Spain is pulling out
- Thread starter K. Ash
- Start date
T
Ty-
Guest
"Granted, I‘m no expert but wouldn‘t this be considered giving into terrorist demands?"
- One doesn‘t have to be an expert to realize this; it was a cowardly stand--much like, dare I say, Canada not joining in the oust of Saddam--by Spain.
Now that these terrorist groups realize that one country that was formerly against them has given in to their demands--and not, as Spain should have, further expressing hostility against the country--our countries still involved with rebuilding the Middle East are at a greater risk--because many more terrorists believe now that they aren‘t just fanning a given country‘s ‘fire‘, and causing it to grow; instead, they‘re blowing it out.
- One doesn‘t have to be an expert to realize this; it was a cowardly stand--much like, dare I say, Canada not joining in the oust of Saddam--by Spain.
Now that these terrorist groups realize that one country that was formerly against them has given in to their demands--and not, as Spain should have, further expressing hostility against the country--our countries still involved with rebuilding the Middle East are at a greater risk--because many more terrorists believe now that they aren‘t just fanning a given country‘s ‘fire‘, and causing it to grow; instead, they‘re blowing it out.
FlightSergeantRose
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 130
Terrorism is not going to be defeated by helping secure Iraq. If anything, their presence is only festering more support for them then ever before. The Iraq conflict never had anything to do with terrorism, it was about Saddam and it was about oil.
You people, that seem to think that the Spanish are cowards for pulling their people out are fools. ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a country, ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a face. It is an idea and a tactic and you can never destroy it. There will always be terrorism in some form or another.
Anyone who thinks that we should have sent troops to help invade and occupy Iraq are not very bright.
As much as I don‘t like Chretien, he was right in not supporting the invasion.
You people, that seem to think that the Spanish are cowards for pulling their people out are fools. ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a country, ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a face. It is an idea and a tactic and you can never destroy it. There will always be terrorism in some form or another.
Anyone who thinks that we should have sent troops to help invade and occupy Iraq are not very bright.
As much as I don‘t like Chretien, he was right in not supporting the invasion.
T
Ty-
Guest
"Terrorism is not going to be defeated by helping secure Iraq. If anything, their presence is only festering more support for them then ever before."
- Granted--however, my example of Canada acting in cowardice was towards not joining in the Iraq invasion, even at the cost of becoming a target, and not specifically for the sake of helping to end terrorism.
"The Iraq conflict never had anything to do with terrorism, it was about Saddam and it was about oil. "
- I agree with everything except the oil being in the same motivational standing as Saddam. I don‘t imagine the US will be making a profit off the Iraq invasion any time soon (check out http://www.costofwar.com/)
"You people, that seem to think that the Spanish are cowards for pulling their people out are fools. ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a country, ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a face. It is an idea and a tactic and you can never destroy it. There will always be terrorism in some form or another."
- Everybody knows this. The idea behind ‘the war on terrorism‘ is not (outsite of an ideal) to remove all terrorism, but to remove as much as possible, including the biggest threats (such as as organizations and human leaders)--which, as tangible targets, do have ‘faces‘ as sorts.
"Anyone who thinks that we should have sent troops to help invade and occupy Iraq are not very bright."
- I defy that affront; refute my response; seeing as, according to your logic, I am part of the ‘not very bright‘ group, it should be easy.
- Granted--however, my example of Canada acting in cowardice was towards not joining in the Iraq invasion, even at the cost of becoming a target, and not specifically for the sake of helping to end terrorism.
"The Iraq conflict never had anything to do with terrorism, it was about Saddam and it was about oil. "
- I agree with everything except the oil being in the same motivational standing as Saddam. I don‘t imagine the US will be making a profit off the Iraq invasion any time soon (check out http://www.costofwar.com/)
"You people, that seem to think that the Spanish are cowards for pulling their people out are fools. ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a country, ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a face. It is an idea and a tactic and you can never destroy it. There will always be terrorism in some form or another."
- Everybody knows this. The idea behind ‘the war on terrorism‘ is not (outsite of an ideal) to remove all terrorism, but to remove as much as possible, including the biggest threats (such as as organizations and human leaders)--which, as tangible targets, do have ‘faces‘ as sorts.
"Anyone who thinks that we should have sent troops to help invade and occupy Iraq are not very bright."
- I defy that affront; refute my response; seeing as, according to your logic, I am part of the ‘not very bright‘ group, it should be easy.
- Reaction score
- 9,813
- Points
- 1,260
Here we go again. Where did you get that idea from, your service in the cadets?
We‘re fighting a specific form of terrorism that has a country and a face.
I‘m glad you think that. Myself and most of the BTDT‘s that frequent this board thank you for your compliment. Care to explain why I‘m not very bright, Henry Kissinger?
Remember that. Next time your buddy takes a shot to the face in a bar, turn around and walk away.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
If my buddy took a shot in the face in the bar, I would be there to support him. Canada is there in Afghanistan.
If my buddy went after someone with whom he had a grudge because of a fight his father was in 10 years ago, I wouldn‘t be so eager to help him.. Even if my buddy said he had a knife or a gun, even though the guy at the door has already checked him a couple of times...
It was hard getting through that analogy.. let me tell ya...
Iraq was never truly about terrorism, at least in the form of Al-Qaeda and the attacks on Sept. 11. I believe that this was used as an excuse to oust Saddam. Although the intentions were good, I believe that GWB should have gone about it a different way.
I also believe if he had gone about it a different way, Canada would not have been as reluctant to lend a hand.
If my buddy went after someone with whom he had a grudge because of a fight his father was in 10 years ago, I wouldn‘t be so eager to help him.. Even if my buddy said he had a knife or a gun, even though the guy at the door has already checked him a couple of times...
It was hard getting through that analogy.. let me tell ya...
Iraq was never truly about terrorism, at least in the form of Al-Qaeda and the attacks on Sept. 11. I believe that this was used as an excuse to oust Saddam. Although the intentions were good, I believe that GWB should have gone about it a different way.
I also believe if he had gone about it a different way, Canada would not have been as reluctant to lend a hand.
- Reaction score
- 9,813
- Points
- 1,260
Granted, but why are we not down in the south fighting the war, but instead placed on another (equally dangerous) "Non-Article 5" mission?
Ok, you want to play the analogy game.
The guy has been an active supporter or terrorist suicide bombers in both Israel and the United States. Do you think he WOULDN‘T support the Al-Qaeda? And what if the guy searching for the weapon happens to be an incompatant goof who is restricted by too many rules, despite the fact that:
A) The guy has brought a gun into the bar before and used it.
B) The guy has neighbouring buddies with him that probably wouldn‘t mind "borrowing" them.
I don‘t believe terrorism was the heart of the issue either. To me, undermining terrorism through behaviour modification in a region unfriendly to the West is the main goal, and what better place to start than Iraq. Do you have a problem with removing Saddam?
They did, they tried going through the UN and had their decisions overturned by a collection of piss-pot states. Since their (and by extention, our) interests could not be satisfyed in the cozy and disarming atmosphere of multilateralism, they decided to do the realistic thing and go without the blessing of an archaeic, Wilsonian farce.
Its funny, the left has been so eager to blast the UN for the last 10 years of sanctions in Iraq, and when the US decides to skip the log rolling of the Security Council, they clamour to defend the institution against the threat of unilateralism.
At least I can be comfortable with my consistant contempt for the UN.
So then, what is your "different" way?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I am glad we agre...
No, I do not have any problem removing Saddam. He is an evil man, and I for one am glad he is removed from power. My problem was the process, not the end result.
Why do you believe the modification of behavious of an entire region is needed? Why can‘t we find out the root cause of the issue? Work to some mutually beneficial compromise?
For my different way, well, if I knew all of the answers, I would be a different man then the one I am. I would have continued with the sanctions, continued with the arms inspections, and invested more time/manpower/money/energy into finding Osama Bin Laden... I believe him and his organization to be more of a "clear and present danger" than Saddam was, to the west.
I believe that GWB had a well, maybe not hidden. agenda, but he had some sort of agenda with Iraq, and used the events of Sept. 11 to his advantage in bringing forward what he wanted. He continues to do this with his re-election campaign, using images of the WTC, when he was quoted (soon after the attacks) that to use imagery of the attacks was unacceptable.
As I said, I do not disagree with the end result of the War in Iraq. I disagree with the process leading up to it.
I support all of the service men and women there, and I pray that they come back safe.
- Reaction score
- 9,813
- Points
- 1,260
Nice response. When debates are clean like this, we can learn from it.
How different is it from open aggression when a state officially protects a group of people that openly say that Zionism and the West are idolaters and evil creatures aligned with the devilish Shi‘ites and activily promotes violent terrorism against them all (I took that right from the current Foreign Affairs article on Saudi Arabia). Is a fatwa any different than a declaration of war? (Isn‘t that what it is?) If a state refuses to cooperate with us, than they are aiding our foe.
How do we work out mutually beneficial compromise with wealthy, educated men who fly planes into buildings and seek a return to the Middle Ages?
Yes I do.
How different is it from open aggression when a state officially protects a group of people that openly say that Zionism and the West are idolaters and evil creatures aligned with the devilish Shi‘ites and activily promotes violent terrorism against them all (I took that right from the current Foreign Affairs article on Saudi Arabia). Is a fatwa any different than a declaration of war? (Isn‘t that what it is?) If a state refuses to cooperate with us, than they are aiding our foe.
How do we work out mutually beneficial compromise with wealthy, educated men who fly planes into buildings and seek a return to the Middle Ages?
Was the 13 years since the first Gulf War not long enough? The coalition effort to track down Al Qaeda leaders and Osama bin Ladin was never sidetracked by the Iraq War. If anything, we just gave him one less place to hide.
I agree with you there. No one seems to bring it up, but remember when Dubya was first elected, and he vowed to "deal with" Saddam. This was in 2000. However, after 9/11, so what. The ends justify the means. As well, I will continue to place my faith in the Bush administration. I shiver to wonder what might have occured had Al Gore been President during 9/11. I‘m sure Al Qaeda would have only been encouraged by a few more tomahawks hitting Khartoum.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
From a seasoned debater like you Infanteer, this is a real compliment. Thank you.
On to business...
I have no answer for you, because you make a very valid point. In an ideal world, the rules of engagement would be followed, and commuter jet planes wouldn‘t be used as missiles, aimed at civilian structures.
But this isn‘t an ideal world, now is it?
The coalition effort was never side tracked, but (IMHO), an emphasis should have been put on tracking down remaining members of Taliban, including Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
I ask the next question, simply because I don‘t know... How strong were the ties between the Taliban regime and Saddam‘s government? If it was a proven, strong tie, then my beliefs/reasoning would probably shift...
I don‘t know enough about Al Gore and what his leadership style is to be able to rebut you on the last remark. Perhaps the US did, indeed have a need for GWB during 9/11. I will admit he was a good public face during that time...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Correct me if I‘m wrong, but wasn‘t it proven that Saddam was indirectly funding terrorist activity? (‘Death benefits‘ - of some sort - for the families of suicide bombers) That was one of the reasons for targeting him again. There was an article in the Ottawa Citizen a while back. I‘ll look for it if need be.
I think that the CF should have participated in Iraq.
Canada is -or will be- reaping the benefits (*hopeful drop in terrorist activity) of the war, but we have only gone half-way in the Middle-East (I fully support the troops in Afganistan). Cpl. Murphy‘s murder is proof that Canada is just as vulnerable as any other nation involved in the war on terrorism. Should the CF not have supported the US in whatever way possible during the Iraqi conflict? I understand that our Forces are spread thin enough already, but there has to be some way to show support! I feel like ‘we‘ turned our backs on the Americans when they needed us the most.
Once again, I have little experience within the CF, so if I need a smack then by all means, feel free.
I think that the CF should have participated in Iraq.
Canada is -or will be- reaping the benefits (*hopeful drop in terrorist activity) of the war, but we have only gone half-way in the Middle-East (I fully support the troops in Afganistan). Cpl. Murphy‘s murder is proof that Canada is just as vulnerable as any other nation involved in the war on terrorism. Should the CF not have supported the US in whatever way possible during the Iraqi conflict? I understand that our Forces are spread thin enough already, but there has to be some way to show support! I feel like ‘we‘ turned our backs on the Americans when they needed us the most.
Once again, I have little experience within the CF, so if I need a smack then by all means, feel free.
- Reaction score
- 9,813
- Points
- 1,260
I‘ve had conversations with members of the US forces with time in the sandbox who have seen first hand links of Al Qaeda in Iraq; perhaps not a direct link, but something akin to the Taliban/Al Qaeda relationship is not out of the question.
It‘s not the fact that we didn‘t contribute to the war in Iraq that get me, its the fact that we didn‘t even offer moral support to the Americans or the British. If we would have made a small contribution (a la Australia) or even just moral support for the actual war (a la Spain), I would have been satisfied.
But anyways, that is a foreign policy decision of the governent of the chief turd himself which is now thankfully gone. I‘m willing to give Mr Martin a chance to fix things up, and look forward to seeing what lies in the future for us.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I totally agree with you on that one. I pray that defense spending goes up... but that is fodder for another thread, hey?
As for the first hand account of an Al-Qaeda/Iraq link.. well, I cannot argue that. All I have seen of this is what has been filtered through the various biased news organizations. There always is something more than is told... so maybe there is some kind of justification for the war I don‘t know about. It‘s like I am NSA or anything...
I agree that we should have at least given moral support, but, Gene Poutine is out.. so hopefully things will start to turn around...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
My personal opinion doesn‘t really matter that much, but ... personally, I‘m offended by some remarks posted here:
There are a couple of parallel threads going on where people are not being called fools (unsubstantiated, I might add), from which I prefer the following quotes:
The Threat of Terrorism
and
(oh - by the way - some of us may be fools, but at least we can compose and punctuate sentences properly - the first portion quoted, above, is quite simply a dogs‘ breakfast, and the verb tense in the latter part is incorrect - "Anyone ... are not very bright" ... hmmm ... methinks the pot may be calling the kettle black, but ... I digress ...)
There are a couple of parallel threads going on where people are not being called fools (unsubstantiated, I might add), from which I prefer the following quotes:
(Tony Blair)
The Threat of Terrorism
and
The Madrid Bombing
FlightSergeantRose
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 130
Well Infanteer, I know this from reading a lot and watching the news often. I am also a history major in university and I am very interested in international history and politics. From all of my inputs of information I formulate my own opinions.
To myself, I believe I am right when I say that the US invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam, but more importantly, to secure a long term supply of oil as the US‘s relationship with Saudi Arabia (they get most of their oil from them)has been deteriorating for some time.
I don‘t think that my 7 years in aircadets has anything to do with my opinions on this matter, but who knows Infanteer. . . .
So we are fighting a ‘specific‘ form of terrorism are we? Well, how about you tell us all about this ‘specific‘ type of terrorism we are dealing with. I would also like you to tell me who/how terrorism has a country and a face, because I think that you are wrong.
Politically, Canada is on the good/high end of the ‘geo political‘ spectrum thanks to Chretien not participating in Iraq. Now that we pretty much know there were never any WMD‘s(the ‘MAIN‘ reason for Bush pushing for war, although not the real reason) anyone who was involved such as the US and UK mainly; their credibility has been put into doubt to the rest of the world, and rightly so.
I am not Kissinger and would never want to be. I not going to get into it here big time here, but he made a lot of decisions that cost thousands and thousands of lives in many parts of the world (Vietnam, Nicaragua, and others) and he at the very least influenced a number of coups (sp) against democratically elected leaders.
If my best friend was sucker punched by someone in a bar or where ever, I would be the first one to go after the guy, but most of my friends can take care of themselves just fine. I am guessing your putting that comment into the context of Canada not invading Iraq along with the US. If this is the case your comment is flawed. Canada did attack Afghanistan since there was ample proof of the governments connection to terrorism. With Iraq on the other hand, there is very, very little evidence that Saddam had anything to do with ‘terrorists‘. From what I have heard, Saddam hated terrorists like Osama, and Osama had called Saddam an "infedel", so I somehow doubt they had anything to do with one another.
To myself, I believe I am right when I say that the US invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam, but more importantly, to secure a long term supply of oil as the US‘s relationship with Saudi Arabia (they get most of their oil from them)has been deteriorating for some time.
I don‘t think that my 7 years in aircadets has anything to do with my opinions on this matter, but who knows Infanteer. . . .
So we are fighting a ‘specific‘ form of terrorism are we? Well, how about you tell us all about this ‘specific‘ type of terrorism we are dealing with. I would also like you to tell me who/how terrorism has a country and a face, because I think that you are wrong.
Politically, Canada is on the good/high end of the ‘geo political‘ spectrum thanks to Chretien not participating in Iraq. Now that we pretty much know there were never any WMD‘s(the ‘MAIN‘ reason for Bush pushing for war, although not the real reason) anyone who was involved such as the US and UK mainly; their credibility has been put into doubt to the rest of the world, and rightly so.
I am not Kissinger and would never want to be. I not going to get into it here big time here, but he made a lot of decisions that cost thousands and thousands of lives in many parts of the world (Vietnam, Nicaragua, and others) and he at the very least influenced a number of coups (sp) against democratically elected leaders.
If my best friend was sucker punched by someone in a bar or where ever, I would be the first one to go after the guy, but most of my friends can take care of themselves just fine. I am guessing your putting that comment into the context of Canada not invading Iraq along with the US. If this is the case your comment is flawed. Canada did attack Afghanistan since there was ample proof of the governments connection to terrorism. With Iraq on the other hand, there is very, very little evidence that Saddam had anything to do with ‘terrorists‘. From what I have heard, Saddam hated terrorists like Osama, and Osama had called Saddam an "infedel", so I somehow doubt they had anything to do with one another.
FlightSergeantRose
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 130
"The guy has been an active supporter or terrorist suicide bombers in both Israel and the United States."
You are partly wrong. He did support the suicide bombers in Israel, just like all the other arab nations in the middle east.
There has been no connection made between Saddam and the 9-11 hijackers. There was never any connection, and I bet Saddam was just as surprised about 9-11 as everyone else was. Saddam has publicly stated on television that he loves the people of the US, just not their government. If he says this, why would he try to attack to US, or maybe he is lying. If Saddam was going to get WMD‘s, they would be more meant to keep his neighbours jittery, not to attack the US.
"If a state refuses to cooperate with us, than they are aiding our foe."
That is a very ‘BUSH‘ way of looking at things and a pathetic one at that.
"I shiver to wonder what might have occured had Al Gore been President during 9/11"
That is too bad. I think Gore would have done a much better job then Bush in dealing with whats happening. The afghan thing would probably still have happened, but not Iraq, and over 500 Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians would still be alive today.
"How do we work out mutually beneficial agreements with wealthy, educated men who fly planes into buildings?
I disagree. Those men were not wealthy (personal wealth, not including the money they got from their leaders, correct me if I‘m wrong) and they most certainly were not ‘educated‘. Those men were brought up in a hate filled environment and were probably, constantly bombarded by anti-Western propaganda throughout the lifetime. If learning the Coran and how to fly makes them ‘educated‘ then I think all humans on this earth are ‘educated‘. Which of course is not the case.
You are partly wrong. He did support the suicide bombers in Israel, just like all the other arab nations in the middle east.
There has been no connection made between Saddam and the 9-11 hijackers. There was never any connection, and I bet Saddam was just as surprised about 9-11 as everyone else was. Saddam has publicly stated on television that he loves the people of the US, just not their government. If he says this, why would he try to attack to US, or maybe he is lying. If Saddam was going to get WMD‘s, they would be more meant to keep his neighbours jittery, not to attack the US.
"If a state refuses to cooperate with us, than they are aiding our foe."
That is a very ‘BUSH‘ way of looking at things and a pathetic one at that.
"I shiver to wonder what might have occured had Al Gore been President during 9/11"
That is too bad. I think Gore would have done a much better job then Bush in dealing with whats happening. The afghan thing would probably still have happened, but not Iraq, and over 500 Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians would still be alive today.
"How do we work out mutually beneficial agreements with wealthy, educated men who fly planes into buildings?
I disagree. Those men were not wealthy (personal wealth, not including the money they got from their leaders, correct me if I‘m wrong) and they most certainly were not ‘educated‘. Those men were brought up in a hate filled environment and were probably, constantly bombarded by anti-Western propaganda throughout the lifetime. If learning the Coran and how to fly makes them ‘educated‘ then I think all humans on this earth are ‘educated‘. Which of course is not the case.
