Intro


This forum is going to cover the war on terror, our reasons for fighting it, where we stand today, what we can do to win, and most importantly why many of us still believe winning is so important. This is without a doubt not only the biggest issue concerning Americans today its also one of the most controversial. To keep this neat I'm going to subdivide this into sections, if it is too lengthy feel free to skip to the section that interest you, this will be the longest post I've ever done , and it will cover a lot so I don't expect everyone to read it all in one sitting, if the length doesn't get to you my strong support for this war just might.

However I'm going to take what seems to be an uncommon approach with some people and try to have as much open dialog with the opposing political party as I possibly can. Far too many in both political parties are only willing to see things from one viewpoint. I'm going to try and keep the dialog fair. I'm a conservative, republican in support of this war however , and while it will be from the viewpoint of a right wing war supporter, I can sympathize with those that have given up hope with this and I understand how unpopular this war is. I will state things in this post which are factual, and present my opinion on these facts, and Id like to hear your viewpoints, whatever they may be.

Its been frustrating for me watching the failure we have had in the last 3 years in particular regarding this war, and I'm quick to acknowledge that many conservatives in power have made mistakes regarding the war in Iraq in particular, I'll disagree however with those who claim that one of those mistakes was deciding to fight the war, and I'll explain why later.

With Iraq being such a huge part of the war on terror in my opinion, this post will discuss not only Afghanistan but particularly Iraq a great deal.
My goal with this post is to share information I have learned in the past as well as in the last month off and on writing this post, about this war and why people do support it. I feel often times people who do support the war are misunderstood, not by everyone, but I have heard some far out remarks from some. One of those remarks being that those who support this war don't substantiate their viewpoints with facts near enough, perhaps being the reason why this post will be as long as it is.

So what are the facts? We are at war, people are dieing, and most disturbing of all mistakes have indeed been made. These facts as well as These painfully obvious mistakes are far to easy to point out, because that is unfortunately the sad truth about war. In war people die, and in a war any mistakes made lead to more death. What someone is doing in pointing these things out however, is not describing the nature of this war, but the nature of war in general.

What is hard is to find reasons to support the viewpoint of "fight a war till its end". Two obvious reasons to support war would be you either like death and destruction, or you don't like death at all but you also believe that this planet is not the Garden of Eden and sometimes you have to fight for what you believe is right. The latter means you have to truly believe the stance in which your nation has taken as well, and that while it may not be a perfect stance, it is at its roots a good one. This is what I have come to believe as an individual but we all vary.

Due to this post length I decided to color code everything and give this post a legend. The post length has actually been downsized to prevent it from being to long to read but its still a bit long however and I wanted things like links, quotes, and titles to stand out. Each section will contain a set of debate questions that are relevant to that particular topic. Think of each section as if it were a post of its own. Each section goes into moderate detail on it's subject, and nearly all contain multiple links. This post actually contains 95 links total so it should be a pretty good source for info whether you are for or against the war in Iraq or the War on Terror as a whole.

Legend....


Red = Links containing media either in audio or video form are indicated with red.
Light Green = All other links are indicated with light green. I tried making the actual links colorized but it didnt seem to
work so I did the next best thing.
Dark Green = Follow up Forum questions are in dark green
Maroon = Section titles and all quotes from other sites. If I didn't personally write it, it will be maroon as well as the titles.

Section 1. What Justifies our reason for fighting the War On Terror, with all its sacrifices considered ?



I'm often asked as a supporter of this war, how many people are you willing to say sacrifice to win? At this point with things as grim as they are how much death is enough? Did we even have a justifiable reason to enter Iraq? There are many good questions I've been asked about this, and the most I can
do with this one is offer my opinion and what I believe as an individual, based on what I've read and heard. This section will contain a couple links but basically just offers an explanation behind why many still support the war, while it clears up a couple misconceptions at the same time.

To me its hard to know why anyone would say "don't fight Al Qaeda" after what happened on 9/11, Iraq is a bit more complicated and I can see where the skepticism directed at Operation Iraqi Freedom is coming from, the decision to go into Iraq, in early 2003 was thought by many to be a mistake from the get go, I myself understand it as a mess given the strategy we choose, and the time we did it, but Iraq was a concern for a number of reasons, however, most of all it was Saddam Hussein himself, and his regime, and they both needed to be addressed and had we done this a little differently, as I'll explain later, we could be far better off than we are now.

First off, do I believe there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Early on I considered it as possible, but there was never really any proof for this, that I've heard of, and in recent years I haven't been too concerned about it, the War On Terror, is just that, a war on terror, not necessarily a war on Al Qaeda alone. They may be the most important part of the War considering, but once you know what many people understand about Saddam Hussein you will see why he was such a threat to the lives of potentially millions in the middle east, and therefore to global economy as well. To some these may sound like some bold claims, but I'll back them in the sections to come.

Another motive for going into Iraq that was often mentioned was the strong possibility Saddam had WMD, a topic I will cover in greater detail in the next section, We never found them of course so that really only leaves 1 primary reason that justified our going into Iraq, and thats of course Saddam and his regime as well as the fate of Iraq itself being a great concern given its close proximity to other nations of high interest to us.

All along even from the very beginning it was no secret that our primary objective was to topple the regime of Saddam Husein, and help them to achieve a stable democracy to help insure he wasn't replaced by another raging madman, or that the country did not become a safe haven for extremist. To help show
that this administration is currently not inventing reasons to stay in Iraq, an argument I've heard before many times, I'll post two links.

First off if you've never heard anyone say "we are fighting for a lie" or "this administration invents reasons to keep us in Iraq" I can assure you people are saying both, Do a Google search on it and you will see. Some go as far as to relate the fact that we never found WMD, to this lie they say we are fighting for. Almost as if they understood that our sole reason for going into Iraq was WMD, which was not the case, in fact it wasn't even our primary reason for going.

Anyway here are two solid links dated early 2003 that both clearly state exactly what our objectives were at the time, and remember The war in Iraq began on March 20th of 2003. So what exactly were they saying in March of 2003?

(Text Link) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR303A.html

(Text Link) http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_rep...p;language_id=1


This quote is from the first link which was written at the very start of the war.....

On March 20, the United States began its military campaign against Iraq. The self-stated goal of this action is
to remove the current Iraqi government and replace it with a U.S.-friendly regime. Washington has also expressed
its desire to occupy Iraq until the Middle Eastern state is stable enough for self-government.

More is stated at both links for those that are interested. Of course as the situation changes, you make some necessary adjustments, but there is no flip flopping going on here. So that for starters debunks the concept that the Bush administration was somehow misleading the public with WMD, he mentioned them of course because they were a great concern at the time.

The primary reasons for fighting a war in Iraq as far as I can tell never changed at all, the Bush administration simply over emphasized the importance of WMD in comparison to replacing Saddam's regime with a stable democracy when making public statements. A costly mistake that perhaps lead to the confusion we see today.

So to wrap this part up, is our fight in Iraq, and against Al Qaeda worth the sacrifice? My insight on both is yes and here is why, Concerning Al Qaeda (primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan) I believe justice has not been done, and they are not afraid of us in the least. In fact they are embolden by our division here, and they knew that effecting Americas morale was their only card to play, and in fact they played it well. I believe if we don't reduce Al Qaeda to a weak collection of supporters that we will see another attack here within the next 5 years or so.

The extreme anti war enthusiast in America, who regularly don't even make sense to your average Democrat will often say that no war is worth our involvement as a nation, because we can never eliminate every evil dictator or every possible threat to our security.

For these individuals I easily can say this was never about destroying every Al Qaeda member, just like in other wars the objective was never to completely eliminate a rival nation, its just not practical or necessary, so this by no means is Bushes quest to eliminate any potential threat to the U.S. but we need to drive fear into terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda just as they have done to us, on our soil, because the truth is, after WW2 Japan for example knew the consequences of their actions, and we have never been bombed by them since that time. Taking action and not backing down with Al Qaeda is as important as action against Japan was in WW2 in my opinion.

I don't mean by dropping another H-Bomb but we should do everything we can to reduce them to such a weak position that perhaps like Japan they will no longer want to kill people on our land either. This is why you stand up to those who are either a threat to us directly, or those like Adof Hitler who were more of a threat to millions of innocent people who needed our help. People like Hitler and Saddam or even Napoleon Vanderbilt will go as far as the world lets them go.

To talk about Iraq, I believe it was important for a number of reasons, to sum it up I'll use the stack of cards comparison I have on other sites. I often equate Saddam's regime to a stack of cards slowly growing in height, where every card represented a new supporter of Saddam, and potential threat to the surrounding area. What we did in 1991 in (Desert Storm) was give the stack a decent blow, however we failed to take out the one most responsible for building the stack, so what did it do? It slowly began to grow in height for a second time.

Now one might ask why tip the stack down at all, doesn't that create a mess that includes kayos and death? The answer to that is of course it does. However the problem as I see it is this, ask yourself what happens to a stack of cards slowly growing in height day by day. What would happen is if left alone that stack of cards very much on its own would collapse and create a mess, but this time having grown so large that the mess it creates would be much greater than if we had tipped the stack ourselves at a time that Saddam's support was fewer by the numbers. Saddam has more than proved he was a valid threat capable of ruthlessly slaughtering thousands and how much of a threat he was after Desert Storm between 1992 - 2003 is something I'll get into later in more detail.

Many that agree his ruthless nature was reason alone to go to war in Iraq may now be wondering what the hell we are doing with all this being ancient history? A fair question Ive heard many times, the idea is to stabilize Iraq and set it up with a gouvernment that wont fall back on the madness of the Saddam regime. Had we left immediately there is no telling what kind of leader would have risen to power or what their intentions might have been. The goal is one that would help the decent people of Iraq live a better life and a goal that would help us a great deal as well by having an ally in the area we can depend on, to help us with more serious threats like Iran and Al Qaeda, who are also Iraq's enemy.

Given Iraq's proximity to Iran and Afghanistan, what better than to have a strong allied nation in the heart of the middle east? Many say Iraq is the difference between winning or losing the war on terror. So who that is creditable supports this war today? There will be many links in section 6 of this post that describes the positions of some very influential people. I know that not everyone supports this war, but I want to focus on many that do, to help better explain, for one, why I and so many others still hold support for this war effort.



________________________________________________________________________________


1. Was our decision to go into Afghanistan to eliminate Al Qaeda necessary or justifiable?

2. Was our decision to go into Iraq necessary or justifiable?
________________________________________________________________________________


Section 2. Did Saddam Hussein have WMD, furthermore was he even a threat?


This is an interesting topic I have commented on before here and its important to know why he was a threat, and whether or not he had WMD near the
time we went in to find them. There is no doubt he had these weapons early on, they were used after all, but before I get into that, I'm going to list some
interesting statements from a few key people who today don't support this war for various reasons. This is to show how much of a concern this was even to those whom today are determined to suggest this whole war in Iraq was a mistake, now the fact that we never found WMD is irrelevant, below you will hear things like.....

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare""" and """Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region.
He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations"

Thankfully he never was left unchecked because this man was not to be taken lightly and everyone knew it, this was more about the arrogance of Saddam and his regime, and the probability that if left alone he would repeat the arrogance he has proved capable of. There would have be no sense in ignoring him given his track record which I'll explain soon.

here are some quotes from a few people who are now skeptics of the importance of the war in Iraq ........







So to give you as little spin as possible here, Saddam being a valid threat was the lefts opinion almost as much as the conservatives at the start of the war. So we found no WMD, and there was some incorrect intelligence, however despite this not many were willing to take chances with a man who had thousands upon thousands of deaths to his name already. In 2003 pretty much everyone got it, if you give a man like this an inch he will take a yard. It was only when supporting this war meant you take a hit in the polls that support wavered. Furthermore and most importantly everyone at the start of this war more than understood exactly what we were going in there to do, unlike some claim, and that it involved more than WOMD, as well as long term commitment as this link that I presented earlier proves again.... (Text Link) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR303A.html

Before I get into WMD specifically Id like to talk about Saddam, who he was, and why he and his regime were a threat regardless of what we found or didn't find, regarding WMD. Many of the arguing points I hear from those both against this war and Dessert Storm is that, why do we care what happens today when we were firm allies with Saddam before, or why do we worry about him having WMD, didn't we give him these WMD?

I've yet to see anything that is proof that the United States gave Saddam Hussein the weapons we went in to find, or that we were the ones most responsible
for him obtaining these weapons. The most I can find is evidence that we gave him funding and supplies which were later misused as well as used for
purposes in which they were not intended, the following is from.... (Text Link)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction




Citation for this is here.... (Text Link) http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...ome%2Dheadlines


"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector. "But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."


Naive? Perhaps so but Beyond this, elaborations have been made by some anti war enthusiast that range from, we are responsible for his WMD program, to something else I've heard and thats we flat out gave him the weapons. Now I'm no expert but I'd just love to see some proof for this, I doubt its there but I will look at anything posted to determine for myself, however my research got me no closer than I already was to believing that. Are we partially responsible? Yes we are, but to elaborate on this we were far from being Saddam's sole contributor here, others that funded Saddam's military before 1990 include, Germany, The United Kingdom, Russia, France, Italy, Brazil, Austria, Singapore, Spain, China, Niger, Portugal, and even Egypt among others.

This can be further read about at the WIKI link I just provided, so the truth is Saddam betrayed and lied to a number of nations about his intentions. I have strong doubts we were even Saddam's primary external source for aid at the time, Ive heard the Soviets were but like I said I'm open to links and open discussion on any of these topics. However the one most responsible for Saddam's WMD ambitions was Saddam and that much can't be argued.

My question is when someone continues to prove their arrogance and evil nature, is this not reason to turn on them? I think so. In fact it seems to me
Ironic that primarily the ones making the argument that we were responsible for aiding Saddam in the 80's, are also the ones in many cases who were against our efforts against Saddam in the first place. I hear it all the time, anti Iraq war Americans continuously pointing out that we were allies with the Saddam regime in the 80's but why point to our hypocrisy here on this? Would have continuing to support Saddam Hussein really been all that much better than a late decision to turn against him? Better late than never if you ask me.

For those who are unfamiliar with Saddam's crimes as a man and as a leader the WIKI link I provided talks about this a great deal but I'll post some more
after explaining these figures here. To put it shortly this man was not bad "which would sooner describe your dog urinating on your carpet" than it
would a mass murderer, I believe he was evil and there is really no other word I can think of that describes Saddam Hussein more accurately.

These are the words of Saddam's own former military adviser, who knew Saddam very well, general Georges Sada......
(Video Link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBwzQYAGbqs


This is at the end of this video conversation between General Georges Sada and Sean Hannity.....



Hannity: Do you think Saddam is an evil man?

Georges Sada: Ah, Yes to a certain degree I think he was.


Other things you will learn about Saddam from that video clip, is that he aparently had WMD up to just prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2003, so here you
have a highly decorated war veteran who was the 2nd ranked pilot in the Iraq air force, as well as one of Saddam's top military advisor's, saying Saddam Husain's had WMD up to just prior to our invasion in 2003. That Id say is pretty convincing, so the question is how did he know this and is there any other evidence beyond General Sada that might suggest the same thing?

The answer to that shockingly enough is YES, even the CIA speaks of the possibility of WMD being shipped to Syria just prior to the war in Iraq, being a possible reason we didn't find these weapons.

Furthermore the idea that we found no WMD, when we went in to find them, meaning that he didn't have them, or that he didn't have the interest
in them is a distortion of the facts. All we do know for sure is that we dint find them in 2003, and we had intelligence at the time that suggested it would be unlikely we would find them, however beyond that there is no claim that he wasn't a great concern for his interest in developing WMD, and on top of this nobody in the CIA that I know of ever said that the fact that we never found these weapons meant that he didn't have them.

For one we cant account for these weapons, we know they existed in high numbers and thats not a theory, what we don't know is if they were all destroyed in the 1990's. Some even believe these weapons may have been buried at sites that apparently we never even looked at...

(Text Link)http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23bel...nyt&emc=rss

Given this alone, it makes it hard for someone like me to understand someone who claims there were no WMD in Iraq just like that, then presume to base a great deal of there criticisms on this war on that shaky notion.

Beyond the places we didn't look at in Iraq, others believe the remaining weapons were Shipped elsewhere. Here is evidence that the CIA had at least some reason to suspect Saddam Hussein shipped his remaining WMD to Syria just prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in early 2003....

(Text Link) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=38371

from this link here is part of the conversation dated May 6, 2004.......



Here is the same conversation from.....
(Text Link) http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1047 to further its credibility.

So who is John Loftus?

(Text Link)http://www.john-loftus.com/bio.asp



Apart from what John Loftus said, furthermore two of the men that were the head of the Iraq Survey Group, for the CIA, themselves both hint toward the
possibility of weapons being shipped to Syria. Neither demote this at all, and since some anti-war pundits seem fixated on quoting these two individuals in an attempt to discredit the Bush Administration with their belief there was no justified reason for fighting this war I'm going to be straightforward and honest as I can here, by stating that both men do in fact believe that there was faulty intelligence here, and they both have their doubts that Saddam had WMD at the time we went in, however what is not being confessed by those who are spending so much time using the comments of people like this to demote this war, is the full extent of what they do believe, so I did some research. To help take the spin out of this yet again here is what both believe regarding our going into Iraq.

This is from Wikipedia about David Kay (former head of the ISG in search of WMD in Iraq).......
(Text Link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay



So how about Charles Duelfer who wrote the famous "Duelfer Report" used by so many to Demote bushes war ambitions? What did he think? Pretty much the same as David Kay, he says there was faulty intelligence but supports the great concern for Saddam with conviction.

The quote below is from...
(Text Link) http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200410/0...007_159245.html




I have looked for an actual copy of the Duelfler report but unfortunately I could only find segments of it and assessments of it. If anyone has it, I would appreciate a link. To continue this section I will show further information about General Georges Sada who served under Saddam, and list some of the crimes that made Saddam such A concern.

General Sada is important to this particular subject because he served as one of Saddam Hussein's top military advisor's, and additionally he was 2nd ranked
in the Iraqi air force and knew Saddam Hussein on a personal level. So what he says is of some significants to this case, because he was in a unique position
to observe Saddam. So I'm going to share with you video and audio clips of General Sada so you can get a feel for who he is, because this is not a man that
strikes me as a phony or a liar, this simply because he has no left or right wing political agenda like so many in our media or gouvernment do. He is still an Iraqi citizen therefore who it is that looks good or bad in America to him is quite irrelevant. I've posted some of these clips here on a couple of occasions but I will do so again here because this is very interesting stuff.

First for fun here you have General Sada on the Daily Show with John Stewart, this was interesting to me because Stewart is considerably more difficult
on conservatives in support of this war than he is of left wing America, yet I do give him respect for this episode where he has General Sada on his show making claims that as John Stewart put it "Gets the Bush Administration off the hook" Given its the truth of course. Naturally John Stewart had his doubts, no surprise there......

(Video Link) http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/sada-tds.wmv (Daily Show)

Here are a couple more short video news clips of General Sada Speaking of WMD among other things....

(Video Link)http://theredvoice.blogspot.com/2006/05/ge...orges-sada.html (Hannity interview,) (listed above)

(Video Link) http://www.kxmc.com/video.asp?Articl...4&VideoId=3449 (kxmc news)

Here are the most in depth interviews I've heard with General Sada, You learn a lot more about Saddam Hussein here than just his WMD ambitions, you learn a lot more about General Sada as well, very very interesting clips. They are audio, but you will learn some things about Saddam Hussein you might not have previously known. There are three audio clips total at this link.........

(Audio Link) http://exposetheleft.com/2006/03/15/sada-interview-2/

The audio clips I just presented from exposetheleft.com are consistent with every other link I am including on Gen Sada. So while Sada's testimonies may serve the purpose of a right wing site like the one above, I don't believe there is any reason to think this man has some right wing agenda. All His testimonies from what I've read everywhere have been consistent.

Lastly on General Sada a couple text links, the first talks about an American POW of Iraq who vouches for General Sada, the second speaks of many things discussed in previous video and audio clips........

(Text Link) http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/06/18/did...go-to-syria-pa/



(Text Link) http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06036/649858.stm

So I have gone over General Sada, John Loftus, and two men who were the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, and Charles Duelfer all talking about Weapons being shipped to Syria by Saddam prior to our invasion.

To be more Specific , General Sada says he talked to the pilots themselves who shipped the WMD to Syria in late 2002, so he claims he knows for a fact Saddam had them just before we invaded and that Saddam moved them out of Iraq for that very reason, He knew we were coming! On the other hand David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and John Loftus, condone this as a real possibility, leading me to believe there was obviously some intelligence for them to make that claim. Rather Ironic that some of the top dogs in the CIA as well as a foreign General of Iraq all talk about the same thing. However If either David Kay, Charles Duelfer, or John Loftus have taken back their claims that weapons could have been shipped to Syria in late 2002, in recent years I'm all ears, but I couldn't find anything like that in my research.

Since I do love doing analogies I'll equate this to a NARC team ready to move in on crack house. Think about it, the NARC team tells a drug lord several weeks in advance that they are going to raid his house for drugs, what does the drug lord do? Move his drugs out the house where they cant be found, or leave them there to be discovered by the NARC team? To me its not rocket science, it would be smart to move the drugs in advance, and the truth is Saddam Hussein knew we were coming, the whole world knew we were going to war so the question is if you have something to hide, and you knew for a fact someone was coming to find it, what do you do? To me the answer is obvious but maybe thats just me.

It is true however that many of Saddam's WMD were destroyed between 91' and 2003, but if you ask me from what Ive read, there is no reason to believe a man as evil and cunning as this would not hold on to some of these weapons, and some of the testimonies I've presented here paint a pretty convincing picture that he could have shipped his remaining weapons to Syria just before our invasion in 2003.

It may not be proof, but I'm hearing people constantly saying this war was a lie because Saddam never had WMD, as if there proof for that. There is more reason to believe he had these weapons until late 2002, than evidence saying he didn't have them at all around that time. Reports stating he didn't have these weapons, state facts based on what we didn't find when we did go in to find the weapons. I think they were shipped out of Iraq and there is some evidence for this, but the truth is that as of now we really don't know either way if he had them recently or not, and at this point we may never know for sure. Thats the truth, the only untruth I see here would be basing ones belief on this war on the sole assumption that Saddam had, or didn't have WMD in 2002, when we really don't know.

Now WOMD aside, was he even a threat, and if so who was he a threat to?

Its probably fair to say that he was not really an imminent threat to the United States, thats not what I consider a pin headed left wing remark, I can understand that criticism. From what I can tell there was little reason to believe he would attack the U.S. on our own soil anytime soon. However it was certainly a possibility, friction between the U.S. and Iraq increased dramatically after Desert Storm.

However this train of thought misses the whole point, and It's easy to take the comments of our President too literally, Saddam was a threat to us because he was a threat to the middle east more than anything, and therefore a threat to our progress in this war in the middle east. The actual geographic position of Iraq relative to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and Iran, among other nations made him a great concern given our war was, and is still being fought in what was quite literally Saddam's neighborhood.

Iran for example has been particularly troublesome for us for decades. The Iran, U.S. Hostage Crisis of 1979, during the Carter administration was one of many clear indicators of the tensions between us.
(Text Link) http://www.historyguy.com/iran-us_hostage_crisis.html

Today Iran is governed by Muhammad Ahmadinejad, who has publicly stated that he wants Israel (our Ally) wiped of the map, among many other crazy things. So anyone as radicalized as he is, developing Nuclear Weapons is certainly a concern. He absolutely loathes America as well, as can be figured from this link alone... (Text Link) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../i114353S68.DTL Iran is also currently funding terrorist in Iraq to help them fight us.

So A healthy Iraq means an Ally for our ongoing concern with Iran and in times like these keeping Iraq an ally makes sense, but its also good to have a strong ally in Iraq for our concerns with Al Qaeda, many in Iraq obviously have as much reason to fear Al Qaeda as we do, so taking out Saddam and stabilizing Iraq was important to us for reasons like this more than anything.

So the story goes Saddam was a threat to our security because he was a potential threat to our progress in a war being fought in his neighborhood which had a goal targeted at ensuring Americas safety from Al Qaeda. After Desert Storm Saddam did things such as attempting to assassinate George Bush Sr, so how he felt about America was no secret and therefore had we attempted to address any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq Saddam would have obviously resisted our presence and may have gone as far as interfere with our presence in the middle east outside Iraqi borders.

Apart from that, as a secondary concern many say this has been a war for our profit, this is not true because this goes far beyond the best interest of the U.S. alone.

Beyond the stability of Iraq being in the best interest to our war effort, its also a war for global stability and thats the more accurate way to put it, and yes this is partly because most of the worlds oil supply is in the middle east, giving dictators there the ability to affect not only the economy of the U.S. at will, but the economy of countless other nations. Japan for example is even more dependent on foreign oil than we are. To put it simply, To keep the area from falling to pieces, makes this a war of prevention if anything, not a war for profit. Unless of course someone here has some kind of creditable evidence that shows we are steeling foreign oil instead of paying for it like everyone else.

Before I get anymore sidetracked the main reason in my mind he needed to be taken out and Iraq needed to be taken seriously, is because he was a mass murderer, he has killed outside the context of war, and broke probably every rule of the Geneva convention from the ground up, and he didn't bend the rules or flirt with the limits like many claim our president has, he flat out made a mockery of the Geneva convention and thats not really debatable.

Personally I wouldn't feel good at all for a superpower as strong as us standing by and letting someone like Saddam, who was a mass murderer, run a barber shop let alone a country with a military, no matter how strong or weak that military might have been at the time. To me this is the bottom line, and primary reason I believe taking his regime out was the right thing to do, the genocide and death he has caused makes the sacrifices we have made worth it, given we finish this thing the right way of course.


His track record is described below, in the number of deaths he has caused with WMD alone, and sources will follow.....





Keep in mind that all this occurs during his rule, he began his presidency in 1979. These deaths listed above do not state the death he has caused without WMD but more war crimes are stated in the links below. The worst part about this is once you start reading up on Saddam you realize how much death and terror he spread outside the rules of the Geneva Convention and in many cases outside the context of war altogether.

He has gassed the Kurds for example on some occasions just to set an example that he should not be opposed. Ali Hassan al-Majid, was one of Saddam's military strategist and advisor's, as well as his cousin. Together they devised a plan to kill as many Kurds as possible in Halabja (a town of 70,000). The plan was simple and it was also carried out.

The plan was drop some conventional bombs loud enough to scare most civilians, who by now are accustom to conventional attacks, into underground shelters. After that, heavily bomb the city with mustard gas until the air is highly saturated. This Heavier than air mix of toxic chemicals then seeped into the lowest points, like the underground shelters where the innocent hid to protect their lives. Little did they know these shelters were to become their coffins.
at least 5,000 men women and children die instantly, and 12,000 within 3 days.
(Text Link) http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html

So in one short occasion Saddam caused a death toll that is 4 times higher that the current American death toll for this entire war, and he did this in 3 days and most the people he killed were non combatants who were unable to defend themselves in any way. We should have taken him out in Desert Storm for this, because this man needed to be taken out and I cant see this any other way considering what I know about him.

Beyond this Saddam has been known for various other things like having personally executed those who oppose him, or in many cases simply for saying something he didn't like. This can be gathered from the audio testimonies from General Sada I posted above. This man was in fact very much like Adolf Hitler in his mentality. His military strength was only a fraction of Hitlers of course but anyone with that mind set is dangerous.

Various sources for War crimes of Saddam Husein to support the facts stated above.....

(Text Link) http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm
(Text Link) http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm
(Text Link) http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internati...dam_hussein.htm
(Text Link) http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhus...sseincrimes.htm
(Text Link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction (link listed in prior section)

To end this section, was he still up to no good after Desert Storm? The answer is absolutely, people dismiss him far too easily time after time, but if your a skeptic or think he is made out to be worse than he really was yet you've made it this far into this section I hope you learned something you didn't know about him, because I think those who dismiss him as a concern in many cases don't know his history, I touched on that so I'll wrap this section up with a little info that shows this was not a man who learned his lesson after Desert Storm.

Saddam and his regime suffered great losses and loss of power after Desert Storm but did remain in control of Iraq and still had great support despite the U.S. encouraging Iraqis to stand up against Saddam, and despite his losses, he still had a formidable army and most importantly the mentality of a mad man.
After Desert Storm In 1993 Bill Clinton ordered 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles to be fired at the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in response to an Iraqi plot to assassinate George Bush Sr., for interfering with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991...

(Text Link) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl...line/062793.htm

This plot was foiled thankfully, but this alone shows Saddam and his regime still had the will for violence, and that much had not changed. Left alone to do as they pleased they would have had not only the will but also the way, just as they had before we first turned our focus on the Saddam Regime in 91'.

A couple paragraphs from the report linked above ...



So two years after Desert Storm he was already up to no good but there is more worth mentioning. Operation Desert Fox in 1998 was initiated largely because of Saddam's plan to fit a L-29 jet with storage tanks that would carry 300 liters of anthrax (a form of WMD). We uncovered evidence for this in the form of the jets themselves in 1998, so this was a real threat. This evidence is mentioned in the first link below, its a long PDF so just search for the word Drone to find the relevant part. The second and 3rd link further back this.

(Text Link) http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/resea...99/rp99-013.pdf
(Text Link) http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/cfsp-01-t-07.htm
(Text Link) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

This is from the second link, obviously dated a bit because this is an old story but from what I've read at a handful of links to cross reference this, these stated reports did not change. If anyone has info that says otherwise I welcome you to post it..........



So there is compelling evidence he had been working on delivery systems for his WMD as late as 1998 before we struck some specific air bases in Operation Desert Fox, after that much like in Desert Storm, his strength was obviously reduced yet again, but the hilarious thing is the only reason his military abilities struggled to recover after Desert Storm is because we took an interest in him! Id say thats a bit of irony considering that some of the the anti war in this nation will continuously state that taking action in Iraq in 2003 was unnecessary because he was not a valid threat. I don't believe he was not a valid threat but just to entertain the idea, if that were true Ironically its only true because we took action against him and was taking him seriously.

Its Ironic that taking Iraq seriously over the years is the only thing that has prevented Saddam Husein from repeating what he did in the late 80's and early 90's, where he killed so many innocent people, yet taking him out of power by going to war somehow a mistake, that doesn't make too much sense to me but perhaps I'm making a straw man argument, its obvious to me people who don't support this war have different reasons for their position so I wont put everyone in the same boat. Saddam not being a valid threat, as a reason not to have gone to war in 2003 is something I have heard before however, and that is one position I don't think I'll ever understand.




________________________________________________________________________________




1. How long after Desert Storm do you believe Saddam had WMD, and why?

2. Do you believe Saddam was a threat to the middle east?

3. If so, do you believe this means he was a valid concern for the War On Terror?
________________________________________________________________________________


Section 3. Who is our enemy today, and realistically how much of a threat are they to the United States?


Our primary Enemy in the war on terror is Al Qaeda, most people know this already, but many Iraq war critics try and nullify the strong Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and the overall importance of Iraq to Al Qaeda. Almost as if they have somehow come to the conclusion that Iraq has little to do with the War on Terror. I'll be very clear by saying that much of the death in Iraq is caused by sectarian violence, there is no denying that. However I have heard people on this site as well as other sites claim that there is little or no Al Qaeda or Taliban in Iraq, in their attempt to find yet another thing to dismiss this war in Iraq as having any relevance to the War on Terror.

For one Much of this sectarian violence that is not occurring directly within Al Qaeda or the Taliban, is inspired by them and I'll get into that a bit more soon.
Secondly whether or not Al Qaeda had ties with Saddam and Saddam helped plan 9/11, something I don't believe, Al Qaeda has always had an influence in Iraq regardless. Iraq is important to both Al Qaeda and even the Taliban to an extent and anyone who doesn't know this can go to any of the following links to find out more. The Taliban is probably your least present in Iraq but attacks are reported from them as well.......

(Text Link) http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64344.htm (This link mentions various nations, including Iraq and the role each nation plays in the war on terror)

(Text Link) http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65275.htm (A very informative link that describes various terrorist groups such as AQ, AQI, the National Liberation Army, among many others groups, and describes what they do, and how they formed.) AQI is short for "Al Qaeda in Iraq". Some of the groups listed there Ive never even heard of but its interesting research.

(Text Link) http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1198.html (A Taliban attack in northern Iraq)

(Text Link) http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/25/...llah/index.html....... (Taliban military commander Mullah Dadullah speaks of Osama bin helping plan the suicide car bombing outside Bagram Air Base targeting VP Dick Chaney)

(Text Link) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle671477.ece (about AQI actions against women in Iraq)

(Text Link) http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/200...r_journal_2.php (mentions Iran arming the Taliban in Iraq)

(Text Link) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0070110-7.html# (audio/video of bush speaking about Iran activities in Iraq as well as other things just prior to the surge)

(Text Link) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...0tybar.asp?pg=2

(The last link above is important because it displays Comments from both Bin Laden and Zarqawi that place Iraq in their minds as the center of the war on terror. This obviously shows that our enemy believes this as much as our president claims it. That info is also at .gov links.)

So Our enemy today is primarily Al Qaeda, the Taliban as well, also Iran, not to mention the Shia and Sunni violence in Iraq that has become such a concern, among other elements like the left over loyals to the Saddam regime, and every single one of these forces has strong presence in Iraq, each at different levels of course but If anyone says they don't have presence in Iraq they are either lying or don't know for sure either way. I'm not sure why some assume this, in my eyes the only reason can be they don't agree with this war but in any case I just heard 4 star General Pertreas on T.V. say that most of insurgent driven violence in Iraq is Al Qaeda based. This in all cases does not mean violence directly under the power of Osama Bin Laden, because Al Qaeda has gone through many changes in recent years, but the links above should more than help to substantiate the fact that all these forces have presence in Iraq, making Iraq a great concern.

Now those who will tell you that sectarian violence in Iraq is responsible for most the death there, which in turn places us in the middle of a civil war are speaking in half truths in an attempt to show how the war in Iraq was a mistake. Of course sectarian violence is a huge factor in Iraq, but in many cases if not most cases this violence is inspired by Al Qaeda or (AQI) which has great influence in Iraq. Again the links above help prove this.

The obvious way one could debunk that is by saying that our presence in Iraq attracts these enemies, well I suppose thats true to an extent, not surprising actually, but that area was a mess before we ever touched it, and that includes before Desert Storm so lets not kid ourselves. However lets look at that argument for a second and suppose we had been stationed primarily in Afghanistan for the last 4 years. Wouldn't our enemies have collaborated there efforts in Afghanistan leading the anti war in this county to make the very same argument that today they make on Iraq? Its not hard to find a reason not to support war, but wherever you are fighting a war your enemies will obviously fight back, thats a given.

I say compare pre-Iraq war, Iraq, to post Iraq War, Iraq, rather than comparing the condition of Iraq before the war to the condition of Iraq during the war. That logic just doesn't make sense. To point out that there is more violence now than before the war started is true of any war and just makes me want to slap my forehead every time I hear it. Its a war, its violent. I wish it were as easy as having a slice of pie with the Jeffersons on a Sunday afternoon, but unfortunately as we all know War = Sacrifice and War = Death I really wish that weren't the case.

Sarcasm aside, Al Qaeda is highly splintered today and more widespread than it was, this was due to a flat out poor war plan, not the decision to fight the war. Many new names of interest have come into play. Its probably fair to say that our decision to go into Iraq without being properly prepared to deal with both Iraq and Afghanistan simontaniously is partly to blame. This doesn't mean Iraq was a mistake it simply means we used, and stuck with a weak plan for far too long. I'll get into that in a later section in great detail.

To make this section informative, I'm going to state some basic facts here about the following 4 threats we face that are relevant to the war on terror, those
being Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran, and Shia and Sunni sectarian violence in Iraq, and how much of a concern each are and why. There are other factors as well of course but I will stick to the most threatening starting with our biggest threat......

Al Qaeda

(Text Link) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm (Al Qaeda general info)

Al Qaeda originated strictly as a mid eastern group of radical Jihadist lead mostly by Osama Bin Laden at first. The organization found its roots in the late 1980's in rebellion to the 1979-1989 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviet retreat from the area, was Al Qaedas first notable success as a network but certainly not their last, in August of 1990 Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait, and this is where this story gets interesting.

Kuwait's military pales in comparison to Iraq's, so in seek of aid against Saddam's invasion they had the choice of getting the support they needed from the United States, or from Al Qaeda who was also offering to aid them. As we all know they opted for the support of the Americans, and Operation Desert Storm begins, and the rest is history. Now this really ticks off Osama Bin Laden, because he states that only those who live in the holy land can defend the holy land. A bit of old fashion jealousy if you ask me, but in any case this is when Al Qaeda aggression toward western interest begins. One of the most significant Al Qaeda funded attacks before 9/11 was the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, a 1.5 thousand pound bomb was was detonated in the parking garage of tower 1 killing six people. It failed to bring down the WTC which was their intention.
(Text Link) http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

Since that time you had more Al Qaeda driven attacks against western interest both before and after 9/11 although the only other attack that occurred on our soil after 1993 was on 9/11 itself. I wont get into that much because we all know what happened.

Now the most interesting foiled attack after 9/11 was the 2006 transatlantic aircraft bombing plot. I mention this one because it shows the benefit of our post 9/11 interest in terrorism. With so many apparently insisting on focusing on all the reasons our foreign policy's are leading to American soldiers dieing, few who make these criticism are willing to admit that things are not so black and white, we have accomplished many things that should be noted.

So what does a foiled plan to blow up multiple jumbo jets on route to the U.S. have to do with us when it was the the British that made the arrest? Simply put, British authorities would probably not have had the knowledge they had about this if it weren't for things like the Patriot Act or the Terrorist Surveillance Program or (TSP). This is from (Text Link) http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/archives/109/29836.pdf





Only weeks after Al Qaeda verbally threatened to attack British airlines, this plan was attempted but really never had a chance of working
thanks to the fact that we had intelligence on it well in advance.

Today Al Qaeda remains a valid threat however because of the influence of men like Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or Taliban inspired radicals who are born in places like Europe or even the U.S. convert to extremism while often quoting and following there mid eastern Idols.

John Walker also known as Hamza Walker Lindh, is a good example of this, he was born an American but was found in 2001 fighting for the
Taliban. Which brings me to.....

The Taliban

There is actually from what I know of both these organizations, little difference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban fundamentally. In fact they have been working together to reach a common goal to see their oppressful way of life prevail over that of westernized nations, or the Muslims who oppose them.

One notable difference is that the Taliban is more localized than Al Qaeda, both operate largely out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the reach of Al Qaeda is far more global, otherwise their ideologies are very similar. More on the Taliban can be read at the following link but to put it shortly they are a threat and this is particularly the case when it comes to our forces fighting in Afghanistan and much like Al Qaeda it is far to easy to not take organizations like this seriously, until of course that mind set quite literally blows up in our face as it did on 9/11.

(Text Link) http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

Iran

Iran has been a great concern to the U.S. for much longer than either the Taliban or Al Qaeda. As we all know this is a Nation, not an organization contained within a nation, so they are potentially our greatest threat to homeland security if they decided to launch an attack against the U.S. because they have the most ability militarily. Today they play it smart and channel their anti American agression by helping terrorist in Iraq defeat us, rather than attacking us directly. To go to war with Iran would be no joke, Irans military consist of over 500,000 active troops, and over 300,000 reserve troops. They also have notable air, ground, and sea forces consisting of many of the technologies we use, such as UAVs, fighter jets, guided missiles, submarines, ect ect.

Now our military by far does dwarfs Irans in every aspect but I wouldn't jump into signing a declaration of war on Iran unless absolutely necessary. Thankfully not everyone in Iran buys into the rants of their president Muhammad Ahmadinejad. Also This guy thankfully doesn't have quite as much power in Iran as our president does here in the U.S. In Iran the president is second in command. More about the structure of government in Iran can be seen in the illustration at this page......... (Text Link) http://www.iranchamber.com/government/arti...re_of_power.php

Now he does have power and influence and this fact alone makes him a great concern to us given his track record. While its not as bad as Saddam's it certainly is enough to raise some eyebrows. Apart from the things he has been accused of and has done, its also some of the things he has said. This guy is out there, no doubt about it. He has said things like "Israel will be wiped off the map" "The holocaust never occurred" or in other words millions of Jews didn't die in WW2, "We don't have gays like in your Society" In other words the U.S. is corrupt enough to have gays but Iran with a population of over 70 million people doesn't have a single homosexual. Ok obviously the words of a disturbed individual with a superiority complex and a hatred for nations like the U.S. and Israel, but is he dangerous?

(Text Link) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4543720.stm (an article that speaks of Ahmadinejad's ban on American music, and him calling for Israel to be wiped off the map)

As far as if he is dangerous, I believe he has already done a great deal to inspire an anti American mentality in Iran and even Iraq, that alone is dangerous.
Many believe he took part in the Iran hostage crisis that began in 1979 and lasted 444 days. 52 Americans were held hostage, and this event I read was all over the news at the time, and some say our failure to deal with the situation effectively was part of what prevented Jimmy Carter from being elected a second term. Eight Americans died in an attempted rescue operation that failed, and this event made relations with Iran shaky ever since. So if the current president of Iran was involved with this, as half a dozen of the former U.S. hostages claim they recognized him, then that shows he is willing to stoops to some low levels.

(Text Link) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5063000215.html

There are other skeletons in his closet of course, much more than I'm going to list but the fact that he is encouraging suicide bombings is about as interesting as how Iran is funding terrorist in Iraq fight us......

(Text Link) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3118456,00.html (Evidence that Ahmadinejad is encouraging suicide bombings)

The following links show details on how Iran has been funding and arming terrorist in Iraq to help defeat the United States.......

(Text Link) http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2567
(Text Link) http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0725/p01s03-wome.html?page=1

So we know they are clearly fighting against us in Iraq and this should come to no surprise. Iran has been a concern to us for decades, and probably will be for decades to come. I think in this case we need not play coy with Iran, if they are sending weapons into Iraq for insurgents we should do more to meet them at the border to prevent this sort of thing. Like I said, I personally don't believe invading Iran is necessary at this point but if they want to pull this crap with us and play innocent martyr while they aid terrorist to fight us in Iraq then we should answer back by standing our ground on the Iraq side of the boarder at the very least. I wouldn't be against blowing up a weapons transport crossing the Iran/Iraq border into Iraq.

Iran's nuclear program is another factor, they are in one of the most oil rich nations in the world and they live in a country that is underdeveloped technologically. Producing Oil based power plants would be far more easy for them given its both an abundant recourse their as well as being far easier to produce than nuclear power plants. So why are they trying to enrich uranium is what so many are concerned about? To me it doesn't add up unless you consider they are probably trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

To me thats also a bit unsettling when you consider Iran's president has stated multiple times that Israel will be wiped off the map. Would someone like Ahmadinejad be that stupid though? I suppose thats the million dollar question, afteral a decision like that would initiate a massive war against his own nation, but on the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if they obtained a nuke that they would use it, or sell it to someone else that can use it for them. History has shown that people like Saddam and Hitler have no value for life. Ahmadinejad could be the next if they actually manage to develop a nuke, he is already actively engaged in aiding terror cells in Iraq so thats something to consider.

The Last factor I'll mention in this section is....


Shia and Sunni sectarian violence in Iraq

To moderators who may read this I realize that religious dialog is not allowed here, I can not however hope to explain sectarian violence in Iraq without explaining the nature of why they are fighting, but if anything here is too religiously specific and crosses the line in any way please let me know and I will remove it.

Now this form of violence is often used by Iraq war critics to claim we are in the middle of a civil war that has little to do with Al Qaeda, therefore we have been mislead in Iraq by this administration. Lets talk about this, who are these Shia and Sunni's and why are they fighting? Whats their history? I'm not going to put up a front and make any false claims that suggest we are not currently in a situation that is both unique, and out of control. Despite some recent progress things are in fact messed up, but lets talk about the details in a fair manner.

To state the basics, the Shia and Sunni are the two largest religious denominations within the Islamic Religion. Much like Catholics and Baptist are denominations within the Christian religion. They follow the prophet Muhammad, I'm not an expert on this but I have read that Muhammad did for the Muslims what Jesus Christ did for Christianity. He restored faith in the religion by being a messenger of god, however after his death there was ever since a division between the Shia and Sunni as to who best represents the prophet Muhammad as well as their God.

As one could imagine just as in any religion you have some who wish to unite, while others intend to divide while forcing there own methods upon others. This is and has been the story of the human race ever since the dawn of reason when people first began to wonder about their origins, and in turn a variety of thinking evolved.

Now since Al Qaeda and (AQI) are almost entirely Islamic Sunni's as we know, we are for all practical purposes talking about the same thing here. A Muslim who is not an official member of either Al Qaeda or AQI yet kills in the name of his or her religion, is fighting for similar if not identical reasons to those who are Al Qaeda members. Many fighting amongst themselves in Iraq are often considered this separate entity, people claim we can fight Al Qaeda but we cant fight Muslim extremist in Iraq.

I say if you fight a war you go after the root of the problem, and the root of the problem in the War on Terror in the middle east are Muslim extremists. We were attacked on 9/11 by Muslim extremist, and we fight them everyday in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's neighbor Iraq was appropriately considered a great concern for the Saddam threat as well as the number of Muslim extremist their.

People like Bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi say they don't differentiate between the average working man in New York or a military commander. Unlike them of course we should differentiate between combatants and not combatants, but I don't believe we should differentiate between a terrorist in Afghanistan, or a terrorist in Iraq. My reasoning? Well its the same Region, the same Religion, the same aggression, so in my opinion the same problem. We may not have been attacked on our soil directly by Saddam or directly by Muslim extremest from Iraq, but most these extremest do however have no problem with killing the innocent and they collaborate there efforts to fight us in the middle east in our response to a problem we could no longer afford to ignore after 9/11, and we need to take them seriously and fight them back or this war is lost.

Al Qaeda in Iraq layed out the following plan, available at this link...
(Text Link) http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65275.htm (link listed above)


Description
Since its official statement declaring allegiance to the al-Qaida terrorist network in October 2004, the group identifying itself as Tanzim Qaidat Al-Jihad in Bilad al-Rafidayn (Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers), better known as the Zarqawi Network or al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), has lost dozens of lieutenants and high-ranking network members through Coalition and Iraqi security force operations.
This group is most clearly associated with foreign terrorist cells operating in Iraq and has specifically targeted Coalition forces and Iraqi citizens. In a July 2005 letter to al-Qaida deputy Zawahiri, AQI leader Abumusab al-Zarqawi outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq war to include expelling U.S. forces, establishing an Islamic authority, spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbors and engaging in battle with Israel. Consistent with their stated plan, groups affiliated with Zarqawi also were linked to regional acts of terrorism, such as the Sharm al-Sheikh bombings in Egypt in July, the Aqaba rocket attack on the USS Ashland in August, and the multiple hotel bombings in Amman in November.

In addition to Zarqawi’s foreign recruiting efforts, the network likely is receiving material support through al-Qaida. In addition, local criminal activities also fund many of the Zarqawi Network’s actions. There are reports indicating that the network steals cars and uses ransom money from kidnappings to fund its terrorist activities. In Mosul alone, Zarqawi affiliates are reportedly responsible for more than 1,700 attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces over a three-month period in 2005. Many of these attacks were suicide and improvised explosive device (IED) attacks using cars and other motor vehicles driven by foreign fighters or locally recruited Iraqis trained by foreign fighters. Like some Zarqawi operations, these attacks often targeted Iraqi Shia in an attempt to incite sectarian violence.


(AQI) is a serious problem and I don't believe we can afford to ignore them or their Ahfgan Constituents.







________________________________________________________________________________


1. Do you believe it should be a priority of ours to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, and or other Extremest in the middle east?

2. Do you believe that we benefit from acts such as the Patriot Act, or the Terrorist Surveillance Program? Or does this violate
civil rights? (Please Explain)

3. Do you differentiate between a Muslim extremist in Iraq and a Muslim extremist in Afghanistan?

4. Do you believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons?


________________________________________________________________________________






Section 4. Has there been Success?


There indeed has been much success in this war, a fact that many don't realize, or perhaps think is conservative propaganda, or think it wasn't enough Success. I fall under the (I don't think it was enough) category, myself. There obviously hasn't been enough success otherwise we would have won by now, but I'll talk about some of the things we have accomplished as well as some of the things we are accomplishing now in the war on terror, including both Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I'm going to first go over what we have accomplished in recent years, followed by what we are doing today. To start this off here is a video clip from one of my favorite news show host Glenn Beck that states many of the things we have accomplished in prior years and it makes some good points...... (Text Link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74zSDKvibkg

these accomplishments as well as others can be learned about here........

(Text Link) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114684,00.html .......... 2004
(Text Link) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20051222-2.html ........... 2005
(Text Link) http://131.84.1.90/archive/2006-04/20060425am1.html ............ 2006



Some of the most notable accomplishments in prior years, excluding recent events, are the following, which can also be read about at the linked sites, as well as other .GOV sites

(This is Quoted from a previous post of mine at another site about a year ago, the info having been gathered from a .GOV site)






Now the fact that we eliminated a ruthless dictator (Saddam) who was well described in a previous section as being more than a concern to countless people, whatever schools we may have rebuilt, or jobs we have created, and whatever progress we have made in numerous other areas, does not justify the fact that we have been losing this war in prior years, but the ever growing threat of our retreat will make any progress in this war we have made, made in vain.

We live in a society today with more doubt in their gouvernment since the war in Vietnam in my opinion, so what good do linked accomplishments (originally stated by that gouvernment) about the war, become to an American public, that are tired of the bullcrap, and tired of seeing the death related to a war we have fallen short in for years on end? Very good questions, and I, as a supporter of this war wonder similar things myself, I support the war because I don't want the accomplishments we have made, to have been for nothing, along with all the death being for nothing. I don't support the way its been fought in prior years however and I'll get into that more when I wrap this post up.

To end this section, whats happening now as of 2007? Is there a noticeable trend that things are now getting worse than they were? Is there evidence that progress is being made? If so is it enough progress and what will it mean in the long term? My answer to that is there has been noticeable successes, especially recently, as was made obvious in public statements made by General Petraus and our president, but we have a long way to go.

Regarding the troop surge the following link states what the common opinion of generals on the ground is, and is dated Aug. 26, 2007.........

(Text Link) http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47184

In this you will hear things like the following quotes from (Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, USA).......



To further back this, the following was stated at the pentagon on August 24, 2007 at the following link........

(Text Link) http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/tra...anscriptid=4028

By Maj. Gen. Lynch in Iraq via video teleconference from Iraq, the entire thing can be read at the link above....




So to read things like this from Generals on the ground, only to look on online forums throughout the web and hear many anti-war enthusiast claim that this troop surge has flat out failed just like that, really does nothing but undermine the ones who are in the proper position to know whats going on. It really makes me wonder where some get their information. I believe there are people in this county who do not want to see this troop surge succeed, they really don't and perhaps they gave up a long time ago, I don't know. I'm taking no extreme standpoint at this point. I'm not going to say the surge has failed and I'm not going to say its succeeded because the facts at this point say neither.

In any case there has been an increased amount of success in recent months and this is fantastic news that came not a minute too soon. Check this link for interesting figures and stats on the current violence trends in Iraq... (Text Link) http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=355

People in both our media and gouvernment as well as the public however have often said either this war plan is failing or has already failed, there are countless individuals who make comments such as these but all we know right now is that there is some progress being made in some providences in Iraq, but political progress has been slower. I'm going to be realistic, there have been a number of failures in this war to date, and the Iraqi gouvernment has a long way to go. I don't ignore this kind of thing. It would be nice however to hear from the hardcore skeptics that yes the report was better than I had thought it would be.

Despite the most stubborn skeptics, I know for a fact by talking to people personally that being an Iraq war critic does not make a person, rash, unrealistic, or uneducated. Many people are simply tired of the failure we have all had to deal with, but on the other hand I've seen people out to confuse and mislead at the same time. This occurs in both the liberal world and the conservative world, and I wish it weren't the case, but I suppose that comments from people like this just have to be taken with a grain of salt.

The next section will be relatively brief and will state our abilities as a nation to help back what is probably the most important topic regarding The War on Terror, that being, what we can do to win this war.

________________________________________________________________________________


1. What level of success or failure do you believe we have seen in Iraq?

2. Do you trust the testimonies of people like General Petreus, when they indicate that progress is being made in Iraq?
________________________________________________________________________________




Section 5. These are facts and figures that state our abilities as a nation, for reference in the section below.


This section will be strictly informational and I'm including it to prove without a doubt that this nation is strong enough and resourceful enough to win this war, if we lose it will almost certainly be because we pulled out and lost our will to fight. In theory this country is probably resourceful enough to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Not that I want that, or think its necessary, but In light of people claiming this nation can not win this war, I counter that by saying not only can we win it, if we had to we could fight another war right after this one.

Any failure thus far can be linked to two things, Poor planning, and more recently our own division as a nation on this issue has become a second factor, one that can go as far as lose us this war.

First the two links below will start with a WIKI link on superpowers, followed by one Citation link for the information it provides.


(Text Link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower#_note-20

(Text Link) http://www-stage.foreignaffairs.org/199903...superpower.html

Below is a section from the WIKI link above in regards to the U.S.


After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 that ended the Cold War, the post-Cold War world is widely considered as a unipolar world, with the United States as the world's sole remaining superpower. In the words of Samuel P. Huntington, "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power — economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural — with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world.

In two sentences, that says a lot about our position. To talk about the relevant factors to war lets start with the...

American Economy

The (GDP) is a measurement of all the goods, materials, and services produced in a certain amount of time for any given country. In the united states it was upwards of 13 trillion dollars worth in 2006, and will be higher this year.

That is the highest of any given county, in comparison Japan is ranked 2nd and had a (GDP) of 4.3 trillion in 2006. Most nations Have a (GDP) in the billions, rather than trillions per year. So what that tells us is that we have an economy that can produce far more goods, materials, and services than anyone by a factor of 3 and that is one of the most important determining factors for whether or not any given nation can have the resources to fight another nation or organization. Which brings me to...

Military Budget

We spend more on defense per year than anyone by an almost ridiculous amount. The estimated military budget for 2007 in the U.S. is 528.7 billion dollars, and ranked 2nd is The United Kingdom who is estimated to spend 59.2 billion in 2007. This is also obviously a plus, being the reason we can fund the most advanced Military in the world. That kind of money is available only because of our (GDP) per year is so high. Simply put, our gouvernment is taxing the nation that can produce more goods and materials per year than anyone else, giving our gouvernment the ability to fund things like the Apollo moon program of the 60's and 70's for example.

The U.S. military ability as a Whole

I'm going to be quick with this because there is obviously a lot I can cover here but I'll let my links do it to prevent this post from becoming from becoming a short book. In short the U.S. military is the strongest in the world in almost every aspect, The number of troops we have may be second to China, but our Navy, Air force, War Communications techniques, Intelligence, and most other War technologies, are light years ahead of anyone, and there is no arguing that. Furthermore we have the 3rd largest population of any county at just over 300 million people so no shortage of potential recruits if they are needed.

Some claim this nation is stretched to the limit militarily despite all this strength but this is not entirely accurate, in fact I don't even consider it mostly accurate. The next section will talk about where the premise for this notion that we are stretched militarily is coming from and why it is not going to be a determining factor in this war. With all our combined strength, if we lose it will be because we quit. There is really no other way I see it happening. Below are various links that back the figures above, followed by one of the most crucial topics I'll cover.

(Text Link) http://www.globalfirepower.com/
(Text Link) http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2006/d20060206slides.pdf
(Text Link) http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap3.htm
(Text Link) http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Global_annual_...36;1.2_trillion

________________________________________________________________________________


No Debate questions for this section, they will be included with the next section.
________________________________________________________________________________


Section 6. What did we do wrong, and where do we go from here? Can we achieve victory?


This is a frustrating issue for me. I'm in a position where I hear day in and day out that war supporters have stated no clear definitive plan for a win, but I'm going to debunk this with info and links that show that the truth is much closer to... Many people have stated clear plans for a win but those that make the comment that nobody has stated these plans, simply don't agree with the plans, don't know about the plans, or have heard so many others say this that it becomes like second nature to say there is no clear definitive plan for a win. Many people say this, there are however plans that have been stated by those who would know the most about this particular topic. Before I get into that lets talk about what we did wrong. Why have we been failing in Iraq, and Afghanistan in prior years? This is important because it will help us to understand how we can correct that mistake.

Now I've talked about this here before but this time I'm going to cite Generals, Governors, Senators, as well as other independent sources that show without doubt that the primary mistake we have made military was one of Insufficient troops in Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan. This is the primary tactical mistake we have made and at no time in this wars 4 year history, even after the surge, has there ever been the proper amount of troops on the ground according to most who support winning this war. Now those who don't support winning obviously say we don't need troops there at all whi