One of the most disturbing articles I have read about Iraq.

[Jonneh]

I think the problem is that you are fighting people who have been convinced that dying in opposition to yourselves is a favourable outcome, how do you fight a group of people who believe such things?

[Empyreal Rogue]

right, AQ was everywhere EXCEPT Iraq....

I never said that.

I said Iraq was not a training ground nation for terrorist organizations prior to 9/11 and the invasion. Now it's probably THE leading terrorist training nation in the world simply because of the invasion and accusations thrown.

[Thordic]

I think the problem is that you are fighting people who have been convinced that dying in opposition to yourselves is a favourable outcome, how do you fight a group of people who believe such things?

Aw Jonneh you're all grown up

[rkjunior303]

I never said that.

I said Iraq was not a training ground nation for terrorist organizations prior to 9/11 and the invasion. Now it's probably THE leading terrorist training nation in the world simply because of the invasion and accusations thrown.

Ok, so how about this - when we invaded Afghanistan it was rumored that OBL was hiding/training in Pakistan, whom wasn't being much of a help in trying to track him down. If Pakistan was harboring enemy #1, knowingly or not, why haven't we gone into Pakistan? I would think OBL is more of a Weapon of Mass Destruction than any of the "WMDs" we found in Iraq...........

[FactsOfLife]

I never said that.

I said Iraq was not a training ground nation for terrorist organizations prior to 9/11 and the invasion. Now it's probably THE leading terrorist training nation in the world simply because of the invasion and accusations thrown.

you might want to fact check yourself before you make that claim.

[maxama10]

.................................................. ..........

Edit .....You must have missed my previous post. Keep it on topic or dont post.

[FactsOfLife]

Edit .....You must have missed my previous post. Keep it on topic or dont post.

edit, Beemer, when you edit someone else's post let us know bro!

[jenarelJAM]

And I am all for securing our borders. But, if we do try that, then the Liberals will be screaming that we are trampling on some immigrants rights, and to hell with Americans' rights.

How about you let the Liberals make their own arguments and don't put words in their mouths. Not a valid argument.

I hear lots of reasons why pulling out will not work. Many are valid. Nobody wants to see the middle east in chaos, an increased chance of attacks on America, or the slaughter of innocents. But what I'm concerned with is the lack of progress currently. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe we are making progress, but what I've seen so far is pretty much what I predicted way back when we were first getting into this war, and I don't see any solution. Kill a terrorist, and a new one is created. What advocates of pulling out of iraq see is a lost cause. We can't make a noticible difference, so why continue to spend money we don't have and risk lives that could be saved when the fallout is going to come sooner or later anyway. Lives are going to be lost. The middle east will be in chaos. Nothing we can do but prolong it, and possibly make it worse.

Or better. Even though I don't see it that way, I can't say I am all-knowing, and the beauty of OUR democracy is that if I'm way off base here, all your votes will overrule me and no harm will be done. Or, if enough other people feel the way I do, such plans will come to fruition. Feel free to argue with my statement, but please don't attack my beliefs or me,

[wjr]

I'm not really in favor of a complete pullout, but if it were to happen I don't think they'd "bring the war to america." Nothing is really preventing them from doing it now.

I fail to see the problem with that.

You pathetic piece of bigoted trash. Just because they're from another country makes them worth less then you?




Edit by Beemer...............That just got ya banned for a week. You should read the whole thread before you post. If you had you would have seen my previous post with a warning to all. You also must have missed the smilie and dont pay enough attention to know how Lohman posts. Locking threads suck. Removing posts sucks and banning folks sucks, so why do you make me?

[MedicDVG]

I'm not really in favor of a complete pullout, but if it were to happen I don't think they'd "bring the war to america." Nothing is really preventing them from doing it now.

Only the fact that we are vigilantly seeking out and destroying the seat of state sponsored terrorism abroad as well as rigorously monitoring and investigating links to domestic operations, breaking up transfers of funds, detecting and disrupting insurgent recruitment and training, and investigating every terrorist incident around the world as a potential threat to the USA; Other then that, yes, you are perfectly correct. There is nothing stopping them from operating on US soil with reckless abandon.

There isn't hardly a week that goes by where there isn't a report of terrorism plots in the USA being discovered and rooted out. The planned attack at JFK comes to mind immediately and you don't have to look hard to find other examples. This is a direct result of incredible domestic resources AND with military operations abroad that is disrupting the ability of the terrorists to arm, train, and deploy.

What I was saying in my original post is that terrorism against the USA would become state sponsored if we were to pull out of Iraq. OBL and his group have shadowy links to governmental and privately wealthy sources and look what they were able to accomplish. Now imagine a large portion of the GNP of a country such as Iraq or Iran designed to be utilized for the destruction of our way of life. That means an increased threat to Mid East peace at the very least, and it certainly means a more dedicated and able force for operations within the USA.

[zipity_Bop]

hah this is why the rules state no political talk......
everyone quotes the person before them and finds a flaw in their statement.

40 posts an almost everyone has quoted and disagreed with a statement before their's.

[drg]

There is always an interesting dilemma when interpreting what one hears insurgents/terrorists/"bad guys" have "said" ... all kinds of questions come up. Did they really say that? If so, is it what they wanted us to hear? Is it realistic, or just bloviation? Are these people really the people we should be taking our foreign policy cues from anyway?

For example, when OBL puts out a tape near the 2004 election and, for example, Republicans play it up as proof we should re-elect Bush. Since when do we listen to Osama Bin Laden? Was he speaking from a position of power or weakness? Was it just what he wanted us to hear? Or what?

[drg]

What I was saying in my original post is that terrorism against the USA would become state sponsored if we were to pull out of Iraq. OBL and his group have shadowy links to governmental and privately wealthy sources and look what they were able to accomplish. Now imagine a large portion of the GNP of a country such as Iraq or Iran designed to be utilized for the destruction of our way of life. That means an increased threat to Mid East peace at the very least, and it certainly means a more dedicated and able force for operations within the USA.

State-sponsored acts are easier to identify and address than the acts of non-state entities. Whoever takes over Iraq in the event the current government falls will become much more prominent and accountable than they are now.

This is not to say it would be a good thing necessarily, but something to consider.

[Lohman446]

You pathetic piece of bigoted trash. Just because they're from another country makes them worth less then you?

You missed the big smiley face huh?

Funny though, in the post I responded too the comment was made about spending the money here rather than there? So we're more important when it comes to allocating resources to people but not in killing? Either we are all equal and have equal rights or we are not. If they are of equal rights do they not have the rights to free and fair elections and protection from atrocities?

[warbeak2099]

You missed the big smiley face huh?

Funny though, in the post I responded too the comment was made about spending the money here rather than there? So we're more important when it comes to allocating resources to people but not in killing? Either we are all equal and have equal rights or we are not. If they are of equal rights do they not have the rights to free and fair elections and protection from atrocities?

Good point. Universal equality has no gray area. It's all or nothing.