Has the Iraq War Created More Or Less Terrorism?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

I would love to hear your thoughts & opinions on if the Iraq war created more terrorism or less terrorism. Please try to expand

Short term? A chaotic situation where everyone is skeptical of America's actions. Long term: Once Iraq establishes it's self as a democratic and free nation I see good things for the world.

The war on Iraq has tarnished Americas' image. The Islamic zealots have more of a compeling reason to attack whenever and where ever they can.

Both short and long term, I think Americas' zealous nature in going to war with Iraq will heighten the efforts of terrorism. Our explanation for going into war was uncompelling to the world unlike our reasons for going into Afghanistan, which was excepted even by many Muslim nations.

I think Bush dropped the ball on this one.

It has been only a few months since the fall of Saddam's regime, yet we frequently hear what a "fiasco" Iraq is. While the job in Iraq is hard, the occupation will not be over next week or even next year. I cannot believe we Americans are so addicted to instant gratification that we cannot stick to something for more than a few months.

MARK JASS
Trumbull, Conn.

Legally, the United States is operating under international law, under Security Council Resolution #1441 (and its 15 predecessors, to the same effect), which have kept the Gulf War of 1991 not quite closed. In international law, Saddam has been obliged to disarm, and to prove that he has disarmed (as other nations have been, from South Africa to members of the former USSR), simply as a condition of his remaining president, and as a condition for closing the first Gulf War.

It was the solemn obligation of the U.N. and of the United States to oblige him to disarm by force, if he did not do so willingly, even before the dramatic events of September 11, 2001. One of the reasons for going to war under traditional just-war theory is to restore the rule of international law. For peace is not a feeling. It is the work of political action, mediated by law, to secure the minimum conditions of international justice and order. War is sometimes morally obligatory to restore the tranquility of international order.

September 11, 2001, provided another traditional reason: self-defense. We know from captured files and film in Afghanistan how eagerly al Qaeda has been seeking chemical and biological weapons that would wreak maximal destruction on civilian populations. We know from defectors and past admissions of Saddam and past work of U.N. investigators that Saddam had immense stores of such weapons, many of which have never yet been accounted for. Even before one has any knowledge of actual cooperation between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's forces (or other terrorist groups), one can form a realistic judgment of probabilities. What Saddam has is the weapons, but not a delivery system; what al Qaeda has is the delivery system but not the biological weapons.

— Michael Novak, winner of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1994.

Peace is not a feeling. It is the work of political action, mediated by law, to secure the minimum conditions of international justice and order. War is sometimes morally obligatory to restore the tranquility of international order.

— Michael Novak, winner of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1994.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”

I bet the author of that quote never fought a war. Send him into battle, then let's see how much uglier he thinks other things are.

For the record,

"because others disagree with this war, doesn't mean they disagree with war."


me

"If your parachute doesn't work, bring it back and I'll give you another."

Just don't give me the one you used and I'll be fine. Oh and next time you jump, wear a helmet.

To Adress the question asked at the start of this thread Terrorism is a politically defined act there is no standard definition as used that anyone can use to seperate what is terrorism from what is say guerilla activity therfore all that is needed to reduce terrorism is (ironically) a simple matter of redefinition

Really? Are you saying that Terrorism is the act of killing Americans Americaah? then terrorism is a politically defined act. thanks for your endorsement!

You can call it what you want, Dragonbreath. Terrorism is murder. Do you have a point?

I do and you agree with it terroism is a politically defined name for a type of warfare warfare being murder good point Americaah!

Sorry to disappoint you but I never said terrorism was 'warfare,' Dragonbreath. I said it was murder. Warfare is not murder. If you do not know the difference then you have more problems than is evident.

No reading back I'm fairly confident it was me who said that terrorism is warfare perhaps you'd care to show mw why warefare is not murder are you saying people don't get killed? or that only soldirers get killed? I'm sorry you've confused me there!

I don't care what YOU said. I'm saying that I never said terrorism was 'warfare.' It is murder. And again, warfare is NOT murder. If you refuse to acknowledge this then I am not about to waste my time.

Oh I think I hit a nerve! Sorry Americaah don't let me try to drag you where you don't want to go.
I keep telling you it was me who said 'terrorism is warfare'. I do know the difference between you and me. but thanks for your responces

Fine, you said 'terrorism is warfare.' I disagree. There you have it. Anything else?

if your ulitmate position is I disagree! what more can anyone say?

Exactly.

You always want to have the last word don't you

The war on terrorism really is a holy war, since so many moderate Muslims are standing by silently, out of complicity or fear, while gangsterlike extremists are defining a militant Islam for the next generation.

THOMAS W. DRAPER
Provo, Utah

I couldn't agree more Frenchie

Good point, sordidmesh!

Those who are prepaared to fight terrorism for as long as it takes usually find it taking a long time!

By all means express your opinion—this is, after all, a democratic endeavor. We are—if fortunate enough—appreciatively living in a democratic universe that has thankfully grown by another 24 million free-speaking souls practically overnight.

Ohhhhmmmm......

well said keremiko.

sure we went over there.........

but they fired back.

Ron - it might not have been cast in stone as "Resolution #14xx" (for whatever that's worth - not a lot if you look at everyone who's disoboyed em) - but the UN didn't want the US to invade Iraq.

They wanted to try a bit more diplomacy, let Hans Blix keep looking, keep talking, keep pressuring, keep up the yak, blah blah blah, because they thought, y'know, diplomacy's always better than invasion and killing, especially pre-emptive invasion and killing, especially pre-emptive invasion and killing based on lies, subterfuge and inflammatory scare-mongering rhetoric during the sacred State of the Union address.

And for what? They've got rid of saddam and are now looking to install Western-style democracy (and it's resultant trade benefits) on a civilisation that's only respected the way of Islam for 5000 years.

Pre-war Colin Powell went to the UN and said: Hey you guys - look at this evidence we have that Saddam has weapons.

So people looked and said, What, those pictures of trucks? Colin, baby, you've gotta do better than that you want to invade a sovereign country and kill thousands of innocent people and cause a clusterfug of hate and death in the middle east that won't ever end until as many polytheist western coca-cola drinking white devils are slaughtered, now can we? C'mon Col - you're not seriously proposing THIS as your evidence for Iraq building WMDs, are you pal?

But he was. And Dubya stormed in.

And so the innocents die along with the nutcase martyrs and the innocents and anyone with a moustache is locked up in Guantanamo and forever and ever there will be bombing and killing and the terrorists think yee-hah, 100,000 American Satan soldiers in one place, why here's my chance at going to heaven and the 72 virgins, you beauty.

And so it's bombs away baby. Question is: how long can America take another Vietnam? How many 21 year olds from Idaho have to die? How much are the taxpayers willing to spend?

Are YOU willing to die over there in the desert for Dubya's stated aim of "liberating the Iraqi people"?

Hm?

Are you willing to die for the people of Iraq, Americaaaaah?

My bad, sorry. The US blocked any attempts to make a resolution to do so with their VETO powers. The resolution never passed.

However, it was clear the UN didn't want us in that region and was trying to pass something preventing the action of war at least at the time Bush wanted to wage it.

As for these war-mongers that say "all that these anti-war/anti-Bush malcontents do is echo to one another is: WHERE'S THE WMD." well golly gee, isn't this one of the major reasons for invading Iraq in the first place? What do you mean all we can say? We didn't say it, Bush did.

It puzzles me that nothing Bush told America on that night of his State of the Union speech has materialized, yet you have people that say, "all you can say". Dismissing it as if it is inmaterial to this war.

Your leader told you Iraq had ties to Al Quaeda and "tons" of WMD. After sending our brothers, husbands, and sons over to Iraq to die, why arent your questions the same as ours. Where are the WMD?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by keremiko

How about Bush's lies??

Sorry, no evidence that Bush lied.



I would totally support all the war supporters to go to Iraq and fight for America(!)...

Get serious, keremiko! The U.S. is fortunate in that it possesses the best-trained and best-equipped volunteer military in the world. And they honor our nation—and we, in turn, honor and support them and their Commander in Chief(!)...

[B] Americaah says...

Sorry, no evidence that Bush lied.[B]

Looks like Bush just peed on someone's head and told them it was raining......and they believe him.

What's that, oreo? Can't hear a word you're saying....

...Looks like you can't hear anything unless Bush says it.

What a gullible sucker!!!

Can't you say anything but: 'This person is on your Ignore List.'?

...man you should be on stage. The 'Return of the Stooge". ...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by keremiko

How about Bush's lies??

Sorry, no evidence that Bush lied.



I would totally support all the war supporters to go to Iraq and fight for America(!)...

Get serious, keremiko! The U.S. is fortunate in that it possesses the best-trained and best-equipped volunteer military in the world. And they honor our nation—and we, in turn, honor and support them and their Commander in Chief(!)...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Americaaah
[QUOTE]Originally posted by keremiko
[B]
How about Bush's lies??

Sorry, no evidence that Bush lied.



Wow. I can't believe you believe what you wrote.

He's in denial Keremiko. I think he has dementia

That's a pretty broad generalisation Kook, talking about Europeans - bit like your "I don't know if all Muslims are terrorists" thing. That was a good'n.

Maybe you should ... think.

Anyway. The thread of this thing is "Has the war created more or less terrorism."

Give us your view Aah, not Patton's or Richard Pearl's or Geraldo's - wadda you reckon - is the world a safer place since (view A) Satan's emissaries arrived to slaughter Iraqis on Islamic holy land?

Or (view B) is it a safer place because the freedom-loving democracy inventing christian soldiers from the red-white-and-blue arrived to liberate the Iraqi people and oust the world's most dangerous dictator?

For mine - well, you know mine. Saddam had no proven link to Al Queda. He butchered his own people but he'd been doing that for years without a peep from the US and he's not Robinson Crusoe when it comes to global arseholes.

Nope, the liberation of the Iraqi people was a loooong way down the list of agendas.

And you know what I'm thinkin? Those who hate the US, Osama and his band of merry Islamic terrorists, are rubbing their hands together cos there's 100,000 white boys from Omaha sitting there waiting to be shot at and bombed - and there's plenty more where they come from.

Look - it took a lie to get the US into Iraq. And it's going to take YEARS to extricate itself, and maybe find those darned WMDs, the reason for going in in the first place.

Happy decade of war and death and hate, Aaah.

Happy Halloween, Googoo!

Here again, you hit the bull, Coogee.
Some months ago, I was trying to step back from my bad premonition, in order to rather analyse things logically. Without any other conclusion that the confirmation of my feeling. I was, among millions of others, a spectator of this theatre, with Bush and his clique of "theoricians" discoursing on war, far-right think tanks issuing "studies" about how the Middle-East was going to be re-shaped, and so on. Would I come now to strut about how right us "cowards" anti-wars were ? No. I am sad and angry with this anticipated fine mess. Angry to see young soldiers shot dead each day.
The worst is that now the US does not have any other choice left but to prevail. If terrorists force the military to leave Iraq, for political reasons due to public opinion fed up with continuous attempts striking the Americans, this is possibly an open door to something really scaring. Bin Laden and buddies would consider this as a victory, countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Jordania officially allies of the US might be shaken off and their governments toppled by islamists, since their power partly rely on the US backing: a weakened US to the eyes of the population = national regime less feared : puppets sold to the Americans ousted from Iraq, let's do the same with them. This scenario is a nightmare, because it could lead to the clash of civilization wished by Bin Laden. Can you imagine hundreds of millions of hostile muslims, led by 80's Iran mullahs-like or Afghanistan's Talibans-like people ?
It becomes urgent for the UN to step in, and, important, arab countries must be part of it. All European countries must help too. I am more and more convinced this is crucial.

The Frenchie agenda is quite self-evident.....

I don't have any agenda or underhand idea, buddy. This si only my opinion, and this opinion moreover is not the one of an anti-American person.

You are right, those people are so sly ... they certainly have a next plan to undermine the US again.
Your vision of geopolitical concerns is caricatural, Americaaah. Or it might simply be because your knowledge of reality is biaised and / or poor.
Happy Halloween to you too (this is celebrated in France too now, since a few years).

Me too. Bloody brilliantly said Wolf. How many more folks over there are thinking like that? Is the message getting through? I mean, the spin doctors on the Administration's side are bloody good - that Ari Fleischer could've defended Hitler - but are the Wes Clark's and Daschles and Deans et al getting heard? And loud?

Now, Aaah, try not to quote Patton in your reply, okay? (He was crazy. Plus he's dead. ) And given that Mr Wolf isn't French or Cuban or, gasp, One Of Them, but actually a free-speaking citizen of the US of A, read: one of "your own", see if you can fashion a retort without xenophobia. And see if you can answer each of the points without cutting and pasting someone else's quotes holus bolus. Give it a go mate.

Don't duck Americaaah ... You've been asked pretty relevant questions by Coogee and Wolf-Eyes. Why don't you answer: are they uncomfortable ?
You know what: I am not a cynical person and I lack nothing. I understand your reply as an evidence of some kind of frustration. Answer the questions, buddy: this is a forum, which means that people are supposed to contribute and dialogue with arguments.
Stop quoting Patton, and come back with your elaborated ideas.

JY_French, don't duck. You've been confronted with indirect thoughts which require creative thinking skills to understand. Why don't you understand: are they uncomfortable?
You know what: I am not a cynical person and I lack nothing. I understand your replye was an evidence of some kind of frustration. Think about the questions, buddy: this is a forum, which means that people are supposed to say whatever the hell they want to say pertaining to the subject.
Stop quoting Search4truth, Coogee, and Wolf-Eyes and come back with your elaborate ideas.

Sorry French, I just wanted to point out how easily spun your last post was. The whole thing was fancy talk. Like a well-designed package with nothing inside of it. No offense. You did say you wanted a "dialogue with arguments"... please don't be mad.

All right, I think I understand what you mean, and you are right, everybody has the right to express himself. But read my contributions, I don't need anybody else's thoughts, I usually come here to express mines, backed with facts and arguments.
In this particular case, I started to post such one, Wolf-Eyes and Coogee developped and asked good questions, but Americaaah reacts in the easiest way as possible, by quoting me and answering by quoting Patton in return. I mean: what is the purpose ? Is a real dialogue possible ?

Sometimes, I have to admit, I find myself answering rhetorical questions vaguely.

Rhtorical question: Why don't people realize the sky is red?

(Answer: Because the sky is blue.)

Prove it.

(Just look at it).

What's the matter, can't prove the sky is "blue"?

(When I compare the color of the "blue" section of the colorwheel to the sky, I see the same thing).

That's a conspiracy, they want you to THINK the sky is blue, when in fact it's red. Here's a link! (with no actual answers, just endless conspiracies).

(Ok, what am I supposed to do with this?)

Accept it as fact.

(But it's not fact. It's just a theory I can't prove wrong)

Could it be you can't prove it wrong because it's right!?

(Another rhetorical question... ok smart guy, what came first, the chicken or the egg?)

Quit trying to change the subject!!! Are you afaid of the truth??!?!?

(Yet another rhetorical question... Yes? No? Maybe? What?)

Haaa! I told you!!!

That's my example of why some people's responses are like Americaaah's. We could fill this websight with "evidense" all day long, until the cows come home, until a snowball survives hell, until a pig flies out of my ass, but that's not going to prove ANYTHING (besides the fact that we are good at scounging up evidense).

That's my opinion. I see this "logical" system of debating poisoning these threads. It drives me crazy. If we all REALLY argued with no bias, no spin, and used pure logic, we'd have to eliminate all conspiracies indefinately. The debate would be rather short, too.

Should we practice one?

Logic is something losers and socialists didnt, dont and will never have.

Sayzak21,

Interesting approach. As for the sky being blue or red, well, this is scientifically explained - oxygen molecules absorbing light and restituting part of it with prevaling wavelengths that makes we sense it "blue".
But, this is not a scientific thread here, and one contribution should not be judged only by this path of "logical" reasoning. I see your point. We are dealing with the human here, so, the logic is rather a fuzzy one - latest developments tend to prove that our brain function on quantic physics principles, which makes it quite difficult to apprehend - as a conclusion the brain does not understand itself... Sayzak21, your approach is really interesting. But I would however appreciate to read Americaaah's arguments ...

Ron, dealing with logic issues in such conditions, you could be answered that if the US officials have used logic they would not have undertaken these military actions the way they did. You see, we are back in the very heart of the debate.

JY show me SOME proof of what you are arguing for, except for web-sites, different people's opinions, etc. Facts, where are the facts and the evidense. So far NONE of your theories (including war for oil, Bush behind 9/11 and Fourth Reich) had ANY evidense or facts to support them.

I beg you pardon ? What "theories" are you talking about ? War for oil, Bush behind 9/11 and Fourth Reich ???? Where did you find that in my posts ? Re-read them and come back please.

Every anti-war protestor has different stance, yours is obviously different from what i have heard before.
Where are you at?

A "nouveau-riche" was decorating his brand new multi-million dollar estate. It took him several months to get the place fully decorated.

Although he did not read, he built an immense library to impress his friends. He noticed a 6-inch spot that was empty in his gigantic library shelves.

He decided to go to a bookstore and find a book to fill the spot. This time, he was going to do it alone.

At the bookstore he saw a thick book. It's cover was silver and on golden letters it was written "Logic" on it.

He asked the bookseller what logic meant.

"Let me try to explain sir, the bookseller replied, do you have an aquarium?".
"I have the biggest aquarium in town, he replied, full of exotic fishes."

"That is splendid sir, kindly responded the bookseller, what does it remind you?"

-"Well, it reminds me the ocean."

-"What does ocean make you think of?"

-"It makes me think of summer."

-"How about summer? What do you do in summer?"

-"I go to the beach."

-"What do you like the most about the beach?"

-"I love to watch and meet women in their bikinis."

-"You see sir, proudly continued the bookseller, we logically proved that you are not gay."

Our nouveau-riche was impressed. Not only that, but it was proven logically that he wasn't gay. He decided to buy the book.

On his impressive house-warming party, he was showing different sections of his house to one of his close friends.

They came to the library section, and the host led his guest to where the "Logic" book was located. His friend couldn't help but notice the shinny metallic silver and the golden lettering, which read "Logic".

-"Wow, that is quite some reading Frank, but what does the logic mean?" he asked.

-"Allow me to explain, replied Frank proudly, do you have an aquarium?"

-"No."

-"Than you're a fa**ot!"



Try to open your mind up a little guys, "your logic" is not always logical.

Just because something is conspiracy, it does not mean that it is not true, nor does it mean that it is true. And there are a lot of conspiracies that do make sense. You don't have to believe them, but you should not dismiss it as being illogical.