In Time there were two articles regarding this debate.

Decreased safety
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1081392,00.html

Increased safety
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1081384,00.html

I believe that the overall safety, not just ours, is increased in the long run. Of course, in the short run, our safety is decreased. Obviously, the long run is more important. Iraq is a good decision for many reasons:
1. We removed a totalitarian government ({s} if the Taliban is included {I'm aware that it wasn't in Iraq})

2. Terrorism is going to be eliminated in the long run

3. The democracy that replaced the former dictatorship will be more beneficial to everyone.

All three of these reasons make everyone else safer.

Question:

Do you agree with Daniel Benjamin or Charles Krauthammer's beliefs?

Why?

This is a difficult and complex question which can be argued endlessly. Thanks for the links, which present the cases for both sides in clear form.

Both essayists seem to agree that when it comes to actually hunting down terrorists, the US and its allies have done a good job.

From Benjamin:



From Krauthammer:



The big difference of opinion seems to be whether the invasion of Iraq is a worthwhile part of this effort. I don't think it can be justly claimed that the invasion of Iraq had much, if any, direct effect on active terrorists. The goal seems to be to create an environment in the area which will lead to a new sort of culture, which will reduce terrorism. Was the removal of a repressive regime in Iraq worth the cost in human lives, suffering, and dollars? Is the USA seen in a better or worse light by the Muslim world? These questions can be answered either way.

Let me begin to approach an answer by looking at the three benefits of the Iraq War which you list. Certainly, a totalitarian govenment was removed, and that's always a good thing. But one must consider the cost. Would an invasion of Saudi Arabia -- a dictatorial government with closer ties to terrorism than Iraq, I think -- be worth the cost? I think most would say not, because such an invasion would be seen, I believe, as an attack on Islam in general. (In another forum, someone seriously suggested dropping a nuclear weapon on Mecca, in the hope of "proving" to the Muslim world that their religion was a false one. Leaving aside the moral question, it seems to me that such an act would accomplish the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do; it would inflame the entire Muslim world.) In a lesser way, the invasion of Iraq has strengthened the resolve of those who would see the United States as the Great Satan in any case. Is this outweighed by those in the Muslim world who see the United States as a force for good, because it kicked out an evil dictator? I'm not convinced.

As far as eliminating terrorism goes, I think this is an impossible goal. There will always be human evil. There will continue to be a branch of Islam associated with terrorism for a very long time -- possibly centuries -- until that religion has gone through the same changes which have happened to its older siblings, Judaism and Christianity. A reading of the Old Testament reveals that there was a time, long ago, when part of Judaism was a religion which gloried in the merciless destruction of those who would not worship its God. A reading of history reveals that there was a time, not quite so long ago, when part of Christianity made its converts through fire and sword. A reading of newspapers reveals that we are now in a time when part of Islam is responsible for terrorism. There seems to be something in all three of the Abrahamic faiths -- the firmly held conviction, during the earlier stages of these religions, that those who deny the Truth are the Enemy -- which requires time to moderate its zeal. Islam is younger than Christianity, which is younger than Judaism. The younger an Abrahamic faith is, the more time it needs to reach a fully mature state. (I say this as one standing outside all three faiths, with nothing but respect for the many fine individuals they number among their adherents.)

There is no question that representative governments are better for their citizens and the citizens of other nations. As with your first point, the question is whether it is worth the cost. No sane American is seriously in favor of invading North Korea, because the cost would be immense. Many believe that the war in Iraq is worth the cost, but I have my doubts, now that we are told that we must make a "generational commitment."

Krauthammer is one those who beat the drum for the invasion. His arguments were absurd then. They are absurd now. I think it can be demonstrated that the administrations motivations in invading Iraq was not the suppression of terrorism. The 9/11 attack was an excuse not a cause. Iraq had nothing to do with it or any other recent terrorism other than its support of terrorist in Palestine, something it shared with most other Arab governments.

The invasion of Afghanistan was understandable, but its purpose to destroy the al Qaeda base and leadership was short circuited by the transfer of key special force resources to the preparation for the Iraqi invasion. As things stand, the number 1 and number 2 leaders of al Qaeda remain free as an inspiration to inspire the jihadist movement everrywhre. Afghanistan, rather than being a free democratic state, is a narco state largely ruled by warlords with the legitimate governments authority only extending to Kabal and nearby environs. Open attacks on the government and American forces are becoming more and more common. The destruction of the special forces helicopter and its 16 occupants together with the unit they were seeking to support is a clear example. If we were going to occupy Afghanistan, we should have completed the job and built a stable country rather than invading Iraq.

Iraq is a total diasaster and almost everyone recognizes it. The invasion, the bombing of civilians, the scorched earth attacks on Fallujah, the lack of cultural sensitivity, and the prison abuses have farther alienated the Arab world and have created terrorists where none existed. Read this Boston Globe article on Saudi and Israeli studies of the suicide bombers in Iraq. Globe Article

Many scholars and most activists in the antiwar movement have maintained since before the invasion that military occupation of Iraq would (and has) generated more terrorism. This has now been demonstrated in a studies by an Israeli think tank and the Saudi government. Interviews were conducted with those detained trying to enter Iraq and background checks were made of those who exploded themselves in suicide attacks. Both studies concluded that, “the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.” Reuven Paz, author of the Israeli study, said ''I am not sure the American public is really aware of the enormous influence of the war in Iraq, not just on Islamists but the entire Arab world." Peter Bergen, in an interview for this article stated, ''To say we must fight them in Baghdad so we don't have to fight them in Boston implies there is a finite number of people, and if you pen them up in Iraq you can kill them all. The truth is we increased the pool by what we did in Iraq."

Less safe.

It has merely helped generate a new generation of terrorists in training and shown that the west will continue to use the wrong response to fight terrorists and their preferred method of operations--hidden covert cells--by sending the military.

A sledgehammer response where a scalpel was needed.

Continued support to nations that support terrorists--such as the very creators of Wahhabinism; the Saudis. Also known as the majority of the 9/11 hijackers and the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq. but lets hold hands with them instead.

I would dare to say that the london bombing clearly shows the inadequacy of such a tactic. It was not people fresh from the desert who acted out but seemingly quiet well adjusted members of their society. People who had no clear reason to want to engage in such actions but would seem to have too much to lose and sacrifice by doing so.

Same as the 9/11 terrorists.

The same? That example seems to work against your argument. 9/11 occurred before the Iraq war. So if the terrorists are encouraged or motivated or inspired to sacrifice their happy, quiet lives without Americans waging a war in Iraq ....how are they being influenced the same?

I would choose undecided. I feel the objectives of the Iraq war are long term and so I believe we are not completely able to determine currently if this war is or isn't working.

I do recognize and do believe that many of the actions of the US regarding the Iraq war have lent support to the claims that America does not act out of liberation but rather dominance and imperialism. The prison abuse scandals along with the US gov.'s acceptance that abuse is humane is a very sad example.

I also believe that the Iraq war has leant the Islamic fascists a sense of urgency to quickly now give their lives before all is lost. Yet I won't concede that they blow themselves and hundreds and hundreds of innocents because America has wronged them.

I think many cultural, political and religious aspects play into the motivations of terrorists more so than anything else. Americans haven't secretly traveled out to KSA to blow themselves up in public places to avenge the deaths of those on 9/11. So I don't feel these actions are normal human behavior or just reactions.

The fact these people who choose to blow themselves up are first time offenders does not indicate anything to me other than their age and their methods.

Many of them are teenagers or young adults. Obviously as soon as they have expressed a willingness to accept the fascist islamic belief system they have been prepped to go into Iraq and commit "jihad". Also the method these holy warriors use doesn't really allow you the opportunity to repeat the offence.

I do believe it has been shown that one of the bombers in London was involved or connected to militant Islamic actions prior. It is now also speculation that they did not willingly detonate themselves.


We = who? America? I ask because Afghanistan was and is still a NATO operation. The onus to fully complete the mission in Afghanistan does not solely rest with the American people. In fact I would say the lack of commitment to the war in Afghanistan has been exemplified by the remaining NATO members more so than by the Americans.

TedN5


(bucket)


If I remember correctly, NATO and others were invited in after the war to help stabilize the country. In any case, the bulk of forces were American and withdrawing resources before bin Laden and his Egptian cohort were killed or captured was taking our eye off the ball. I didn't favor the continued occupation of Afghanistan after completing the elimination of the al Qaida base but if we were going to we should have done so in force and not allowed the situation to degenerate into the war lord dominated situation that now exists. Michael Scheuer, the CIA al Qaida anayst who followed Afghanistan for years thought the whole effort to hold Afghanistan was doomed and that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder of the first order. See his book Imperial Hubris.

When are you going to realize that Iraq was invaded for reasons entirely other than terrorism and that it has produced more terrorism as critics said it would? The Neocons' Project for a New American Century called for the invasion of Iraq in 1998. Paul O'Neil, GWB's first Secretary of the Treasure, said in his book that cabinet meetings were constantly discussing invading Iraq before 9/11. Dick Clark said the administration was fixated on Iraq immediately after 9/11. Not only was the invasion and occupation based on lies, both have been characterized by unbelievable blunders. This article isn't right on point but it touches on the issue. Paul Craig Roberts was one of Reagan's under secretaries of the treasury and is not a leftist like I am. Roberts' Commentary

There is no way we can achieve anything of value in Iraq. It's better to withdraw now rather than be bleed to death. Cost of War. Some cakewalk!

The articles are no longer available without subscription so I must reply on my own understanding of the question as to whether attacking Iraq has made us safer or not.

In my opinion we are not safer as a result of the attack against Iraq.

Why not?

If we had removed Saddam Hussein and replaced him with a stable democratic government, then I'm sure we would have seen increased regional and global stability and safety but due to the amazing incomeptence of the Bush administration and its urge to go to war regardless of the many prophetic voices that councilled against it, what we have today is a nation so heavily divided that it will take a very long time for the government of Iraq to assert total control over it.

What we have acheived is a nation where terrorism is now able to flourish, polish its art and muster its strength for further attacks in the future. Under Saddam Hussein, as hatefull as he was, this was never the case. We have effectively reduced Iraq to chaos and given Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted. War.


editted to add:

But not national eh?




There are 130,000 Americans in Iraq right now and they've blown up plenty of innocent people.

Well on September 12th 2001 NATO for the first time ever invoked the collective security clause. NATO was implemented..it is not an individual standing army..but rather an alliance..since pre-war planning. It was basically the first show or sign of a military reaction to the September 11th attack in the US.

The bulk of the forces are always American..regardless.

I think it is a bit unfair to have required reading for a debate. I think you can successfully propose your own arguments.



When am I ? You make it sound like I am a sole surviving Hominid that somehow got overlooked in that whole evolution thing. As if I just need to practice more to be as refined and insightful as yourself.
I spoke of terrorism in regards to the Iraq war because that was the question asked. We were asked to consider the war in Iraq and it's direct relation to terrorism. I don't only confine the Iraq war to this context...except when I am asked to.

I happen to think of and I am in support of the Iraq war outside the context of who the president is, what his party affiliation is, what the polls say, and how the pundits explained it.
I don't find boasting about the ability to only perform duties or thought processes in one position all that impressive.

Attacking Iraq made us less safe simply because it made no difference in terms of the war on terror. Iraq never has been part of international terror, had no WMD or WMD programs, was not a threat to it's neighbors, was fully contained by no-fly zones, and was crippled by sanctions. We can't be safer because they were not a threat and the rest of the world remains largely unchanged.

Unfortunately, we've consumed all our resources attempting to defeat an enemy that wasn't our enemy on September 11, 2001. Now, the bad guys that fly airplanes into our buildings and blow up subways are free to do whatever they like because we can't bribe enough recruits to fill our armed forces and we've peed-off practically every country in the world. Hell, half of them probably hope we get attacked again because it serves us right.

No Bucket, what I said was that it was not some fresh out of the middle east person that seems most likely to attack here in the west, but the kinds of people who to all appearances would be considered happy well adjusted members of our societies. Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11--which surprisingly some people still do not seem to understand and think them linked. They were not, but they are now.
If people who have what we would consider much to lose are willing to die and kill in such a fashion--how do troops on the ground in a foreign land offer us any protection? It will only inspire someone else to follow that path. Probably influenced by the loss of someone special who became a member of the casually ignored collateral damage.

Isn't that what is always said about the psychopathic..but they seemed so normal.
I think that these people don't feel they have anything to lose ..I don't really feel they view their suicide as you or I would. Do you ponder how suppressed, wrought with pain and inspired by personal tragedy the jonestown participants must have been..or do you suspect they were crazies?

I think troops on the ground are meant to foster a change in how this region of the world is governed so that the angriest, meanest, most vicious man no longer gets to rule with total authority. It is my own personal view that terrorism does in fact evolve from things other than oppression or personal loss.

Because Krauthammer has little familiarity with the truth on some issues.



Isn’t Northern Ireland a ‘Democracy’? I seem to recall a few Terrorist Incidents over that piece of real-estate. And didn’t we just lock up a member of the American Taliban for his terrorist attacks on abortion clinics and some function in Atlanta?


Iraq, in the long term, is going to cause us very serious grief, Democracy or not. The Arab Street works on “perception” and with 49.9% of voters having the perception that Bush is as welcome as a herpes blister on the first date; how much worse is it in countries that already thought he was evil?

Al-Qaeda takes its time to attack the homeland, so the many claims that we have been kept safe has more to do with their timeline than ours. And if FoxNews is to be believed, every time the Troops are attacked in Iraq; there is a ‘terrorist attack’. That would be how many terrorist attacks a month?

This is an answer that remains to be revealed, only time will tell the answer to this question. Historically speaking, looking at similar guerilla wars in the past history is not on the side of the US military, however there has never been a war fought similar to the way this war has been molded into. Overall Iraqi's are killing Iraqi's in a "semi civil-war" with an outcome that can be very cloudy but also seems obvious after contemplating it in realistic terms.

Guerrila's need the support of the local people in order to be succesfull at large. No matter, they cannot attack the US military directly without being slaughtered immediately except for convey ambushes and IED attacks. In most guerrilla war's you have the occupier that takes power and establishes an authoritive government with little to no populas coordination and involvment. The guerrilla's offer them an alternative to the authorative government that has been established to run their lives and not themselves.

This is very different, most average Iraqi's seem to be in the middle of the isle and both sides are fighting for them to jump the fence. The catch 22 is in order for the insurgents to effect change they must attack the same people they are attempting to get to jump to their side of the fence. Although they do use propaganda that even though one of there own suicide bombers may have killed their son, its the American's fault because of the invasion.

The attacks from the insurgents have increased breifly but then go back down to "normal" levels, this is really the only way for them to say "hey look we are still here" to the world because most of us have become used to the fact of attacks everyday and it no longer hits headline news. Eventually the terrorist network will wear down not because of a lack of recruits but because a lack of organization once the local police and military establish there own intelligence network trained and funded by the Americans.

The Americans are making it look like a fight against the Iraqi's and the insurgents are trying to make it look like a fight against the Americans. When the insurgents kill more and more Iraqi's it's becoming more apparent who the war is against and the number of tips back up this assertion.

In the end, hopefully, it will make the United States a safer place because of the impact on the region the transformation of Iraq will have. Only time will answer this question.

Just to beat on a dead horse that always ends up in denial by people that believe there never were any type of connections between Saddam and terrorists who target the US should read through this interesting thread.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=8417&st=20

This part in particular.



Of course if this were really true "everyone would know about it". Remember the movie blackhawk down? Were did that happen?

With the exception of our own insurgency against the British over 200 years ago.


If those Documents were real, they would allow a ‘Chemical Analysis’ to be performed on them. That’s how the documents that suggested Galloway got $ from Saddam were proven to be forgeries; leading to Galloway getting big $ in a lawsuit against ‘The Telegraph”.

I had a good chuckle reading some of the claims the CNSNews article had in it. Stuff like “confiscated by U.S. forces” BUT the “Bush administration likely unaware of documents' existence”. I would never have guessed that Republicans didn’t read CNSNews and thus would be ignorant of the document’s existence. Or that the U.S. forces who ‘confiscated’ the documents failed to report them to their superiors.

How many bombs used to explode during Clinton`s time which many Bush fans do not like? How many do right now? How can we call ourselves safer when bombs are exploding everwhere in the world?

I found a very good article on www.letstalksense.com . Here is the link: http://www.letstalksense.com/articles/by%20the%20numbers.htm Please spend some time reading it. It demonstrates statistically how pathetic the arguements of the `safety` side is.

'Iraq has been an absolute gift to al-Qaida'
http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-ties24s1.html
. . . Anger over the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also seems to be providing some inspiration, despite early arguments from Bush administration officials that fighting insurgents in Iraq would help prevent them from launching attacks on Western targets. The war has instead turned into a recruiting tool, experts said. . .

According to this report, there is a direct link between Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the London bombings. This guy was captured near Qaim, which is the town that Zarquawi recently declared his own "islamic republic." I'm not sure whether that means a direct invasion of Iraq has made us more or less safe, but it does bolster the argument that we are fighting our true enemy there. I suppose you could say that "there were no terrorists in Iraq" before we went there, but it's as convenient a place as any to go kill them. Beats Chicago, anyway.



I think a good question to ask would be - if these foreign fighters weren't entering Iraq to cause mayhem there, what would they be doing?

How does this suggest that invading Iraq made us safer. No London bombings were connected to anyone in Iraq prior to the invasion. Zarquawi operated there but in the northern "no fly" zone not controlled by Saddam. The Bush Administration passed up at least 3 opportunities to take him out ostensibly because they wanted to use him in their propaganda for the invasion. At the time, he was a radical jihadist but had no demonstrated connection to al Qaeda. Elsewhere in this thread I cited studies by both Israelis and Saudis that demonstrated that the majority of those infiltrating into Iraq had been radicalized by the invasion itself. All of us realize that Iraq has become a hot bed of terrorism and a training ground for future terrorists. It wasn't before we blundered in!

Well, it's hard to really judge the motivations of someone who is crazy enough to blow themselves up and kill innocent Iraqis. However, as to jihadis in general, I'd say that Iraq is but a small factor. According to a poll discussed here,** the reasons for "joining the jihad" are a little more complex than our invasion of Iraq. "Kafir torture of Muslims in their lands" (I'll assume this means Abu Ghraib) represents a paltry 9.66% of respondents, well behind the Koran. I don't believe for a second that Iraq has inspired more jihadis, it's just given them a place to go. And, fortunately, a place to die. Do you really believe if we hadn't invaded Iraq these foreign fighters would be sipping sweet tea at the Damascus Starbucks, waiting to read the next Michael Moore book and commuting to their office jobs?


As for " The Bush Administration passed up at least 3 opportunities to take him out " - could you please cite a source for this?

------------------------------

**PS - the original poll, in Turkish (Fma - care to review for us?) is available here - choose "Anketler" (on top of the site). Under "Eski Anketler" choose here - "Cihad ile nasil tanistiniz???" and then click "Sonuçlar" on the right.

carlitoswhey, this is not a zero-sum issue. There is no finite amount of terrorists in the world that move from one location to another where we can shoot them dead. There are new nutjobs being created everyday and Iraq has simply become a method to hone their craft.

With this, if there is indeed a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, that is one we created as it had never existed before. You should be alarmed by this - not vindicated.

[QUOTE]1. We removed a totalitarian government ({s} if the Taliban is included {I'm aware that it wasn't in Iraq})

[QUOTE]2. Terrorism is going to be eliminated in the long run

[/QUOTE]3. The democracy that replaced the former dictatorship will be more beneficial to everyone.

All three of these reasons make everyone else safer.

Question:

Do you agree with Daniel Benjamin or Charles Krauthammer's beliefs?

Why?

I disagree that the war on terror has or will make us safer. We have surely cut the number of terrorists a bit, but history has shown that this is a losing battle. Ask England. They didn't succeed in stopping the IRA with gunfire. All they got was more attacks. A semblance of peace came after the guns had fallen silent.

Terrorism will never be eliminated. For so long as one gropup feels oppressed there will be terrorists. The very act of trying to eliminate terrorism will in fact galvanize more into terrorist acts. For every terrorist we eliminate in war, several more will spring up to replace them.

While i think democracy is the best form of government, we cannot hope to foist our opinions upon others. They will embrace democracy if they choose but it must be of their doing. We did not succedd in bringing demoracy to Korea, Viet Nam or any other locale that I am aware of.

People will be governed by the type of system they choose. This is not a place for us to be. Iraq is especially difficult and shall be a failure IMHO. I don't see where we can be successful in a nation with multiple religions who are perpetually at war with one another. Whetther this be a war of guns or religious ideology. We can bring no lasting change to this region without them mending fences and coming to agreement on their varried issues. It was foolhardy to think we could in the first place with a people who have been fighting thousands of years, bring any change to them without first finding a solution to the very things about which they have been fighting.

So if we just leave Iraq terrorist attacks directed at the United States will stop?



In that event, we kill them too. If we want to tackle to problem more aggressively, we could impose harsh conditions on the country aimed at punishing acts of terror directed at American targets and interests.



South Korea developed nicely, as did post-war Germany and Japan.



Please. Lasting change will occur once a strong power asserts some power and establishes a firmly recognized state.

But United States is also a totalitarian government, Oligarchy. Whats the difference?



Attacking Iraq solves Terrorism(???). Ehm, No, United States, as pure sheer Irony, would be marked as a Terrorist Nation when they attacked Iraq.



Muslim Countries have a hard time with Democracy. It does not comply with their beliefs for starters.



Madrid? London?

No, United States put Europe on the spot making sure they will be forced to pay a heavy prize of lives for their own goals.



Neither of them.






Bud, Germany was a Democracy before WWII.

I have a question. How is the United States government, a representative democracy, an oligarchy? An oligarchy is basically a country run by a group of dictators, where in America, you may notice some democracy, possibly. Maybe. I don't know. I suppose.



Ok. US policy is going to follow EricStanze's policies from now on. The largest skyscrapers in the largest city in our country are smashed into with 747s, they both collapse, killing over 3000 people. People refer to EricStanze's wisdom, as he is now president. He says: "We will do nothing. Retaliation is bad. They kill three thousand of our people, we shower them with more money by buying their oil and giving aid to their countries. Hopefully they will eventually begin to accept us as infidels and start to accept our Christianity and our superpowerdom, which I propose to take down through a series of anti-capitalistic laws as well, because such economic policies are clearly those of an oligarchy."

Who would vote for EricStanze as president if he made this decision?

Honestly Eric, what should we do after 3000 innocent American citizens are killed by some crazy jihadists from the Middle East? Go ahead. Follow it with some hypothetical event analysis and a timeline of the attacks after it on our country.

Personally, I think that policy is completely stupid, and any other response than attacking Iraq would make me feel like I was living in Canada. And no, retaliating after a terrorist attack has just emotionally shredded your country isn't a terrorist act. Here, I'll even give you a definition of terrorism. Read it, and stop referring to justified retaliation after the US was attacked as "terrorism". It's disgustingly inaccurate, and completely wrong.



Ok, where's the entree . I'm sorry, your response is wrong again. What about the Shiites that voted in the Iraq elections that are about 60% of Iraq's population? Go ahead, check that fact. Here. What about Afghanistan?

Source

Sounds like nondemocracies are doing a great job in Afghanistan .

Source

Yeah, for some reason, your unsupported guess that democracy and people in the Middle East are contradictory isn't really showing in my research.




Are those questions? What are you questioning? How many more 9/11s would have to happen before we realized that we have to kill every single terrorist on earth before we are safe? You are looking at the short term. How many 9/11s will there be when we have a bunch of terrorists on earth? I don't know. Maybe none, maybe one every day until we start to follow Islam or we kill them first. How many 9/11s will there be when there are no more terrorists? Guess the answer to that question. You have to every other.

I have a very good observation that you may want to consider: Terrorists don't attack people just when they are attacking them, they attack others when they are doing something that conflicts with their beliefs! Terrorists don't think logically! They are all completely insane! What do you think they are doing when they blow themselves up in a London subway? Trying to make friends? They are crazy! They don't even care who they are attacking, they are just hoping someone else is going to believe them!

Oh, and the fact that the people who attacked London were from England, and one from Jamaica, meaning that they were never attacked in their lives and never personally provoked. You can check that fact too here. Notice that they all followed Islam.



This is probably the most nonsensical part of your post. You are advocating that attacking Iraq has made us much less safe, and then you go to some sort of middle answer that completely baffles me.

A suggestion: before you just put out opinions that you are trying to suggest as fact, try to at least put a source from somewhere so it doesn't look completely vulnerable.

Oh, and answer this question too: did you read either of the links I posted?

Lord knows this argument has been had a hundred times before, but apparently it is necessary to make it again.

Could you explain to me exactly how invading Iraq is retaliation for 9/11?

Invading Afghanistan could be retaliation, invading Saudi Arabia could be considered retaliation. But I am at a loss to understand how invading Iraq has ANYTHING to do with retaliation for 9/11.




Yes, those damn Canadians. After all what kind of friends are they? They sent fighters to patrol US airspace during the 9/11 crisis, they took in to private homes for days every single US citizen stranded after all international flights were diverted to Canada, they stood side by side with the US in condemning 9/11 even though Bush Jr. failed to mention or aknowledge the assistance given even once.

Those disloyal Canadians then commited themselves fully to the US-Led war in Afghanistan, sending our troops, support personel and highly valued special forces to fight alongside the US. Then when the US decided to invade Iraq, those disloyal Canadians insisted on evidence there was some actual justification for the war, and in absencse of any, said they would go to war against Iraq if the UN sanctioned such a war.

Sorry, what was your point about Canada again? Or was that just an ad hominem attack totally devoid of any facts or logic?




Well... every politically expedient terrorist anyways. I note no additional pressure was put on the KKK for example, or in fact any terrorist groups on the planet that do not have some kind of middle eastern origin, but whatever.



Sadly, the people of Iraq were not terrorists. Many of them are now, or have at least passive support for Iraqi-based terrorists, but they were not before. Furthermore, if you were to compare Iraq's former government with every other nation in the middle east, they were probably the LEAST supportive of anti-western terror. Here is a pop-quiz, guess which Middle Eastern nation tops the list for every single measurable means of supporting terrorism?

Thats right, the US's government's old friend and ally good or ill, Saudi Arabia. Of all the money flowing to terrorist organisations out of the middle east, be they anti-Israel or anti-western, over 60% comes from saudi Arabia. Not to mention that this nation was the source of Wahabbism, the Taliban, most of the 9/11 bombers, Al Qaeda, most of the 'foreign fighters' in Afghanistan and Bin Laden himself.


What was it you were saying about the US and its unending search for terrorists again?

United States is not a Democracy, it is a republic.

The United States are also controlled by the oligarch, the white rich foolks. Either you are not aware of this, or you simple ignore it, but this is a fact anyone, american or other, would not deny (if they are sanethat is). Are you telling me that United States is a Democracy, where the votes of the people are counted? (Not only WHITE votes, but everyones)? Did you just say that? Did you ? Just wondering.....



Find the ones that did it?

OR

Take a long hard thinker on WHY anyone would do this to you. Could you just happen to DESERNVE IT?
Could your policies have put you in this situation ?
Could your disregard for other people and only self-centered interest put you there ?

I am just wonderig Blingice. Do you think the 9/11 incident was just pure malice from some "bad" people whom just picked United States at Random ?

Is this what you think Blingice? Just wondering here......



Thank you for getting some support.



And insulting the Canadians, which is one of the biggest allies you have is.. ehm.. Insulting ?

It reminds me of all the insult United States have given their Biggest Ally trough time.. Do you know about them? FRANCE.. Yes indeed, France has been United States's most forefront ally during your entire existence. Very amusing and for different reasons. And what you have given them, does not even come close to the insults Canada, as a country and people are getting now.


ThankYouVeryMuch

Yeah, everyone's vote is counted. Show me some evidence that only white people's votes are tallied. Since you don't live in America, I know you would know that there is no race box on the ballots. "Check here if you are white. If you are a minority check here." Did you know that democracy=republic . My, we are learning a lot today. Maybe you didn't notice that the past two Secretaries of State have been black.



No of course they picked us for a purpose. We're the richest country in the world, aside from Luxembourg, and we aren't a country that predominately follows Islam. That is why they hate us. Is this justified? No. And if you say that 3000 people that just went to work on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 deserve to die, then you probably should be posting somewhere else, like a terrorist forum.



Do you have any idea why I am saying that? They are all defense. The French and Canadians are pacifists, and perhaps a better example would be Switzerland. I don't think that France has been our best friend in the 230 years of the US life. Britain is a pretty good friend. France just helped us in the Revolutionary War out of spite against Britain because they were enemies at that time.

You know what is really funny, Eric? It's like you say "Burger and fries is the best lunch." and I say "Hot dog and chips is the best lunch, and I like to have a Cherry Coke with it." You are just responding to the Cherry Coke part of my responses to you.



You are welcome, because normally people pay me for me to educate them this much.

Vermillion, I'll respond to you later because my stomach hurts because of the laughs I got from EricStanze's posts.

A paper democracy, anyways.



Attacking a country=terrorist?



What about all of the other countries that employ self-interest in geopolitics? Why should they avert the wrath of the crusading Muslims?

After reading the two articles I say it has made us less safe so far but more safe if a stable government can be set up. That is a BIG if. Assuming a stable government can be set up then I think the world would be more safe in the long run. I'm not sure how much time must be given before anyone can consider Iraq a victory that has helped make the world safe, but I hope it's soon.

Unfortunently, I feel that invading Iraq has made us less safe and will continue to for a long time. In the summer of 2004 a summary came out which stated that the number of terrorist attacks had increased since our invading Iraq and since 9/11 in general. As has been stated about a million times, you can't fight terrorism in a traditional sense. It needs to be fought with intelligence and secretiveness. As someone stated before in this topic, we used a sledgehammer response when all we needed was a scalpel. Also, when you look at the terrorism problem one must see it globally, not just what's happening in Iraq. I would wager many more terrorists have been recruited and trained outside of Iraq since the beginning of the war than before the war.