"Fight Al Quaeda in Iraq..OR they'll follow us home"???

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 13 2007, 10:34 AM) [snapback]478078[/snapback]</div>

So tell me then. . . if fighting them there means we won't have to fight them here, yet they perpetrate another attack on US soil, doesn't that mean that the entire "fight them there" mentality is flawed?

If Bush is right, doesn't that mean that there is no way we can be hit in this country, since we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here?

Using the logic you ascribe to, if we are "hit by islamic terrorism again", that would mean Bush is a complete and abject failure, since that would defy his current argument for staying in Iraq.

After all, if we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, but they come here, then the fighting them there didn't work.

 

"Using the logic you ascribe to"
Trolls don't use logic...AT ALL.

"How am I associated with republicans? I don't like either party" -Daronspicher

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 13 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]478199[/snapback]</div>

For there to be flawed logic, you first have to use logic.

Of course, if there was actually logic being used, we'd all realize that we're not even fighting them over there. They aren't even in Iraq. They're in Afghanistan & Pakistan. And, according to US intelligence officials, they have rebuilt their operations. Plus our wonderful Homeland Security Director has a "gut feeling" that they might attack us this Summer.

As you said, if they attack us here, how is fighting them there doing any good? Maybe if we were actually fighting them, it would be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jul 13 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]478272[/snapback]</div>

I think it might be more accurate to say we are fighting "them" in Iraq (now) and in Afganistan/Pakistan. There is the main group of Al Queda in the Afgan/Pakistan region and then there are the umbrella or affliated groups in various parts of the world, including Iraq.

The fight in Iraq, to me anyway, is 2 fold now; try to get a stable government in place and deny Al Queda or an affiliated group from being able to freely operate there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Jul 13 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]478278[/snapback]</div>

Little hint for you - they were never operating freely there until we got there. Contrary to popular myth, Al Qeada wasn't a significant presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion. In fact, declassified reports have shown that the US knew there was no ties between Husseins government and Al Qaeda, and that there was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq.

If Bush hadn't pulled troops out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq, there is a high probability that bin Laden could have been captured or killed.

Instead, the hunt for bin Laden was turned over to Afghan warlords who couldn't possibly care less whether he is captured. Now, he has reformed his group and is operating in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We are not fighting Al Qeada in Iraq for the most part. Most estimates are that fewer than 5% of the insurgents in Iraq are Al Qeada or foreign fighters. The majority are Iraqis belonging to Sunni and Shia extremist groups involved in sectarian violence.

The so-called "stable government" you are proposing, under the constitution the US helped create, is a Shia majority government which is inevitably going to be closely aligned with Iran.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 13 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]478300[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you that they were not operating feely in Iraq before we got there. The problem is they are now and that is an issue that needs to be handled.

I also agree with you that there was no real link with Saddam and AQ -- I didn't think that was a valid argument in the first place.

Actually, a lot of the "warlords" had/have a lot riding on removing AQ and the Taliban from that area since the ones have have supported the U.S. would be marked for death for supporting the "infidels."

The major attacks (assasinations/car bombs, ect) have been the work of AQ. The secterian violence, which is most of the run of the mill violence, murder, kidnappings, has been the work of militias and sects. In fact, I'm sure you've seen that Sunnis are working with the U.S. in a lot of areas to try and drive out AQ -- the old saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The fact of the matter now is, whether you agree with the war or not, AQ is in Iraq and needs to be quelled. If you can put AQ on the ropes and the Iraqi government can get their act together it will be a much better situation than just leaving.

However, I think we can all agree that there aren't a lot of great options on the table!

 

for your reading:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...01_bushbin.html

http://www.oilempire.us/bush-binladen.html

 

1. Maybe we should be in Iraq; maybe we shouldn't.
2. Maybe Bush is doing a good job in Iraq; maybe he isn't.

These are two *distinct* questions which have *nothing* to do with each other; Mr. Bush's fan club seems to have a propensity for combining the two and I'm not sure why.

So, I'm curious...let's say we all agree that we *should* be in Iraq...there's a second question --regarding, directly, Mr. Bush's leadership-- that is not being answered.

I find it difficult to believe that *anyone* can honestly say that Mr. Bush's actions as Commander in Chief have been strategically sound or tactically effective.

Forget the "if the Dems take control, the war won't be fought any more" thing which these arguments always seem to come back to.

I wonder, how effectively are we fighting it *now*?? I'd suggest, not very well at all.

Sure, the Dems may or may not do worse (this remains to be seen), but the Repubs aren't doing so good, either (and this is growing more and more obvious every day).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jul 12 2007, 02:41 PM) [snapback]477691[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I think there's truth beneath this statement. Right now Bush can claim that America hasn't had a large-scale terrorist attack since 9/11. This would be half true.

We haven't had a big terrorist attack within our borders since 9/11, but that's largely because the terrorist's efforts are concentrated on fighting our troops in Iraq.

I think as soon as we withdraw our troops, two things will be true:

1. We'll have a the whole of the Middle East angry with us and will have inspired a new generation of terrorists.
2. They'll have to come to our shores to kill Americans since there won't be many left in Iraq.

Thus, I think a terrorist attack after we bring our troops home is inevitable.

Of course, if this happens while a Democrat is in power, the Republicans will use the opportunity to accuse Democrats of being ineffective against terrorism (even if it was a result of the mess made by the current administration).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Jul 13 2007, 06:22 PM) [snapback]478385[/snapback]</div>

Do you really think that the whole of the Middle East isn't angry with us already? Do you really think that our presence in Iraq isn't already inspiring a new generation of terrorists? You think a 10 year old kid who sees his father killed by US troops isn't going to grow up wanting to kill Americans?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 13 2007, 05:53 PM) [snapback]478373[/snapback]</div>

Oh, Pinto. There you go again talking sense and making rational points. Don't you know it's more fun to be inflammatory?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 13 2007, 05:01 PM) [snapback]478394[/snapback]</div>

Yes to all your questions. That's my point. Everyone's angry at us for what we did and if they have no one to attack in Iraq, they're likely to attack us on the mainland.

I'm not saying that we should stay in Iraq, mind you, but I do expect a terrorist attack after we do.

That said, I really don't care. I'm more worried about corporate influence in government and other issues than I ever will be about terrorism.

Annual Death Tolls (various years):

Heart Disease - 927,000
Smoking Related Deaths - 400,000
Traffic Accidents - 39,189
9/11 Terrorist Attack - 2,752