Looking at this news story, it came as no surprise to me at all that the two presumptive major party candidates for the Presidency are running neck and neck:

Bush, Kerry Still in Close Fight

However, I found this to be rather unexpected:



Besides the poll question for debate, I'd like to know why you think there has been such a dramatic shift in the poll numbers. Is it just an emotional reaction to the increased level of violence in the area? Or is it a rational appraisal of the current situation?

Personally, I'm leaning to "Little or No Change," and I think both factors are involved in the shift of public opinion. I suspect it would shift back the other way if the region calms down in the near future.

When I read polls and opinions like this one I just put my hands on my head and think, oh my god, a god I dont believe in that is, but there is no other way to describe it.

Has Israel and Palestine ever 'calmed down' enough to come to a lasting solution? What do americans know about terrorists? We dont ever consider the 'whys' of Islamic terrorism but repeat ad nauseum rhetoric about freedom hating.

Islamic terrorism has a reason behind it. Most terrorists were US supported at one time, or their prospective countries used by us to further our ill begotten gains at one time or another against others. We have made the worst friends and subsequently turned our backs on them when no longer neccessary, supported oppressive regimes such as The Haus of Saud, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Hence, common people have turned against us, with no army to crush us, just an objective and means of carrying through. Its the same as an army, we simply call it by another name for convenience.

US public opinion has little to do with reality at this point, because we are on the defensive, regardless of those who think we are on the offence, it is not true. We are now trying to kill mosters WE have made, and we believe ourselves righteous despite our own past decadence.
We are swayed by emotion from the deaths of our own, have no problem killing 3 times that in 'collateral damage', yet polls will indicate we arent too sure of our objectives, with good reason. We arent too sure of our objectives.

To fully answer the question, there is no doubt in my mind that that the Iraq invasion caused a great deal more terorrism in the world. As for the whys of public opinion, that would be american public opinion?, the breeze blows one way, its all good, the breeze blows another, its all bad, not in-depth thinkers for the most part, so polls are arbitrary.

My own opinion on the shift in poll numbers has to do with the gathering of bits & pieces by a collective mind and arriving at the unmistakeable conclusion:

Iraq has been a big waste of time and resources.

It's a hard conclusion to face, so the numbers admitting to this are still lower than I'd expect. Well, I don't really expect much from this collective mind anyway.

Part of this shift probably has to do with the attempts of the White House to brickwall investigations into 9/11, but the most emotional is the rebellion of the Iraqi people. I imagine the attack in Spain has something to do with it. If there were to be another attack on US soil, that'd probably clinch it.

The Bush administration is looking more incompetent due to unrealistic idealism and denial of reality to more people. Most people understand that we did not go to war to free Iraq from Saddam. We went to war to protect our own tushes.

Now that a majority is starting to see this, the next step is to get rid of the unrealistic idealists and put in a team who will work to bring the troops home ASAP.

I imagine most people don't care what happens to Iraq at this point. They are adults over there -- let them figure it out. They've got a lot of buddies in that region; let them put up the flesh and money.

But might not some dictator like Stalin take over? Blood bathes & killing fields & so on?

Yep, but that went on before and people here still didn't care. We did not invade Cambodia or Russia. Somehow things worked out in Vietnam, and that's what people are starting to think now about Iraq (so I think).

In addition, the so-called liberal left doesn't have a bleeding heart this time around. That seems to be on the right side of politics, and it really doesn't play well over there. Nobody believes this Bush administration went to war to benefit the Iraqis. That play is not in the book.

So all this comes together and becomes reflected in these poll numbers. It indicates that people want us to focus on protecting our own tushes from terrorism.

And most importantly, lives.

This was supposed to be a war to put down a rogue nation that was a growing threat to supply terrorists with WMDs. I never bought that line and I think the administration has worked hard to change this war into "the world is better without Saddam Hussein"

We now have our military resources open to attack in two locations and spread so thin that I believe we are in danger should a new threat arise any time soon.

I read this story and was not surprised at the numbers.

I do not think the war has helped the war on terror in terms of rounding up the bad guys committed to acts of anti-American terror. But it has provided ample recruitment videos for people who might be persuaded to become radical anti-American muslim fundamentalists. After watching the footage in Falujah (sp?), wasn't it believable that a young Iraqi man might decide to participate in a suicide bombing against a soft target in a western nation?

The war in Iraq did not improve the war on terror. It's best chance for long term success would be if the nation-building (I seem to recall a prominent politician decrying the concept of nation building ) in Iraq did produce a viable, stable, and functioning democracy.

I see how that could have an extremely positive impact on the Middle East even if it was imposed by outsiders (Americans) But the odds against achieving the opposite and ending in failure like the British before us seems very strong.

These are dark times and I don't think the path through Iraq is the one toward the light.

One set of people consistently said that war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and neutralise his WMDs was a bad idea from it's first suggestion.

They said that the evidence for WMDs was questionable at best, particularly that they posed any kind of current threat; that any war would not be a quick one welcomed by the people but a long drawn-out affair opposed by many; that occupying forces would be a magnet for terrorist attacks; that a war would act as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism around the world; that corporate interests and influences in aggressor nations had to be exposed to provide clarity as to underlying motivations for war; and that ultimately it would be(have been) better to try diplomatic means a while longer.

The longer the Iraqi occupations goes on, the more it looks like this group of people read the situation correctly.

Their name?...



...France.

So, of course, the only option the US and UK can consider is to carry on regardless on the route we have already chosen. Not only would any other choice mean admitting we were wrong, it would mean admitting that *gasp*, the French *spit* were right.

But let's be charitable. In an historical context, even a broken clock it right twice a day. We don't have to all start eating snails and stop using deodorant (joke!) - just admit that the Bush and Blair administrations were perhaps wrong to do what they did when they did it, and mabye not vote for them in the upcoming elections because of that.

Perhaps we shuld demand a little more clear and public justification next time our leaders ask we go to war against a country that has not made war on us?

And maybe, just maybe, we should think twice before villifying an old ally, with such vitriol as we poured on France, merely because they disagree with us?

I have to basically agree with Eeyore here. There is a possibility that in the long-run our current invasion of Iraq will be successful. The odds are against it. My guess is that as long as we are there we will foster actions against us and that once we leave Iraq will be a stronger foothold for terrorists than it was before.

[/QUOTE]And most importantly, lives."

I'm confused by what you mean by lives. You see although the military signed up for a position entitling them, (myself included) for a potentially hazardous situation and a job partaking in protecting our freedom and way of life. We are totally encompassed by the 600+ lives lost protecting our freedom rather than the 3000 lives lost on september 11the a single day of people going to their everyday job supposedly entailing their dream or just for the support of their family and having it all end in an instant, due to an evil hopefully none of us can relate to. Now thats a small amount of lives in comparison with the many wars in our past of soldiers losing their lives for our freedom and way of life.

Now I ask you are we going to lose another 3000 lives or would we have already lost that many or more due to more inaction and appeasement.

Now although the question is "How has the war changed the Threat of Terrorism"
I see an overwhelming number of claims proven by the poles to have a very short term and innacurate account of such a broad question. Although it is a very opinionated question lets look at a time line and figure out how in ten years we may secure a more stable and peaceful life for our children as well as ourselves. Now stop being so selfish as to say our today life is more dangerous rather than tomorrow, look at the big picture and realize in less than two years saddam Hussein and his regime a provenly vicious dictator and threat to the free world has been pushed from power. Thousands of unlawful and terroristic humans (so-called) have been flushed from either existence (hopefully) or from a position of leadership or servitude of which all have no other goal but to destroy life and freedom and fight for destruction of democracy and glory of despotism.

I say: Our threat for terrorism is greatly reduced by an evil regime and even more by a threatening group of Al Queda and islamic fundamentalists, by reducing their power and to a degree taking back an extremely central area of the middle eastern communist powers. Especially in forming a more stable democratic government which i think is most important for our immediate and long term future.

Although "increased" is currently winning the poll, I went with "little or no change."

Iraq/Saddam was never a credible terrorist threat. They were a "potential" threat, a charge that never had to be proven. Well, unfortunately, all that "evidence" was incorrect/faulty/missing/whatever. Not a credible threat to us or any other country in the region. We had them bottled up.

Now Iran on the other hand....

Now North Korea on the other hand....



So, I'd say our actions in Iraq have tied up 100,000+ troops, but hasn't changed the terrorism landscape one bit. They'll still strike here again. They'll still strike elsewhere again. Nothing's changed.

Hugo, we agree on so little, but this is one of those times, so circle your calendar

Now, as to why I agree. If you're a student of history, think back to the history of Yugoslavia. A region filled with ethnic and religious wars, off and on, for hundreds of years.

Then Marshall Tito came to power, and forced a unification of the ethnic and religious groups in the country. The people were brutalized by the control the communist party exerted. People were angry at the fear imposed on them, and angry at the basic freedoms they lacked.

But, the people from different ethnic groups, once fighting each other for control, eventually learned to live together. Intermarriage became common, and a sizeable percentage of Yugoslavians identified themselves in census data not as Slovenes, Croats, Muslims or Serbs, but as "Yugoslavs." Under Tito, like any other Communist ruler, basic goods and services were hard to come by, but they all had roofs over their heads, a good education, and nearly everyone was employed. They made do with what was available.

In 1974, following pressure from across the country, the constitution was rewritten to grant increased autonomy to the individual republics. A federal presidency was also created, made up of one representative from each of the six republics; one from each of the two autonomous provinces; and, as the ninth representative, Tito himself, who was designated president for life. After his death, Tito’s seat would not be replaced. Instead, the leader of the group would rotate annually from one republic to the next.

The new constitution fragmented the Yugoslav political scene. As central party operations lost power to local governments, individual republics began to compete even more heavily for recognition and resources. Without a single leader designated to take Tito’s place, and amidst growing economic crisis, the stage was set for massive disintegration. We all know what happened after that. We still have troops in Serbia and Kosovo, to help quell the violence there.

Yugoslavia fell apart because of the political chaos that resulted from an inherently unstable power structure flailing in the wake of Tito’s death. Ancient ethnic hatreds were re-fueled in order to serve specific political purposes.

Now jump back to Iraq today. Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. While no one here will say that's a bad thing, Saddam managed a fair political trick of keeping the various factions in his country under control, and even working together, as necessary.

Meanwhile we are trying to put together a "democracy" in Iraq, with a multi-leader presidential body, trying to appease all sides of the religious and ethnic factions in Iraq, with strong local-regional control. Anything here sound familiar?

These Iraqi leaders are already beginning to bicker and argue amongst themselves over who gets how much power, and when. Local dissidents and insurgents, are now beginning to unite against US forces. But this may well be a "the enemy of mine enemy is my friend" type thing. Considering the long history of hatred between the Shiite's, the Sunnis and the Kurds, is anyone here really going to take a bet on their not resuming hostilities against one another at the earliest opportunity?

As Hugo said, there is a possibility of our being successful in the long run. But historically, the odds are far and away against it.

This is the type of rhetoric that frightens me the most. I stated that the most important cost of this event was lives.

Sure the loss of total lives pales in comparison to many human tragedies, but each life lost is lost to us forever.

Your post seems to claim that the war in IRaq is the same as the campaign to root out Al-Qaeda. I interpret the question differently. I feel that war is a bad thing but our campaign in Afghanistan was very important. I don't think we finished the job there, and that was partly because we waged this war against Hussein instead. He was a threat to the freedom of Iraqis, but we had successfully contained him in our previous foreign policy. Although that was a long term containment policy, I see an even longer commitment of US personnel to the region now.

Getting rid of one vicious dictator is not the same as lowering the threat of anti-American terrorism in the world.

Ahhh, but was it successful? This containment policy caused many of the very factors that led to the events of 9-11. And there wasn't anything on the horizon to indicate that would change. The longer these 'containment' policies went on, the worse the situation was going to be. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated due to our 'containment', Saddam was being forced to use more and more brutal means to maintain control--and much of the Middle East blamed the US for that. Now, you can argue the current situation is worse if you want, but I think you'll find it very, very difficult to justify calling the situation that was going on in Iraq a 'success'.

I share your fear, Eeyore - and would like to elaborate on it.


I can understand your confusion, then. If you are talking about the 600+ lives of American military lost in Iraq, those lost lives have nothing to do with "protecting our freedom and way of life". Nothing. NOTHING! How long are people going to keep believing this tripe?

When I saw Eeyore mentioning lost lives in the context of the question for debate here, I immediately thought of the minimum of 8865 civilians who have been killed in Iraq since our invasion started. Will this "collateral damage" have any impact in the Middle East on hatred toward America? Hell, yes. Should it? Duh. There's a difference between their hatred of us and our hatred for Saddam Hussein. We are responsible for taking those lives (the upper estimate is 10715) - every single one of them. Saddam Hussein was not responsible for taking a single one of the lives lost on September 11, 2001 - not one. In other words, their hatred of us is now rational and justified. Our hatred of Saddam in relation to 9/11 is irrational and unjustified. Strikes me as being a major difference.


Taking the "war on terror" to Iraq is not sane action. Failing to take the "war on terror" to Iraq could not be construed as "appeasement" by anyone. And taking the "war on terror" to Iraq could well be a guarantee that more lives will be lost due to the anti-American hatred which that action is inciting. I have cited several authorities elsewhere (here, for example) who have attested to the fact that our illegal invasion of Iraq will do nothing but foster more terror. From that posting:
I stand by every word I posted three months ago and, in the past few weeks, we have begun to see the fruits of our labors. The Sunnis and Shi'ites are united at last - in their hatred of us. (As I have been saying for over a year now that this invasion will only incite anti-American violence, I obviously went with the first option in the poll).


As the question here has to do with "the military action in Iraq", your mention of "thousands of unlawful and terroristic humans (so-called)" is irrelevant. If you are referring to Saddam Hussein as an "unlawful and terrorist human" who has been "flushed... from a position of leadership", I must point out that the only unlawful act he has committed in international terms (mounting aggressive war) is a crime of which our current administration is also guilty. And he was never responsible for a single act of international terror. By eliminating Saddam Hussein, we have done nothing to eliminate international terrorism. Not one thing.

Let's look at the real big picture as it actually exists on the planet Earth in the year 2004. When one looks at the fact that a meaningful "war on terror" has been virtually ignored due to our administration's pre-planned regime change in Iraq; that we have done little to effectively eliminate al-Qaeda; that Osama bin Laden is still at large; that al-Qaeda's activities have been driven further underground and that they are more elusive than ever; that we are actively inciting more acts of terror by our illegal action in Iraq and our ongoing support for the fascistic Likud regime in Israel; that we continue to support the House of Saud which is responsible for supporting more terrorism (including the September 11 attack) than an infinite number of Saddam Husseins; that we have been alienating allies left, right, and center; that we have fostered more anti-American sentiment around the globe than our previous five administrations combined; and that our disastrous foreign policy has lead not only to neglect of domestic issues, but has also helped to engender a budget deficit for which our children will be paying for generations, one really must ask: who here is being selfish - those who oppose the illegal Iraqi campaign or those who would rather settle old and irrelevant scores at a catastrophic cost than do anything to actually address terrorism?


You may say whatever you please. Again, your mention of "Al Queda and islamic fundamentalists" has nothing to do with the question here - nor has your mention of "communist powers" (how the hell did that bugbear make its way into this debate?) - and your presumption that our illegal invasion of Iraq will one day result in "a more stable democratic government" strikes me as being wildly unrealistic optimism.

Therefore, the only salient point you seem to be making here is "I say: Our threat for terrorism is greatly reduced by an evil regime" - by which I assume you mean the elimination of said regime (and, as it's the topic of this debate, I further assume that you mean Iraq). Well, go ahead and say it. It would be nice, though, if you could come up with even one fact which would support such a claim.

Back to Victoria's final questions, then:

Is the dramatic shift in the poll numbers just an emotional reaction to the increased level of violence in the area? Or is it a rational appraisal of the current situation?

On the basis of what I have said above, I would like to think that the American people are becoming more educated on this subject. Sadly, I suspect it has more to do with emotion than intellect.


And, yes, Hobbes, in terms of the threat of terrorism, I would argue that the current situation in Iraq is worse - far worse - than our containment efforts.

There's no way to accurately answer these questons. Today. Iraq is nothing more than an early battle in this war. Even if Iraq magically became a peaceful democracy overnight, it would be nothing more than an early battle victory. A significant one for sure, but still just a battle.

Terorists from around the globe have flocked to Iraq. This is a good thing. Defeating them there will take time, but will be worth the effort.

The enemy cheers on the appeasers, much like Stalin cheered the 'useful idiots' who fawned over Uncle Joe in his day. We've read their own words that show how fearful they are of any form of democracy gaining a foothold in Iraq. They rely on some of the recent weak moments in our history, like Somalia, to convince themselves that victory over the staunchest supporters of freedom can be achieved.

I guess we could sit back and cross our fingers (and uncross our legs) like slick Willy did for 8 years. After all, that only led to the belief that a massive attack could be pulled off on our very own soil with impunity.

The gutless wonders in our country who think we can defeat the evil in the world with mere words are mistaken. Actually, mistaken is giving them too much credit. The only thing they work to defeat is GWB. They place that above all else, including their very own nation. They would have us run away, just like they themselves do when the going gets tough.

YES, the threat of terrorism has INCREASED.

Now instead of worrying about letting the terrorist into our country, the terrorist go to Iraq(which has no control what so ever over enters the country)and use our troops for a shooting target.

Now we have 2 fronts on terrorism and we can't even take care of one. I wonder who got us into this QUAGMIRE?

Yep Eeyore, I was doing a gross understatement on purpose. There's a sneer behind the voice but not one bit of self-congratulatory gloating.

The hippies were right - again - whoopdedoo. Iraq is a big waste of time and resources.

Human resources as well.

Now we need to figure out how to win "victory with honor" or some other such rationalization for admitting a mistake.

I say we hand the keys over to Iraqis and get the hell out. There's nothing there worth fighting for.

Never was.

Some will say my words here demoralize the troops. I say bull stuff. What is demoralizing the troops are broken promises of their returns back home and uncertainty about futures.

And I'm not the one doing this to our troops.

Never wanted it.

Nobody (on up high) listened.

Nothing new.

Fire their evil-doing (although ignorant or incompetent or whatever) tushes.

Oh, and just to get this back to the subject of debate, I'll bet this is what a lot of the voters are thinking right now. A lot more than those who claim Saddam was a clear and present danger to the US and thus needed to be taken out because he was responsible for 9/11 and shutup your pie hole, it's only helping the enemy

Sorry, Passion51, but these statements are contradictory:



And...



Nice of you to volunteer Iraq as the next failed state on which to draw terrorists like maggots to fecal matter. Fostering a democratic way of life isn't easy without terrorists. I guess Afghanistan wasn't a big enough playground to square off. The good Iraqi people must feel honored our grudge spilled into their country with the secondary objective of spreading democracy at the end of a barrel. And to think we only had to bomb them into the stone age twice.

Thank you for validating my resentment towards the "necessity" of a global war, towards the shortsighted, ramrod foreign policy of this administration, and the loyalists that lap up the idea that real, significant change only takes place through force. You done good.

As for the topic, increased. As my sarcastic response already hints, political instability in the country encourages terrorist organizations and anti-American sympathizers to take advantage of the opportunity to establish power. If it means plowing over citizens that want a democratic Iraq, so much the better. The polls, however, will take stock of America's heart for a while yet, not its head.

I don't condone pulling out of Iraq completely. We've made a fine mess and we owe it our assistance with international collaboration. I could care less if Iraq raises a monarchy or installs a socialist government after we leave. American interests in Iraq are secondary to the happiness of Iraqi people.

I often hear of how the war in Iraq is to defend the freedom of the American people and how the US have brought freedom to Iraq.

Freedom?
When have the Iraqis ever threatened the freedom of the American people? … and concerning the freedom of the Iraqis it is the US itself who refuse to let them have democratic elections. The Iraqis are now under US dictatorship instead of Saddam’s dictatorship and the number of US mercenaries or “contactors” is superior to the one of the troops from the UK. One can only wonder the amount of human rights violations committed by such commandos.
The US is opposed to the democratic elections in Iraq for the same reason the first president Bush has let the Shias being massacred by Saddam after inciting them to revolt: The Shias represent the majority of Iraqis and a democratic election would more than likely bring a Shia cleric to power which would not be easy to influence and would not be concern in adopting policies that would necessarily please the US.

Please lets not get confused here. The ones who do not want democratic elections are the United States of America, not the people who are fighting them in Iraq.

This anti Shia policy comes at the worse time considering that Iranian people was trying to turn Iran into a democratic country. The invasion of Iraq and the repression of it’s people has certainly jeopardized this process by showing to the Iranians that the US haven’t changed since the Shah and that they should stay on the defensive. According to the show “cold war” from CNN the CIA was training the death squads from the Shah (the Savak) and teaching them to torture Iranians. I can’t believe that all the American people want to remember from Iran was the kidnapping of its embassy staff. Hasn’t the US done much worse to the Iranian people with the years of repression and torture the Iranians had to endured under the Shah? If the roles were reversed wouldn’t the American people done much more than kidnapping people?

Before the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda was formed of Sunnis and Whahabis, now we can expect that the war in Iraq has also added the Shias to the organization. By invading Iraq and abusing its people, by threatening neighboring Iran and Syria the president Bush has managed to unify religious groups that would never have accepted to cooperate without it.

For the people who do not understand the origin of Al Qaeda or the difference between Shias, Sunnies and Whahabis I would recommand to read “Taliban” from Ahmed Rashid (for the people who do not have the time to read an audio version of the book is available on Blackstone Audiobooks). Ahmed Rashid is a Pakistani journalist who spent a lot of time trying to understand Afghanistan his book also explains that the heart of Al Qaeda leadership is in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

What about fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship a la Iran? It's up to us if we will build new Iran or Kuwaiti/UAE style democracy.


We don't have to validate anything. 11th of September has shown us how far-sighted you isolationist dove foreign policy is. Better look like an aggressor, rather than get slapped in the face. If you don't learn from history, 7th of December and 11th of September is bound to recur. It's now or never, just about time to stop arrogant Islmist affront to US, and to the whole civilized world for that matter.


And political stability leads to stable flow of money to Palestinian suicide bombers from coffers of Uncle Saddam. Let's pull out of Iraq, AND Afghanistan then (since terrorist doen't like us being in Afghanistan either) to avoid irritating anti-American zealots.
In the time of war, you wage war. When someone slaps you in the face, you don't think how you can become nicer to this person so that not make this person upset with you. All you liberals have shown you true colors by burning American flag to show your "support" for the troops, who have to watch this &*%$ done by their fellow citizens on TV while figting Iraqi army and militia. It's always like that with you. American soldiers kill four civilians in the car that failed to stop a the check point - what a massacre. Iraqi Shia militia shoot Americans from A MOSQUE, send children to spot targets, use civilians as live shields during attack, attack foreign construction workers rebuilding their own damn countrry - perfectly normal. After all, they express frustrations of Iraqi people when they chop four civilians to pieces and hang them from the bridge like pigs.
Sick and tired of this dove/chickenish agitprop, what is this world coming to?

You call a theocracy with elections a dictatorship? What, you have to slurp Coke and sing along to Britney Spears to NOT be a dictatorship? Maybe that’s how China made the cut.

Yes it’s up to us while we’re there. What an Iraqi majority does with the ball after we leave is neither here nor there.



Funny. I’m not supposed to hold the Bush administration accountable for 9-11 but you reserve the right to use the tragedy as the conjecture for failed foreign policy under the Democratic banner.

Would you also mind if I said Clinton gave the CIA the green light for covert operations, signed an anti-terrorist agreement with Uzbekistan specifically targeting Osama, and proposed a bill that would freeze financial assets of organizations suspected of aiding AQ, only to see it killed by Republicans on behalf of big banks? The same bill GWB later signed into law? But Democrats are the only ones who play with national security for political gain. And would you also mind if I said I think Rice virtually blaming AQ for refusing to disclose the date, time, and target of their attacks is the height of apathy? Oh, never mind. I already said it.

I don’t like extremes. I hope you don’t mind (again) if I say a neoconservative approach is an unnecessary extreme that has only been able to get this far under extraordinary circumstances with extraordinary people.

The problem with a reasoning stating that avoiding the creation of a new islamic fundamentalist dictatorship a la Iran is necessary to avoid an other 9/11 is that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.

In fact it is the cooperation with dictatorships a la Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who are at the origin of the tragic events of September 2001. Ben Laden was furious at the idea of a cooperation of Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War (war which could have been prevented if the first president Bush did not let Saddam believe that he had a green card to attack Kuwait http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html) as he was convinced that the US troops would profit of this opportunity to create permanents bases in Saudi Arabia. In that regard he was right and the troops stayed there until the second war with Iraq.

On the other hand Iran has not attacked the US or shown signs of aggression. All Iran can be blame for doing so far is trying to protect itself from an eventual US invasion by building a nuclear weapon. Personally I don’t blame them as the US is showing much signs of aggression. If I were them I would do the same.

Attacking Iraq or Iran while it is the Saudis and the Pakistanis who attacked America on 9/11 doesn’t make much sense.

I'm curious as to how you draw the conclusion that 9/11 was the result of isolationism? The sad irony is that 9/11 happened because of the hate that was generated due to the complete opposite of isolationism. Just because we weren't busy colonizing the middle east doesn't mean elements of hegemony weren't present.

Our unwavering support of Israel, the stationing (and failure to remove after Gulf War I) of troops in Saudi Arabia, and many other non-isolationist policies in that region is what engendered the extreme hatred these groups were capable of mustering that would permit them to commit these atrocities. This is not a value judgement of the policies in any fashion, merely serving to note that our activity in this region for the last 30 years has been anything but isolationist.

And sadly, new generations of terrorists are being born in the middle east today as they watch our invasion of a sovereign nation and the effort to build it in our "democratic image" to serve as a model that all countries in that part of the world can follow.

I would say the threat is actually lessened. The main terrorist threat Al Qaeda has been hurt badly. Men and funds have been removed. And yes the men can be replaced but that takes time and money. With Saddam and his rogue regime gone we can rest assured that his WMD will not be sold or given to the bad guys.

The key issues though has not been fully addressed. The reason we are hated by these folks is clearly Israel.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11590

This situation is not improving despite the best efforts of Bush and BC. Until this is resolved we will be hated and attacked. If we have good intelligence we can stop and/or kill these terrorists before they cause mass casualties in the US. The mere fact that we have not been hit here since 9/11 tell you that we have been successful.

Not quite true. Al Quaida is certainly weaker now then they were in 2001, but that is because oft he war in Afganistan and the intelligence offensive against Bin laden and his supporters. THAT aspect of the war on terror I actually entirely support.

The war in Iraq has done nothing but breathe new life into the organisation, providing masses of recruits, a nation in chaos and ample US targets. It has allowed Al Quaida to present itself as a resister to 'US domination of an islamic country', which while it may not be entirely realistic, certainly plays well with those who have lost friends and family to US forces in Iraq.

Weapons, supplies, training grounds, all these things are now available in Iraq to Al Quaida, which were not before. Hussein was far more of an opponent of Bin laden then Staunch ally Saudi Arabia ever was.


Now, we have a state which has exchanged a dictator for a foreign appointee, and the people of Iraq have no more say in the political process of their own country now then they did two years ago. The US promises the sky in Iraq for the future, but wheither they have the capacity to deliver on any of these political promises is still very much in question. Given the increasing resistance to the US inside Iraq, it seems unlikely that military means will pacify the country. The last couple weeks have been the worst yet for US forces since they arrived there, and for the first time both Shi'ite and Sunni are actively opposing the US military backed government.

With US forces ties down there, Bush is now extending tours and looking to rotate troops in from elsewhere in the world, thus denuding other operations, such as the ongoing war on terror. Nations of the world, once united behind the US in the war on terror, are now starting to realise how misguided the Iraq venture is and backing away. Even the pitiful coalition of the willing is now losing members.

Lets be clear, many of these countries, such as France, Canada, Germany and so on: still actively support the war on terror. However the world has started to realise that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, and that rather it has made the situation worse rather than better.



Really? Firstly, despite many claims and prevarication from the hawks, we still have no evidence whatsoever that Hussein actually had WMDs.

HOWEVER, even if for a moment we assume he does, what do the Hawks say happened to them? One of the common theories is that they were smuggled out of the country and hidden somewhere, possibly in Syria. Possibly elsewhere... Or maybe they were hidden somewhere (laugh) but if so, now there is a significant international terrorist presence in the country, and they will be looking for these hypothetical secret buried WMD as much as the US will, and they are probably more likely to get the assistance of those Iraqis who supposedly buried them in the first place.


In fact the war in Iraq seriously CONTRIBUTED to the proliferation of WMD, IF they existed in Iraq at all. That is a lose-lose argument for the far right.

I don’t buy it. People in other Arab countries and in Iraq are not stupid. It is very obvious to the people in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world that the Iraqi people will soon be more free than any other Arab country. So exactly what will the terrorist organizations say to the free people of Iraq??? Come join us to kill Americans because they freed you from one of the worst butchers in history? Come on give me a break.

On NPR today they were talking to Arabs in Syria and Jordan who are obviously envious of what is happening in Iraq where the prospects for freedom are high and all they have to look forward to is the same old dictators.

Yes the terrorists will always be able to point to our support for their hated enemy Israel and recruit more folks willing to die but in the end the Iraq operation will do us nothing but good. One member of the Iraqi Council even said on NPR that G. Bush will be seen in the future as one of Iraq’s greatest heroes and liberators. After all these people have NEVER been free in 4,000 years!

The terrorists don’t need to import WMD to do significant harm to the western world, they are already there. Industrialized countries like the US have plenty of practically unprotected chemical sites that could be used as WMD. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/13/...ain583528.shtml

This is simply not the case.

Firstly, clearly people are happy that Hussein is gone, polls taken before this latest insurgency showed that a (bare) majority of Iraqis were happy that Hussein had been toppled.

However, you make the point that 'The Iraqi people are not stupid'. Indeed they are not. But the obvious inference there is that one has to be stupid to doubt the motives of the United States.

You say it is obvious: you mean it is obvious to you as a right-wing American. That has NOTHING to do with what is obvious or apparent to the people of Iraq. They may not have liked Hussein, and with good reason, but there is also good reason why the US spent 40 years being known as the 'great satan' in that part of the world. The people of Iraq, not being stupid, know of the unconditional and unilateral support for Israel in that conflict, they know that the US does nothing that does not serve its own interests.

The people of Iraq have been freed from a tyrant, and their government has been replaced by a series of appointees by a foreign power. Their lot in life may have improved (though that is still up for debate) but they have no more political voice now then they did before, and because Bush refused to allow any post-war planning to take place while the war was ongoing, there is no clear path to the next step. Iraqis, not being stupid, doubt that the US will leave, and they doubt that the US will allow free elections, as these elections would undoubtably result in an islamic government.

The fact is resistance against the US in Iraq is on the rise not on the wane, why do you think that is? Perhaps it is because 'smart' Iraqis do not like being an occupied country, and more than the US would. Al Qyuaida, now present in Iraq when they never were before, is taking advantage of this latent anti-US feeling, and presenting the US in the worst possible light, and as such they are winning converts to their cause. They are not saying 'Kill Americans because they liberated you from saddam', they are saying 'Kill Americans because they invaded and occupied your country'.

I know it suits the Hawks to present Hussein's Iraq as one ig concentration camp, but the reality is the average Iraqi had a very good life under Hussein before the sanctions, and a moderatly good life even after 1991. I am not trying to defend Hussein, he was a butcher no question. But do you think the average Iraqi who never tangled with the security forces thought that three years ago?

As for 'not being free in 4000 years': nice rhetoric, but what you really meant to say was: they have not been free according to the US definition of freedom, for 4000 years. Now why do you think that is? And what leads you to believe, given that very fact you just cited, that western democracy will sudenly hold and flourish here because the US, under the barrel of a gun, says so?

And forgive me if I do not take as gospel the praises of a US appointee who was appointed to his position ENTIRELY because of his sympathies with the US cause...

I believe that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism worldwide, because it will mobilize those that are on the edge of extremism to action. A "war on terror" is an oxymoron, anyway.

[QUOTE]Real war consists of one state going head-to-head with another. Each government tries to destroy the capacity of the other to keep functioning. Whoever loses this capacity first is forced to say, "I give up." Tamim Ansary, Alternet.org, 2002

Terrorists do not have to be organized, they are not limited to one particular country, they strike without any real consistency in choice of targets or locations. Timothy McVeigh should have taught us that terrorists can be anywhere; even in our own back yard. How can subduing a country like Iraq make us safer from terrorism? I just don't see it.