe and went to Iraq after the US invasion.

WADR, I think it is logical to think of Zarqawi as a creation of the Iraq invasion not a rationale for it.

Before Afstan he was a rapist and a drunk, in Afstan he was a 'reporter', in Europe he was bagman for AQ, it was in Iraq he got around to some serious murdering.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

I think it is logical to think of Zarqawi as a creation of the Iraq invasion not a rationale for it.

Hmmm, following your logic, we should be fighting the US not the Talibs and AQ, since the US is creating terrorists...Very nice. Moreover, we should put up with what Islamist fascists are doing around the world, seeing as fighting them creates more terrorists. Great passive-defeatist attitude man...

 

[1feral1]

Iraq is porblematic, because it never should of happened in the first place.  Afghanistan is and where the terrorist are.

My fellow EME brother, I don't know where you are getting your Int from, or who/what you have been listening to, but there is plenty of terrs (extreme islamics bent on the destruction of the west) here in Iraq, both foreign and domestic. I see and hear what they are doing all day and night long. Here in Baghdad alone its one seriously dangerous place, whether you are a Coalition soldier, or a local just trying to make ends meet.

This war is in every region on the globe shy of both poles. Yes even in Canada too, the fight is on to prevent a signifigant event. Saying the bad guys are only in the Ghan is plain foolishness.

Its not getting better either.

Meanwhile 70 and a wakie til my leave in Greece.


Arte et Marte,

Wes

 

[Meridian]

Well, in some respects WE (Canada) as a nation are creating terrorists by being in Afghanistan as well.  Heck, if you follow the logic long enough, we would be an influence on terrorist propagation just by being a part of western culture, even if we disbanded our military as a whole and trended all of our policies towards isolationism.

The thing is, western culture isn't the only cause. It's just a catalyst.  Something to blame it all on. If you look at Iraq,  a lot of the violence there is intra-Islam.  The country was literally held together by Saddam's authoritarian regime.  Without it, you now have all the warlords fighting with each other.  When you conflux extreme poverty with years of fighting and war, with Religion (Christianity isn't a rose garden either, when you consider history), with jealousy and perceived (or actual) arrogance of "better-off' foreign nations... you get the middle-east.

There are so many competing interests in that world that I am surprised our local chapter of the Anarchists haven't all moved out there. Matter of fact, haven't heard from em in a while.

 

[rmacqueen]

I am going to interject for a moment.  Afghanistan under the Taliban was used as a training ground for terrorist groups including AQ.  There is little doubt (conspiracy nuts and Jack Layton aside) that the continuation of Taliban rule was a direct threat to world peace.  This was brought to worldwide attention by 9/11 but the reality is that the UN had already demanded the Taliban turn over Bin Laden 2 years before the WTC.

Iraq, on the otherhand, did not become a terrorist problem until after the US invasion.  All the evidence indicates that Saddam had little use for terrorists and certainly didn't like Bin Laden.  Iraq had a very sectarian culture and, while repressive, it did not engage in Islamic fundamentalism.  A lot of this had to do with the very nature of the repression and control that he held over his country as that sort of extremism could have become a threat to his continued rule.

The reality is that the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror created a situation where terror could thrive.  And that is what has created the problem.  The US cannot leave because of the insurgency yet the insurgency exists because they are there.  They are in a very large trap that is going to be very difficult to extricate themselves from without the situation destabilizing further and creating an even greater risk.

 

[paracowboy]

I am going to interject for a moment.  Afghanistan under the Taliban was used as a training ground for terrorist groups including AQ.  There is little doubt (conspiracy nuts and Jack Layton aside) that the continuation of Taliban rule was a direct threat to world peace.  This was brought to worldwide attention by 9/11 but the reality is that the UN had already demanded the Taliban turn over Bin Laden 2 years before the WTC.

Iraq, on the otherhand, did not become a terrorist problem until after the US invasion.  All the evidence indicates that Saddam had little use for terrorists and certainly didn't like Bin Laden.  Iraq had a very sectarian culture and, while repressive, it did not engage in Islamic fundamentalism.  A lot of this had to do with the very nature of the repression and control that he held over his country as that sort of extremism could have become a threat to his continued rule.

The reality is that the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror created a situation where terror could thrive.  And that is what has created the problem.  The US cannot leave because of the insurgency yet the insurgency exists because they are there.  They are in a very large trap that is going to be very difficult to extricate themselves from without the situation destabilizing further and creating an even greater risk.

exactly. The only really good point is that it's keeping most of the various Islamic looney-tunes busy 'over there' as opposed to them coming 'over here'.

 

[Old Guy]

macqueen -- there's no doubt that the fighting in Iraq has drawn terrorists from all over the Middle East, but the belief that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists and Al Queda prior to the war is a flat falsehood.  Not only was Saddam doing things like paying death money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he provided safe haven and medical treatment for several well known terrorists.  In addition, as the hundreds of thousands of documents gathered during the war are slowly (too slowly!) being translated, the link between Saddam and terror organizations becomes clearer.  Check out this site: http://www.iraqdocs.blogspot.com/  Most of the translated docs refer to WMD issues, but keep scrolling, there's terrorist related stuff in there.

What's more -- all it took to find this was a simple web search. 

Saddam was not involved in the attacks of 9/11 and his overall contribution to terrorists was not as all-encompassing as that which existed in Afghanistan, but he was a supporter and, given Iraq's physical position in the ME and the money which would have been available to him, his ability to cause trouble would have been huge.


paracowboy -- exactly.  The measure of an army's effectiveness should hinge, at least partly, on whether it fights wars in somebody else's backyard or close to home.  I vote for distant wars.


Jim

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

macqueen -- there's no doubt that the fighting in Iraq has drawn terrorists from all over the Middle East, but the belief that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists and Al Queda prior to the war is a flat falsehood.  Not only was Saddam doing things like paying death money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he provided safe haven and medical treatment for several well known terrorists.  In addition, as the hundreds of thousands of documents gathered during the war are slowly (too slowly!) being translated, the link between Saddam and terror organizations becomes clearer.  Check out this site: http://www.iraqdocs.blogspot.com/  Most of the translated docs refer to WMD issues, but keep scrolling, there's terrorist related stuff in there.

What's more -- all it took to find this was a simple web search. 

Saddam was not involved in the attacks of 9/11 and his overall contribution to terrorists was not as all-encompassing as that which existed in Afghanistan, but he was a supporter and, given Iraq's physical position in the ME and the money which would have been available to him, his ability to cause trouble would have been huge.


paracowboy -- exactly.  The measure of an army's effectiveness should hinge, at least partly, on whether it fights wars in somebody else's backyard or close to home.  I vote for distant wars.


Jim

You have made some excellent points Jim! In fact, that was the reason why the IDF was destroying Palestinian houses...they were built by the families of suicide bombers with Saddam's blood money (10,000 USD if I'm not mistaken).

As for Saddam Hussein, just like Ahmadinejad, he was determined to destroy Israel. Although the international community couldn't prove that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, in the past he tried to create a supergun - project Babylon - (designed by McGill prof., G. Bull) with which SH planned to destroy Israeli cities.

Really strange is the fact that the Americans couldn't find any chemical weapons, although SH used plenty of those against his own people. There are suspicions that he managed to move all his chemical and biological weapons to Syria before the start of the second gulf war (third if one counts the Iran-Iraq War).

 

[paracowboy]

there are also suspicions that he had them destroyed, but refused to admit to it out of fear of his neighbours and/or insurrectionists in Iraq. There are further speculations that his generals had them destroyed without telling him.

We have entire reams of threads on Iraq. I suggest folks go read 'em before carrying on with the Iraq discussion.

 

[Old Guy]

You're right.  We've beat that subject to death.  I've read other posts my macqueen and he seemed to be a reasonable sort.  His remarks seemed out of character. 

Okay . . . let's see.  Dubya's speech?  I didn't watch.  His speeches usually frustrate me because of his poor delivery.  So I read them the next day.  Looks good to me.  He made all the right points and said the right things.  His friends will think the thing wasn't quite good enough and his enemies still hate him.  He can't lose.


jim

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

Yeah, there are a lot of Bush-haters, especially in Canada. In the words of Triumph the Insult Dog - "More bush-haters per square inch in Canada than at a love party organized by Elton John"

 

[rmacqueen]

Check out this site: http://www.iraqdocs.blogspot.com/  Most of the translated docs refer to WMD issues, but keep scrolling, there's terrorist related stuff in there.

What's more -- all it took to find this was a simple web search. 

Unfortunately, until I see things from a verifiable source I tend to be very leery of what is reported on blogs.  A quick search will also show you numerous documents on how Afghanistan was invaded because of an oil pipeline and the WTC was brought down by demolitions and they all look legitimate.  On top of that, if these are legitimate, I am surprised that Bush, given his current poll standings and upcoming election, isn't talking them up.

 

[Old Guy]

The papers are being released by the agency created to coordinate CIA/FBI/NSA/whoever.  I forget the proper acronym.  Individual documents have been vetted by several sources, all of which are available on the web.  Naturally, I can't make the translation myself so . . .

Your point is well taken, though.  I'm leery of everything I read, whether it's on the web or in the MSM.  It just happened that I've been following the stories of these documents for some time and am reasonably familiar with the stuff that's been showing up.  Most of it's nothing but bureaucratic crap -- that's one reason it's taking so long to dig through it.  That and a lamentable lack of translators.  That's Bush's fault, of course, according to the Left.  Never mind that in order to have decent numbers we'd have to have started training people twenty years ago.

I don't know why Dubya isn't pushing some of this stuff.  But, then, I don't know why he's not doing any number of things I'd like to see done.  I do know he's not worried about his poll numbers.  Why should he be?  Two years and he's outta there.


jim

 

[GAP]

Need a translation? try

http://babelfish.altavista.com/