August 10, 200619 yr Author If that were the case, I would expect something with the ports. Problem is that the ports don't have many people compared to airplanes.... Trains can't be taken off the rails.... Car/Truck barriers have been installed in many buildings.... What could they do that reaches the cost of life around the level of a 9/11-style hijacking or just blowing up the plane over an urban center?
August 10, 200619 yr They wouldn't attack the ports, but they could conceivably use them to smuggle in a WMD.
August 10, 200619 yr Sectarian violence is not terrorism, or at least not the international kind. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq have created a situation somehow worse than even during Saddam's rule, which I never would have guessed. Youre so blinded and misinformed its not even funny. Worse than Saddam? Worse than the gasing of over 100,000 Kurds? I'm not here to say the war is a good thing but come on. Furthermore, Iraq may be but should definitely not be the #1 issue in any upcomig elections. Not only that but if you think this attack is happenign bc of any actions we took in Iraq, youre sadly mistaken. The terrorists might use Iraq as their jusitificaiton for the world media, but terrorists have been planning these attacks long before Iraq. For some reason GM, everything that ever happens always comes back to Iraq in some way, if yo uwant to argue that terrorism is the fault of the west go for it, but dont be so shortsighted to blame it all on iraq.
August 10, 200619 yr Sectarian violence is not terrorism, or at least not the international kind. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq have created a situation somehow worse than even during Saddam's rule, which I never would have guessed. Youre so blinded and misinformed its not even funny. Worse than Saddam? Worse than the gasing of over 100,000 Kurds? I'm not here to say the war is a good thing but come on. Furthermore, Iraq may be but should definitely not be the #1 issue in any upcomig elections. Not only that but if you think this attack is happenign bc of any actions we took in Iraq, youre sadly mistaken. The terrorists might use Iraq as their jusitificaiton for the world media, but terrorists have been planning these attacks long before Iraq. For some reason GM, everything that ever happens always comes back to Iraq in some way, if yo uwant to argue that terrorism is the fault of the west go for it, but dont be so shortsighted to blame it all on iraq. while i wont blame everything on iraq...i do believe that the longer that we have troops in the middle east and the longer we blow up weddings and take pictures of captured nude iraqis, the more and more attacks we will see against us and our allies...
August 10, 200619 yr If that were the case, I would expect something with the ports. Problem is that the ports don't have many people compared to airplanes.... Trains can't be taken off the rails.... Car/Truck barriers have been installed in many buildings.... What could they do that reaches the cost of life around the level of a 9/11-style hijacking or just blowing up the plane over an urban center? use a ship to blow up next to the power plant down here and it would cause mass havoc for population. Destroy the port in NYC or SF, and destroy the economics of the country for years rebuilding them. that is something I would be worried over.
August 10, 200619 yr The reality is, there was no terrorism in Iraq while Saddam was in power. He kept the various ethnic groups in check with his brutal tactics for about 30 years. We completely underestimated how much the sectarian element would effect the entire operation in Iraq, and I can't understand how we missed it. Many women in the country have also said that things are much worse for them in Iraq now than under Saddam, to the point where women have been killed for driving a car or going outside without their faces covered. Besides releasing the Iraqis from Saddam's rule, what else have we done for them? I don't see anything.
August 10, 200619 yr so basically terrorists weren't killing iraqis because saddam had the market cornered?!
August 10, 200619 yr so basically terrorists weren't killing iraqis because saddam had the market cornered?! Basically.
August 10, 200619 yr Author so basically terrorists weren't killing iraqis because saddam had the market cornered?! Basically. How is that any better?
August 10, 200619 yr so basically terrorists weren't killing iraqis because saddam had the market cornered?! Basically. Bingo. Saddam was extremely hard on every religious group, be it Sunni or Shia. Neither groups could openly practice, and it kept down on the extremist groups from developing in that country. It's also a good reason why Osama and Saddam would never work together. They have completely opposite views on religion.
August 10, 200619 yr The fact that you rather have Saddam in power shows just how asinine and out of touch with reality you are.
August 10, 200619 yr The fact that you rather have Saddam in power shows just how asinine and out of touch with reality you are. Well, I hate Saddam as much as anyone, but he ironically was a stabilizer in the region when he wasn't attacking Kuwait. Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other neighbors of Iraq would likely agree.
August 10, 200619 yr The reality is, there was no terrorism in Iraq while Saddam was in power. He kept the various ethnic groups in check with his brutal tactics for about 30 years. We completely underestimated how much the sectarian element would effect the entire operation in Iraq, and I can't understand how we missed it. Many women in the country have also said that things are much worse for them in Iraq now than under Saddam, to the point where women have been killed for driving a car or going outside without their faces covered. Besides releasing the Iraqis from Saddam's rule, what else have we done for them? I don't see anything. The loss of life in Iraq of civilians sucks but it's nothing compared to what would be happening if Saddam was in power. Per a page that alot of you liberal elites probably have at the top of your bookmarks, Iraq Body Count, there have been at least 40,069 civilian deaths since March 19, 2003 until now and at most 44,596 deaths. So 1,239 days. That gives us at minimum an average of 32.33 civilian deaths or at max 35.99 deaths. Does it suck? Sure. In a perfect world I'd love for everyone to die a natural death and for their to be no war, dictators, or terrorism. But war is necessary to destroy evil and one of the effects of war is the death of civillians. Saddam, in his 13 years since the Gulf War he killed from 500,000 to 1,000,000 civillians during that reign. So in those 13 years, or 4,745 days the loss of life was at an average of 105.37 deaths a day per the low figure or as many as 210.78 deaths a day per that high figure. Had America not toppled his regime he could have ammassed (just going by these numbers and not taking into thought things getting worse there, etc) he would have killed at the lowest averages, 130,553 of his 'own people' or as many as 261,156 people. Pretty sick to even think about and something I'm glad our government and allies didn't want to sit back and let happen. So for as 'bad' as you baselessly claim things our right now it would be a helluva lot worse with Saddam still in power just in terms of civillian death counts. We've saved possibly 90,000-140,000+ deaths. I'm sick of people using Abu Grahib as an example of what we are doing wrong in Iraq. There have been around 30-50 unexplained deaths of Iraqi prisoners under U.S custody during the conflict. Saddam slaughtered 1500 prisoners in Abu Grahib just in 1999. Not even a comparison. What about the human right violations under Saddams reign? The citizens were not allowed to change their government because only members of the Ba'ath party were allowed all the benefits of political participation. Public beheadings of women accussed of being prostitutes and their heads were publicly displayed throughout the country. At least 130, and most likely more per the International Federation of Human Rights League and the Coalition for Justice in Iraq. Children were put in Saddams 'cub army' from the age of 5, were made to dennounce their families, and then began millitary training. Citizens were not allowed to even travel far in their own country without special permission. Women could not travel outside the country without a male with them. Between 1986-1989 Saddam started the Anfal Campaign which was the anti-Kurdish campaign which led to the genocide killing of at least 50,000 Kurds and 182,000 civillians. 1,754 schools were destroyed. 2,450 mosques. 27 churches, 270 hospitals. 75% of villages. In 1991 he slaughtered 100,000 to 230,000 Kurds and Shi'ites. The U.S has and is still uncovering those mass graves filed with thousands of corpses. Don't trivialize what we've done by taking Saddam out of power by passing it off as not a big deal when he was slaughtering civilians, commiting genoicde, and commiting act after act of human rights violations. I don't know about you but I'd rather not let someone terrorize their country with these brutal tactics even though this is how you consider things being 'under control'. Iraq isn't even close to as bad as it was in Saddam's reign and stop using trivial wording to downplay what went on during his reign and to somehow act like things are worse off there now just to support your warped views.
August 10, 200619 yr The fact that you rather have Saddam in power shows just how asinine and out of touch with reality you are. Well, I hate Saddam as much as anyone, but he ironically was a stabilizer in the region when he wasn't attacking Kuwait. Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other neighbors of Iraq would likely agree. Most of the citizens of countries over there from what I have talked to really hate the idea that americans believe they have the right to go into countries and tell them what to do. Like we are so much better and should be able to do what we want, because we are "better". When I say americans there more american goverment's policy. I dont think Saddam in power would be a good thing, but we never should of went into the country in the first place. We should of been within Afghanistan and seeing that country not being controled by warlords like it is now, and thousands dying. Never really understood their views till I went overseas myself to europe and all. as for the airline's plot I hope the British see the guys put on trial, get what knowledge they can from them and lock them up and throw away the key, or outright executions.
August 10, 200619 yr What about the governments of North Korea, Iran, or Cuba? They are all just as bad, if not worse, than Saddam's government. Yet, we left them alone and went after Iraq. My view is, why Iraq? Were they really more of a threat to our country or their particular region than any of those nations?
August 10, 200619 yr The middle east is a cess pool of terrorism. By taking out one of the biggest cogs in Saddam it has helped to spur the will for democracy throughout the region. Hell even Ted Kennedy said "What's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive, It's a reflection the president has been involved." Harry Reid: "if there were ever a place in the world where we need democracy, it's in the Middle East." Look at Lebanon's desire for democracy now. I think a part of that has resulted directly from our involvement in Iraq.
August 10, 200619 yr Uh... Iraq's 'Democracy' isn't very impressive right now when the leaders keep getting assassinated. Lebanon's government is in jeopardy. Iran voted in a crazy leader to their Presidency, who is now a threat to the rest of the region, a nuclear threat. All that is keeping Pakistan from going out of control is one man, who happens to be a dictator. Thank god he's friendly to the U.S. for the time being.
August 10, 200619 yr The middle east is a cess pool of terrorism. By taking out one of the biggest cogs in Saddam it has helped to spur the will for democracy throughout the region. Hell even Ted Kennedy said "What's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive, It's a reflection the president has been involved." Harry Reid: "if there were ever a place in the world where we need democracy, it's in the Middle East." Look at Lebanon's desire for democracy now. I think a part of that has resulted directly from our involvement in Iraq. actually those motives were going before we went into iraq and also heavily influenced by turkey, a muslim Democracy in the region that has been there for 40+ years. It has been set back majorly though by the current problems with isreal though.
August 10, 200619 yr Korean Air Flight 858 was brought down with liquid explosives. 350 grams of C4? Holy s*it!
August 11, 200619 yr The middle east is a cess pool of terrorism. By taking out one of the biggest cogs in Saddam it has helped to spur the will for democracy throughout the region. Hell even Ted Kennedy said "What's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive, It's a reflection the president has been involved." Harry Reid: "if there were ever a place in the world where we need democracy, it's in the Middle East." Look at Lebanon's desire for democracy now. I think a part of that has resulted directly from our involvement in Iraq. No offense but Lebanon is a bad example to go with. Their entire country is getting destroyed right now. And a lot of it has to do with the democratic structure. The leadership couldn't risk breaking the fragile coalition, democratically established I believe, that existed by cracking down on Hezbollah hence leading to what is going on now. In addition, the political system has allowed Iran and Syria to weild power via proxies. Moreover, because Hezbollah got seats via an election, they became connected to the government and the rest of the country. So the last thing we want to do right now is say our influence helped. In addition, because Hamas was democratically elected, they got more power and leeway and they started the whole thing. They also have enough power to prevent peace. Treating democracy as some magical tool that will lead to pure peace in the world is ignoring how complicated the world is. And Id argue that forcing it with the presence of troops in a country is going to lead to many many unintended consequences. FutureGM has pointed out the impending civil war. That just cant be ignored. And to the original thread-These guys were British born. They were brought down by a spy within their ranks. Im going to assume he was of the same descent. We need to focus all of our resources on infiltrating and destroying AQ and terrorist cells. Iraq is not the answer.
August 11, 200619 yr passion, you do realize that we put saddam in place? not saying that taking him out is the worst thing in the world...but again...why iraq? there are many more terrorists in other countries in the region...plus we have let other countries do much much more monsterous things to its people and we supported them too...seems to me, we either shouldnt support dictators or mind or own business...plus democracy at gun point will never work...ever...we dont think like them and they are dangerous enough that we should leave that region the hell alone unless we really are rooting on WW III...and about those iraqi casualties...think about this...imagine a foreign country dropped a bomb on your house, killing everyone but you...do you think you might detest that country a wee bit?
August 11, 200619 yr Sectarian violence is not terrorism, or at least not the international kind. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq have created a situation somehow worse than even during Saddam's rule, which I never would have guessed. Youre so blinded and misinformed its not even funny. Worse than Saddam? Worse than the gasing of over 100,000 Kurds? I'm not here to say the war is a good thing but come on. Furthermore, Iraq may be but should definitely not be the #1 issue in any upcomig elections. Not only that but if you think this attack is happenign bc of any actions we took in Iraq, youre sadly mistaken. The terrorists might use Iraq as their jusitificaiton for the world media, but terrorists have been planning these attacks long before Iraq. For some reason GM, everything that ever happens always comes back to Iraq in some way, if yo uwant to argue that terrorism is the fault of the west go for it, but dont be so shortsighted to blame it all on iraq. while i wont blame everything on iraq...i do believe that the longer that we have troops in the middle east and the longer we blow up weddings and take pictures of captured nude iraqis, the more and more attacks we will see against us and our allies... Should we have attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan?
August 11, 200619 yr I have yet to hear anyone argue against Afghanistan. That was the battle that made the most sense. However, we almost went into Iraq BEFORE Afghanistan. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz both wanted to attack Saddam first. Cheney as well.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.