Europe - Thy name is Cowardice

[VetteMuscle427]

HueyCobra, I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, terrorism has been around for a long time (much longer than 60 years), and, yes, it has taken this country until September 11 to FULLY realize its seriousness. After the September 11 attacks, we did not sit around with our thumbs up our a$$es, as you suggest. We sought out Taliban fighters all over the world and blew up half of Afghanistan.

I believe HueyCobra was making the point that we didn't really do anything until Sept. 11. You mistook him. He was making the point that nothing was really done about the terrorism of the 80s and susequent events in the 90s. (WTC, Africa, Cole) He was merely making the point that it took us a swift kick in the nuts to actually do something.

 

[bigmouth]

Vettemuscle,

Yes, you're probably right about that. Nonetheless, the main point I was making was that invading Iraq has done nothing to solve the issue of terrorism.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Stand Fast!

HueyCobra, I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, terrorism has been around for a long time (much longer than 60 years), and, yes, it has taken this country until September 11 to FULLY realize its seriousness. After the September 11 attacks, we did not sit around with our thumbs up our a$$es, as you suggest.

As to your first statement, obviously discussing every facet of every terrorist Operation since the dawn of time is a little out of the scope of this discussion.

Further, I would like to know where I suggest that after 11 September we "s[a]t around with our thumbs up our a$$es." I believe my direct quote was:

Put another way, America has been fighting a war on terrorism since 1961, only until 2001 (40 years later) we were not active participants.

This is a direct statement (ie: not a suggestion) that we didn't sit around after 11 September.

We sought out Taliban fighters all over the world and blew up half of Afghanistan. It may not have been pretty and we didn't find bin Laden, but it was certainly a step in the right direction. Then our attention shifted towards Iraq, because of their threat of WMD, NOT because they were implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Let me discuss a few fallacies here.

First, you imply that the War on Terror hinges on finding OBL. Let me clue you in. It doesn't. As I have said on another thread, do you honestly think that capturing OBL will destroy terrorism? Will the terrorists throw down their weapons and join UNICEF or Greenpeace when they see that OBL is dead?

Second our attention never shifted away from Afghanistan. Iraq is merely a different theater of the same war. In much the same way that our attention never shifted away from fighting the "Axis" powers during WWII, simply because we were fighting in Europe and in the Pacific.

There are quite a few valid reasons why we do not have larger troop numbers in Afghanistan.

I will discuss a few reasons though, first is the intrinsic infrastructure of Afghanistan. It is difficult to cost-effectively support more than 10,000 or so troops in that area because it is completely landlocked, and devoid of rail. Meaning that supplies must be shipped by trucks for the most part. Logistically, this limits troops numbers substantially.

Another is the fact that we do not need the troops there. The cities are well protected, and the enemy we are fighting is in the remote mountainous areas. Local troops are much more suited to fight in these regions. This is a lesson that the Soviet Union learned very well.

Or how about the fact that we have approximately 15,000 (give or take about 1,000) troops there as it stands...more than we had when we first started. Is that an example of shifting our attention?

Finally, I think that the elections that just occurred are proof positive that Afghanistan was never put on the back burner.

The news media may not be reporting on Afghanistan in favor of Iraq; but that does not mean the 22nd MEU and the 25th ID, et. al., are forgotten in Afghanistan. It is short sighted and vastly incorrect to imply that.

It really bugs me when people confuse the two issues. So many Americans think we're in Iraq because we're still responding to the WTC attacks. We did not go to Iraq to fight terrorism. We went there to get rid of Hussein and all his nonexistent weapons.

I suppose we are, by extension. You apparently have been a victim of the media hype. Perhaps you should go re read the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq, and then tell me why we are in Iraq again.

(Here is a hint, Iraq has been on the State Department's List of State Sponsors of Terrorism since 1993).

Further, I am curious as to how you have the effrontery to declare that Iraq's weapons were "nonexistent," considering the fact that S/RES/1441 was unanimously ratified by the UNSC (and by extension, the UN).

You say fighting and killing terrorists in Iraq is preferable to allowing them to kill us at home. I say, the majority of the terrorists that we're fighting in Iraq weren't anything but ordinary Iraqis pi$$ed off about their crappy lot in life. Look at the ring-leader in Fallujah, for instance. He was some plumber or something before the invasion.

With notable exceptions, the majority of the people we are fighting in Iraq are not Iraqi at all...

As a result of going into Iraq, I believe we have instigated a massive terrorist recruitment frenzy in Iraq (and elsewhere), amongst Muslims who believe that we are attacking Islam more than anything else. Yes, terrorism has reached epic proportions, and we have to deal with the consequences, but I feel confident that by invading Iraq we've only made the job harder on ourselves.

Ask Israel if terrorism was undergoing massive recruitment prior to our involvement in Iraq.

It is funny how liberals and people who are generally against the War in Iraq can say that terrorist recruitment is up and that life is terrible. But they cannot provide a definitive source to back up this claim.

Try reading what Iraqis have to say about things.

It isn't all peaches and flowers...but it is not all fire and brimstone either.

Edit: Erf...I just read that. I am doing about 3 things at once and typing a paragraph at a time in between, so forgive the jumbled nature of that post please. I hope the main point gets across.

Also, when I reread it, it seemed a little derisive. I am not trying to be. Just friendly civil discourse, right?

 

[bigmouth]

First, you imply that the War on Terror hinges on finding OBL. Let me clue you in. It doesn't. As I have said on another thread, do you honestly think that capturing OBL will destroy terrorism? Will the terrorists throw down their weapons and join UNICEF or Greenpeace when they see that OBL is dead?

First of all, stop implying that I'm some ignorant a$$ whose wrong simply because I'm a liberal and you think you know the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq inside and out. I know exactly why we're in Iraq, as does the whole world. It was never a secret. We went there for WMD. That was the justification. Nothing else matters, because nothing else would warrant an invasion.

Second of all, I never once implied that capturing OBL would end terrorism, but thanks for trying to make me sound like an idiot. Capturing OBL should be a top priority because he claimed responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks. It's as simple as that. He deserves to be brought to justice, and just like capturing Hussein, it will hopefully set an example to the rest of the world and the terrorists that his reign has ended. If nothing else, we would no longer have to fear his evil genius. Someone else will take his place, but we'll hopefully capture him too before he has enough time and space to plan another attack.

(Here is a hint, Iraq has been on the State Department's List of State Sponsors of Terrorism since 1993).

Third of all, there are far more countries around the world that support terrorism (however covertly) besides Iraq, and if you're honsetly trying to imply that Hussein was connected to Sept. 11, then YOU should be the one to provide evidence to back up your claims.
Furthermore, I realize that I am not going to convert you in your belief that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, but do you honestly believe that it was taking terrorism head-on? I may not have figures for the number of Iraqis who have turned to terrorism, but I have read countless articles from Iraqis who are scared to death to even go grocery shopping. This is not country-wide, of course, but it is CERTAINLY a reality. I am not some liberal-fanatic who thinks the world is going to hell because I disagree with our decision of going to war.

How do you think anyone would feel about being invaded? I think they'd be pretty ticked off. And how do you think they'd feel when they lost numerous innocent relatives to bombings intended for the enemy? The overall impression that I have of Iraq is that most citizens, whether insurgents or not, are unhappy about the status quo. How would being a "victim of the media hype" lead me to this conclusion? The media hype mentions NOTHING of Iraqis. And stop preteding that YOU are somehow immune to being influenced by what the general media decides we need to know.

With notable exceptions, the majority of the people we are fighting in Iraq are not Iraqi at all...

Yes, there are many foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq, including Saudis, Jordanians, and Syrians, but how on earth do you figure it's a majority?

I stand by my original claim that invading Iraq has done nothing to solve terrorism. We are beyond the point of no return in Iraq. I think we have bitten off more than we can chew, and yet have no choice but to remain there and try to stabilize it enough in order to pull out. But as Israel can tell us, inflaming Iraqis only creates more hatred. And it's unfortunate, because I think we did it to ourselves.

 

[xof]

The only part I would disagree on from my knowledge is that part where he mentions the "two great powers, America and China." China isn't a world power last I checked; maybe in 20+ years, but right now, at least if I am not mistaken, they have a very poorly-trained army and air force, and their navy has no global-projection capability. Their air force and navy also have no real combat experience, and their army hasn't really had any since the Korean War.

Their submarine that surfaced in Japanese waters had to run and hide because the Japanese defense force came threatening to sink it even.

China had a fun little border war with Vietnam in 1979. Although China gained a little combat experience, it came at the hands of a battle-hardened Regular Vietnamese Army, and generally got their asses handed to them. Read all about it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm

 

[airpirate25]

HueyCobra: Like your style; here's my humble input. The fact is, Europe is trying to avoid the political and economic upheavals we are heading for because we chose to fight legitamite threats against peace; terrorists and the nations that sponsor them. However, we need to clearly outline to the American people and the American military what our "end" goal is. Patton said Americans like to fight, and he was right to an extent. Unlike China however, we allow people to choose, and that means a significant portion of our population want to worry about going on vacation, buying homes, going to college, getting a good job. The path our nation is on right now will make all of that increasingly difficult. We need to define a clear outline of what we want from this war because ridding the world of terrorism is impossible, and the longer we go like this, the more opposition will spread until we face the same division here at home. We all want to protect freedom, get the bad guys and stand firm, but are we willing to pay the cost? I think Bush is a brave man, but he would do better to face the paralell issues openly before asking us to continue on this track.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

We went there for WMD. That was the justification. Nothing else matters, because nothing else would warrant an invasion.

I have done this sooo many times...but for you (and anyone else who may be reading). I suppose I will give it one more go. Lets break it down:

House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq

The first few paragraphs describe the Iraqi-Kuwaiti Conflict. S/RES/660 specifically condemns Iraq's actions, and S/RES/678 calls for member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660." This started the Gulf War.
At this point, WMD are the focal point of some statements, and are merely included in other.

On 6 April 1991, Iraq entered into a cease-fire which also called for destruction of WMD and inspections. It detailed in S/RES/687.

The Resolution discusses the circumstances of the inspections. Here is the timeline for that.

Here is the records of Iraqi intrasigence with regard to the inspections.

Public Law 105-235 is then listed in the Authorization. Congress passed this law citing: [/i]"Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';"[/i]

(This was what caused Operation Desert Fox)

Next comes the fact that WMD were owned by Iraq, up to, and including the passing of S/RES/1441. Which was unanimously ratified, and called for "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to meet stated deadlines.

That is the WMD portion of the Resolution.

Next, the Resolution discusses the fact that Iraq has been on the State Sponsors of Terror List since 1993...which I already posted a link to.

Next the resolution discusses Iraq's brutal human rights issues. These are outlined in the Human Rights Watch and the UN Agreed upon that study.

Next is the fact that Iraq has been willing to utilize weapons against other countries and it's own people in the past. This is demonstrated by the War in Iraq and in Halabjah.

Next is the Attempted Assassination of Former President Bush to which Clinton Responded

Next is the countless attacks on Coalition forces in the No Fly Zone which is expressely prohibited by UN Resolution (obviously).

Next is the connection between Ansar Al-Islam and Al Qaeda and Iraq. This is demonstrated here, here, and here. I can't find my link to Colin Powell's statement, but he also confirmed a link as well. (Most of the US Gov pages have been moved).

Further, Iraq has supported, terrorist organizations for over a decade.

Next the resolution discusses the simple, logical fact, that the multiple breaches of S/RES/687, S/RES/688, and S/RES/949 all obviate the United States of the responsibility of upholding S/RES/678 (the cease-fire). Legally speaking, the cease-fire was null and void.

The resolution also discusses the fact that Congress passed a Resolution Authorizing the War on Terror, and, as demonstrated above, Iraq has harbored and aided terrorism. This puts Iraq under the ramifications of that prior resolution.

Next, Public Law 107-40 is discussed, which authorizes the President to take measures to deter and prevent incidences of international terrorism.

Public Law 105-235 states that security in the Middle East is in America's national security interests.

That is basically a run down of most of the portions of that bill. As you can see, some of it is geared towards WMD, but to say that the entire reason we went to war was WMD is a fallacy.

Second of all, I never once implied that capturing OBL would end terrorism, but thanks for trying to make me sound like an idiot. Capturing OBL should be a top priority because he claimed responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks. It's as simple as that. He deserves to be brought to justice, and just like capturing Hussein, it will hopefully set an example to the rest of the world and the terrorists that his reign has ended.

I agree. If that was not the implication you intended to make, then I apologize. That was just the feeling I was getting from your posts.

Third of all, there are far more countries around the world that support terrorism (however covertly) besides Iraq, and if you're honsetly trying to imply that Hussein was connected to Sept. 11, then YOU should be the one to provide evidence to back up your claims.

There is more terrorism in the world than just 9/11. At no time did I ever state that Hussein was connected to those attacks. It isn't true. Hussein was connected to Terrorism. He was connected to Al Qaeda and Ansar Al-Islam (as well as others I am sure); but not the WTC attacks.

Furthermore, I realize that I am not going to convert you in your belief that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, but do you honestly believe that it was taking terrorism head-on? I may not have figures for the number of Iraqis who have turned to terrorism, but I have read countless articles from Iraqis who are scared to death to even go grocery shopping. This is not country-wide, of course, but it is CERTAINLY a reality. I am not some liberal-fanatic who thinks the world is going to hell because I disagree with our decision of going to war.

I honestly do believe that it was taking terrorism head-on. His government sheltered and funded terrorist organizations. Further, I would like to read those reports from Iraqis. Sure, many are scared, but many more are hopeful. There is projected to be over 85% voter turnout for these elections in less than a month.

 

[bigmouth]

Well, I appreciate your forthright and honest reply, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You've outlined the resolution masterfully, but the ONLY "semi-legitimate" justification we could ever have had for invading another country was WMD. Legitimacy aside, you can connect many of those same atrocities to countless other countries, including Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia (who obviously have many sympathizers to the terrorists' cause). I realize you know the resolution well, but the justifications listed would mean nothing if WMD weren't listed there too. The whole world thought WMD were in Iraq, and yet most of it opposed our invasion anyway. You think if WMD hadn't been the main issue, that Congress would have approved anything, let alone the UN?

While Hussein may have harbored terrorists, I have never seen any evidence to link him directly. He needed to be removed from power, and we did that, but if it were major terrorist figures acting against the US we were after, then I don't think he should have been a primary candidate.

Also, an 85% turnout (if they're even able to stage an election in a month) does not mean that 85% is happy. Hopeful and happy can be worlds apart. God gives many hope, no matter what the situation. After all, what would you be proving by not voting? Only that you don't want to play a part in Iraq's future, however much you disagree with US involvement there in the first place.

Nonetheless, your points are well taken, although I still think we'd have been better off taking a different approach altogether. Which approach is hard to say, of course, which is why hindsight is always 20/20.

One minor edit: I meant to say that I have never seen any evidence to link Hussein to Al Qaeda, which is also highlighted in your link. http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

And yet you mention that he was connected to Al Qaeda?

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Europe is trying to avoid the political and economic upheavals we are heading for because we chose to fight legitamite threats against peace; terrorists and the nations that sponsor them.

Despite the article, I don't think that Europe is necessarily trying to avoid military action all together. Even Germany has troops in Afghanistan.

As you say though, they are very fearful of political upheavals, and IMO, they have a very Eurocentric point of view.

However, we need to clearly outline to the American people and the American military what our "end" goal is.

Good point. You are absolutely correct. I think a lot of people feel like the "end objective" is muddled. Which is the difference between Wars like WWII and OIF.

You've outlined the resolution masterfully, but the ONLY "semi-legitimate" justification we could ever have had for invading another country was WMD. Legitimacy aside, you can connect many of those same atrocities to countless other countries, including Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia (who obviously have many sympathizers to the terrorists' cause). I realize you know the resolution well, but the justifications listed would mean nothing if WMD weren't listed there too. The whole world thought WMD were in Iraq, and yet most of it opposed our invasion anyway. You think if WMD hadn't been the main issue, that Congress would have approved anything, let alone the UN?

I appreciate your candor as well. And I agree, the two most important reasons we went were WMD and the link to Terrorism (Especially with the "Bush" doctrine of seeking out countries that harbor terrorists and treating them as terrorists themselves). Had WMD not been an issue, I think the whole treatment of Iraq would have been drastically different.

While Hussein may have harbored terrorists, I have never seen any evidence to link him directly.

I don't understand how you reached this conclusion, especially after I posted 5 links to news reports linking Iraq and Hussein directly. (I can try and dig up the Colin Powell statement on Google if you want an even 6)

Also, an 85% turnout (if they're even able to stage an election in a month) does not mean that 85% is happy. Hopeful and happy can be worlds apart. God gives many hope, no matter what the situation. After all, what would you be proving by not voting? Only that you don't want to play a part in Iraq's future, however much you disagree with US involvement there in the first place.

Nonetheless, your points are well taken, although I still think we'd have been better off taking a different approach altogether. Which approach is hard to say, of course, which is why hindsight is always 20/20.

I agree with all of this. And even though I am defending the War in Iraq; I too would have done things differently if I was "in charge" of everything. Although, I will admit that when we first invaded Iraq (or at least whenever the news reported us having crossed the border), I was sitting in the Chow Hall in Yuma and I actually didn't agree with it.

The more I have researched and looked into it, and reviewed my history, however, the more I agree that it was a necessary, especially within the constraints of the Resolution outlined by Congress.

As far as that link specifically saying there was no evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. It does say that, but several other links provide evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. In this case, it is a conflicting message about one portion of the overall theme (which is shown by all of the links): Iraq and more specifically, Saddam Hussein, provided support and harbored Terrorists.

 

[Broadsword2004]

Man, I love that speech George C. Scott gives in that movie "Patton" though. What really gets me is what would happen if a General these days made such a speech in reference to the Iraq War, using derogatory terms (George as Patton said the following as aprt of his speech, but referred to the "Hunns" not the Iraqis, though I am sure he'd call them something derogatory):

"Now, there's another thing that I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying we're "holding our position." We're not holding anything. Let the Iraqis do that. We are advancing, and we're not interested in holding onto anything EXCEPT FOR THE ENEMY! WE'RE GOING TO HOLD ONTO HIM BY THE NOSE, AND WE'RE GONNA KICK 'EM IN THE ASS! WE'RE GONNA KICK THE HELL OUTTA'VE 'IM ALL THE TIME, AND WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH 'EM LIKE CRAP THROUGH A GOOSE!!!"

Could you imagine the media frenzy if the military made a statement like that today! Of course, the Nazis were trying to conquer the world at the time and in this recent war, we are not trying to crush the Iraqis, just the terrorists, but still, gotta love that speech.

 

[akamifeldman]

<<enters thread too late to do any damage>>

GW as PATTON?

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

no, seriously, thats just too much...oh wowo!

 

[Cate]

My question has been from the beginning, why now (or, I suppose, why then?). Everything that HueyCobra cited has been ongoing since Gulf War I. I don't for a moment argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a horrible dictator or that the world isn't better off without him in power - but he was as horrible in March of 2003 as he was in 1991, when the first President Bush decided not to invade Iraq. And while, granted, we didn't have this information at the time of the original invasion, Charles Duelfer's report in October showed that Iraq neither had WMD nor was engaged in any WMD-related-program-activities, and that economic sanctions had been doing their job in keeping Saddam from developing such. What was so urgent, what threat was so imminent that we had to attack right then, while we still had troops committed in Afghanistan and had no plan as to how to prosecute - or fund, for that matter - a conflict on a second front?

 

[wink]

Invading Iraq has SO FAR doe little to defeat global terrorism. A nominally representative government in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors or its own free people will have an incredibly positive effect in the region. Iraq is the only country in the region with water and oil. As a free economy, Iraq will flourish.

That sanctions killed more Iraqis than Saddam has become some kind of urban myth. If thousands of babies were dying, as was claimed by Iraqi sympathizers, where were all the horrifiying pictures on Arab TV. How could they miss a chance to show the west the bodies piled like cord wood. And where are all the graves? All we have found are Saddam's mass graves. Fact is, the full on sanctions only lasted a couple years before they were modified by the oil for food program to ease the problems that did exist. And we all know how much that program helped poor Iraqis!\

Why Iraq now? Because we did think he had WMD and would provide them to terrorists. That he didn't wasn't known until later so it is hardly an argument for not going to war then. We were wrong about WMD but even the Germans, French and UN thought he had them. The argument was only about how long to wait to find them by feckless inspection. And although the Duefer report indicated sanctions had been working, it is well know than they were on the verge of falling apart. The French, Germans and others were actively trying to break the sanctions, legally, and now we know illegally (oil for food anyone?). That same report indicates that as soon as the sanctions broke down Saddam would have been back to full pursuit of WMD. Why now, indeed, why later? Were we to wait until we were out of Afganistan? Having the 10-15K troops now in Afganistan would not have changed much in the prosecution of the war in Iraq. Were we to trust the CIA to tell us exactly ten days before Iraq had a nuke before we attacked, ten weeks or ten months?

 

[Broadsword2004]

I think also the worry was Saddam was going to become more of a threat, or at least his sons would, within the coming years. Sort of like how everyone is saying we should have gone after Iran, not Iraq. If it was the reverse, people would be saying we should have gone after Iraq I bet.

 

[Jolly Roger]

I participated in a discussion on OIF in, of all classes, is US in Vietnam. I was amazed at the points being brought up in the discussion, most of ideas expressed were that of the Michael Moore vantage point. That we diverted from hunting OBL, that we didn't finish in Afghanistan, that we went for false reasons, and that it didn't fit into the WoT.

I made the same point that Wink, did. The WoT is not a convential military campaign or war, just like Vietnam was not. It is a war of ideas, not a convetional war. I have felt all along that the Bush team decided to on Iraq to invade, because it would be realitively easy to conquer, the people were longing to be liberated, and it offers the most optimistic outcome as Wink outlined. If a democracy in Iraq succeeds, then there will be a swell of changes in the Middle East coming from the streets up clamoring for the freedoms that the Iraqis have.

The obvious oponents of the war did not want to listen to that, they had made up their mind that the war was bad and that was that. Almost the same mentalities that came from Vietnam. I couldn't help but chuckle at the irony.