War with Iraq will DECREASE TERRORISM

[kedo1981]

One Way smacking around Iraq will help end terrorism is that a disarmed Iraq will end the need for US troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia.
This is a little detail that seems to have been passed over in the press.

[Wayne Grabert]

You should read this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15324) before jumping to that conclusion.

Also, the Bush Administration plans call for permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Iraq after Saddam is gone. So your premise is false, unfortunately.

Read more on the latter here (http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html) and here. (http://www.sundayherald.com/27735) Sorry to throw a wet blanket on your idea.

[corplinx]

Believe it or not, sometimes Americans and Europeans die in those homicide bombings in Israel. If removing Saddam removes one of Hamas' (and other palestinian terror groups') sources of aid, then I think the logical conclusion is that it will result in less or at least less sophisticated terror.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Believe it or not, sometimes Americans and Europeans die in those homicide bombings in Israel. If removing Saddam removes one of Hamas' (and other palestinian terror groups') sources of aid, then I think the logical conclusion is that it will result in less or at least less sophisticated terror.
Or perhaps it will cause young and bright Muslims to gravitate towards the anti-American cause. A single death of a father in a war could result in all of his children becoming terrorists, because they may see it as the only way to avenge their father. The pursuit of revenge is especially strong in the mideast. The fact that people are still killing themselves and others over the existence of Israel after more than fifty years is evidence of this.

Certainly a war is likely to make international diplomacy much more difficult for the US in the future. Many will be convinced that the US simply kills anyone who disagrees with them. Is this really the attitude we want to convey? In any "inspirational" movie, the US would be the bully that everyone is cheering against. If you were in the mideast, wouldn't you cheer against us?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx
Believe it or not, sometimes Americans and Europeans die in those homicide bombings in Israel. If removing Saddam removes one of Hamas' (and other palestinian terror groups') sources of aid, then I think the logical conclusion is that it will result in less or at least less sophisticated terror. The war against Iraq will be bad for Israel--even if Iraq does not hit it with chemical weapons.

The Arab states were ready to offer Israel recognition and peace in exchange for allowing the creation of a Palestinian state. Then Sharon, sensing that peace threatened to break out, went on another rampage.

If the Iraqi war leads to a destabilization and further radicalization of the Middle East, which in the long run it probably will, that will work against Israel's interests.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

Or perhaps it will cause young and bright Muslims to gravitate towards the anti-American cause.

The individual is responsible for his own actions. -Arthur Miller

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx


The individual is responsible for his own actions. -Arthur Miller For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. -Isaac Newton

If we act in a way that causes others to react against us, are we blameless?

[corplinx]

Tell me, the French are anti-american and yet they dont commit terrorism. Just because people resent you doesn't mean they will kill you.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. -Isaac Newton

If we act in a way that causes others to react against us, are we blameless?

Let me get this crap straight.

Hit me and if i hit you back I may be escalating the violence and you ponder if I am correct in my reaction? But if I let ya walk you're okay with it until you hit me yet again and I finally decide to slap ya back?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
If we act in a way that causes others to react against us, are we blameless?

Liberating Iraq will not strap bombs around someone and force them into a shopping center.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

Or perhaps it will cause young and bright Muslims to gravitate towards the anti-American cause. A single death of a father in a war could result in all of his children becoming terrorists, because they may see it as the only way to avenge their father. The pursuit of revenge is especially strong in the mideast. The fact that people are still killing themselves and others over the existence of Israel after more than fifty years is evidence of this.

Certainly a war is likely to make international diplomacy much more difficult for the US in the future. Many will be convinced that the US simply kills anyone who disagrees with them. Is this really the attitude we want to convey? In any "inspirational" movie, the US would be the bully that everyone is cheering against. If you were in the mideast, wouldn't you cheer against us?


Tricky

Terrorism is more of an example of "top down" management. A religious figure of some charisma and presence exhorts young men and women to die for the cause and Allah will reward them etc...etc... IF we work to eliminate these leaders...as we are doing now...they might eventually be replaced...but alot of these guys like Osama are irreplaceable. Sure they'll become martyrs, but they will need a new crop of leaders...leaders of charisma and presence in order to hold the movement together. Not so easily done.

We might piss off and recruit more cannon fodder for terrorism, but the leaders are the real problem. They're the ones who organize and send out people on their missions. Without them the terrorists will be a leaderless rabble. So even if they have more recruits, they'll be easier to control. Still dangerous...but all in all less dangerous than before.

Just MHO,
-zilla

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla

We might piss off and recruit more cannon fodder for terrorism, but the leaders are the real problem. They're the ones who organize and send out people on their missions. Without them the terrorists will be a leaderless rabble. So even if they have more recruits, they'll be easier to control. Still dangerous...but all in all less dangerous than before.

Just MHO,
-zilla Rik, I believe we should do whatever we can to thwart terrorism, but the ultimate solution is to address the problems and injustices that cause terrorism--especially when that means doing what we ought to be doing anyway.

You may not want to admit it, but terrorism happens for reasons. The reasons are invariably tied to feelings of having been terribly wronged by a great and uncompromising, unsympathetic power. Even though the response is inappropriate, there is almost always--perhaps always--some justification for the feelings of the terrorists. Even Tim McVeigh had justification for his feelings. His actions were not justified, but his grievances, to some extent, were.

In case you've already forgotten it because I have not said "terrorists are 100% wrong and only do what they do because they hate our freedoms and they're not Attorney General and can't remove those freedoms they hate," I started my post, "I believe we should do whatever we can to thwart terrorism."

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Rik, I believe we should do whatever we can to thwart terrorism, but the ultimate solution is to address the problems and injustices that cause terrorism--especially when that means doing what we ought to be doing anyway.

You may not want to admit it, but terrorism happens for reasons. The reasons are invariably tied to feelings of having been terribly wronged by a great and uncompromising, unsympathetic power. Even though the response is inappropriate, there is almost always--perhaps always--some justification for the feelings of the terrorists. Even Tim McVeigh had justification for his feelings. His actions were not justified, but his grievances, to some extent, were.

In case you've already forgotten it because I have not said "terrorists are 100% wrong and only do what they do because they hate our freedoms and they're not Attorney General and can't remove those freedoms they hate," I started my post, "I believe we should do whatever we can to thwart terrorism."

Wayne,

By addressing the "root causes" of terrorism, or by making deals with terrorists you inadvertenly reward terrorism as a political tactic. By being seen to reward terrorism (even if that is not your intention) you create more terrorism.

There are plenty of peoples in the world that are poor, desperate, what have you...and they are not all resorting to terror. Those that resort to terror should have their causes ostracized...they should be pariahs. It should be openly seen by the entire world that terrorism turned their cause into a political pariah...then their root causes should only be addressed after they have given up all terrorism for a certain agreed upon period of time.

In the meantime...we could be seen to be helping the Kurds...(who BTW resorted to terror in the past...but have since stopped) to acheive their own state. We could do this and be seen to be helping these people who no longer do terrorism to get what they want...while at the same time treat the issue of Palestinian statehood with disdain.

Only deincentivizing terrorism will reduce terrorism...along, of course, with ruthlessly hunting and killing them at every chance and in every place they hide. You will note that since their great success on 9/11, al Qaida has done Jack $hit to US interests worldwide. Before 9/11 we were putting up with a major al Qaida terror act every ten to eleven months. The only reason we have had less terrorism is because we've been hunting down and killing or capturing the bastards.

What GWB is doing works...you cannot argue with results.

-zilla

[kedo1981]

Dear Wayne Grabass
The only wet blanket I’m perceiving is the one that must be wrapped around your brain; you’re making a case using one of your own posts, an Op-Ed piece, and article that claims to have document calling for “US world domination”; I would have expected more spelling errors form someone posting something this stupid; good job.

Fact: We have troops in SA because 13 years ago they asked us to protect their sand and oil from Iraq.

Fact: We ran the Iraqis out of Kuwait and while we still have bases there (also by request) we have not stolen one barrel, or one bucket of oil, the US first lady isn’t wearing the crown jewels of Kuwait nor have thousands of Arab women been shipped to US military bases as discount hookers for our troops. Some world dominators we are.

Fact: One of the stated gripes of Bin-Ladin is the presence of US troops in SA. Remove the threat form Iraq; no need to protect SA; one terrorist sticking point, GONE.

Will this solve the problem of Islamic radical terrorism, no, but remove that one “cause” what will the effect be?

Me doth thinks thou lives in a dream world; George Bush= Doctor Evil

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Wayne,

By addressing the "root causes" of terrorism, or by making deals with terrorists you inadvertenly reward terrorism as a political tactic. By being seen to reward terrorism (even if that is not your intention) you create more terrorism.
Rik, I've heard this argument before. It sounds good. I'd have said basically the same thing at one time. You are repeating a line of reasoning you've heard, but it is sophistry. What it really does is two things: it ignores the realities of terrorism (it's motivations and what really causes it to go away); it's an easy way to sweep under the rug the problems causing the terrorism and to continue rewarding the bad behavior that ignited the terrorism. Doing that is what creates more terrorism.

First of all, I do NOT believe in making deals with terrorists. What I said was "the ultimate solution is to address the problems and injustices that cause terrorism--especially when that means doing what we ought to be doing anyway." I am talking about solving problems and injustice that precede the terrorism--something that "we ought to be doing anyway."

Let me give you an example that is easy to consider. Do you remember the Black Panthers (or remember hearing about them)? What about the Nation of Islam? Remember how radical Malcolm X used to be for most of his adult life? So, there were Afro-American terrorists. Were we wrong, then, to pass civil rights legislation and make Negroes (as they were called then) equal before the law? Should we instead have continued the practices of segregation, Jim Crow, separate but unequal? Should we have punished an entire ethnic group because some of them responded to the injustice they were suffering with acts of terrorism?

What happened once all that civil rights legislation passed? The violent militancy went away.

Did you ever see the movie Gandhi? If so, you'll recall that Gandhi was not a terrorist, but there were terrorists in India during his time who were fighting for the same cause--just as there were brave, non-violent civil rights demonstrators who followed the enlightened path led by Martin Luther King, Jr.

I've long said that the Palestinians would have their state by now if they were led by a Gandhi or a King rather than Arafat. I hate the Palestinian terrorists. They play right into the hands of malevolent Israelis like Sharon. (Please note that I am not calling all Israelis malevolent. I am calling Sharon and others like him (many of them former terrorists themselves, as is Sharon) malevolent.) Sharon and Netanyahu don't want to make peace with the Palestinians. They want to drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza to expand the borders of Israel.

So should we penalize all Palestinians because some of them respond with terrorism to the brutality and injustice they suffer? (People don't become suicide bombers just to get some undeserved political entitlement. The Palestinians have legitimate grievances, as did the European Jews who wanted their own state.)

Would you argue that the United States should not be a fair and impartial broker in peace efforts between Israel and Palestine? Should we just give lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state while letting our policies be dictated by Ariel Sharon?

If we were respected by Arabs for being fair players, would anyone--even the neoconservatives--think it necessary to protect our interests in the region by building military bases all over the place and irritating many Arabs who are not terrorists? Well, it's probably true that the neoconservatives would still want to take over the world, but others who give in to their policies would not be so persuaded.

Hey, if we always chose benevolence, fairness, justice and goodwill, we could see things in a black and white pattern because we'd always be on whichever color was good. However, the world is more complicated than that. Many of those shades of gray are misguided by ignorance or are diliberate in their service to greed. Then problems get created and a political "used car salesman" like Bush comes along and tells you, no, it's all really black and white ("moral clarity" :rolleyes: ) and we didn't do anything wrong. And a lot of Americans are tricked into believing him because, hey, they didn't do anything wrong. They didn't mean anyone harm. However, while they weren't paying attention, their government was busy creating problems for all of us in the service of a greedy few. That's called "blowback."

The American people--most of them, anyway--are good people who want to be fair. The problem is, they are under-informed and they trust their politicians far too much.

Edited for minor corrections.

[Beausoleil]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Wayne,

By addressing the "root causes" of terrorism, or by making deals with terrorists you inadvertenly reward terrorism as a political tactic. By being seen to reward terrorism (even if that is not your intention) you create more terrorism.


So we shouldn't have allowed the state of Israel to be established because some people who wanted it resorted to terrorism? Some of them even went on to be part of its political establishment. Is this perhaps why some people in the region now see terrorism as the way to get what they want?

[Mike B.]

Wayne,
What feelings of McVeigh were justified?

His fear of gun control?

This thought seems particularily bizzare giving your all-consuming hatred of Bush.

So now someone to the right of Bush's feelings are justified?

Could it be some people are just nihlists?

Is there any proof that the Arab states were going to recognize Israel? Sure Saudi Arabia had a plan on the table, but you didn't mention it called for the "Right of return" which means that millions of descendants of Palestinians who never set foot in Palestine or Israel will go back and be assigned land. Such a plan put into effect would be the de facto destruction
of Israel.

Plus your sarcasm about Bush's view of the world being black and white while it is really gray seems odd coming from you since you have such a absolutist view of Bush. I mean if someone passes gas somewhere in the world it is ultimately Bush's fault.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Dear Wayne Grabass
The only wet blanket I’m perceiving is the one that must be wrapped around your brain;
Listen you ignorant, juvenile piece of s**t, if you're ever in Los Angeles, get the spelling of my name right so you can look me up. Then we can meet face to face and see how much of a man you are.

You are too much of an idiot to spend much time on, but I'd like to point out how a moron like you can't hold a train of thought. You start by arguing that by doing one thing, we can remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. When I point out to you how that is not in the cards, you then start trying to tell me why we have troops in Saudi Arabia in the first place. Dumbass, the matter was removing troops from Saudi Arabia, not a debate about how they got there.

The Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) is an actual organization, a conservative "think tank" whose members are all either in Bush's administration as policy makers or other influential Washington conservatives, such as William Kristol (who heads the Project and is the publisher of The Weekly Standard, ) and Norman Podhoretz (the publisher of Commentary. ) Those are just two of the articles that have appeared in newspapers that have commented on the Project's strategy document (all 96 pages of which used to be available on their Web site in PDF format and may still be). And if you actually read the articles, you'd have noticed the sidebar that names some of the Projects' members who both authored that document and who now hold important positions in the Bush Administration. You'd also have noticed how it was pointed out how closely the Bush Administration has been following the policies advocated in that document. You would have, if you were not such an ignoramous!

Keep your tiny head buried in the sand, jerk.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Wayne,
What feelings of McVeigh were justified?

His fear of gun control?

This thought seems particularily bizzare giving your all-consuming hatred of Bush.
Listen, first of all, I resent your references to my alleged "all-consuming hatred of Bush." That makes it really easy for you to just dismiss my arguments without really considering them, doesn't it? I have some news for you. Back in the Fall of 2001 I was very much on Bush's side. He's since then earned my contempt.

McVeigh was upset by the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. In both of those cases, there has been acknowlegment that the government acted recklessly. Now, it shouldn't be necessary for me to add the following, but I know that if I don't, someone will construct a straw man accusing me of defending Tim McVeigh. Tim McVeigh was a warped a$$#ole who deserved the death penalty.

This story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,675435,00.html) is from a year ago. Arab leaders unanimously endorsed a Saudi peace plan for the Middle East today at a summit in Lebanon, delegates said.

The plan, proposed by Saudi Arabia's crown prince Abdullah, offers a "normalisation" of relations with Israel if it withdraws from all occupied Arab land, accepts a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and agrees to the return of Palestinian refugees. Yes, the return of the Palestinian refugees is asking more than is practical, but the offer was still an important step in the right direction.

[crackmonkey]

Frankly, Wayne, I can't imagone you ever being on Bush's side... you seem to be too stridently liberal to have ever supported a Republican.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Frankly, Wayne, I can't imagone you ever being on Bush's side... you seem to be too stridently liberal to have ever supported a Republican.
That's because you lack imagination--and perception. Yeah, I'm just a "strident liberal." Now it's safe for you stick your head back in the sand and not be troubled by uncomfortable thoughts.

[kedo1981]

Dear Mr. Grab-ass

The only jerk I see is what your knee does when your paranoid opinions are challenged.

I stated three simple facts

A pacified Iraq removes the need for troops in SA.
The lack of “Conquest behavior” in Kuwait (hell anywhere we have troops for that matter).
Bin-Ladin is “mainly” pissed off about the presence of non-believers in his “sacred” homeland.
Three simple facts that even you should be able to understand (or not). Nothing to do with “Think Tanks” of which there are all kinds all over Washington; but that don’t mean they are actually running our government (you’re not that paranoid are you). I missed the world conquest part of the last state of the union address, maybe your anti-American contacts can give you some documents or something that you can cut and paste so you won’t have to use any original thoughts.
George has “maybe’ a another four years to do all this, he’d better hurry, but wait he can’t even get his court nominees approved, I guess he should focus on “WORLD DOMINATION” instead, Doctor Evil would.
I guess living in LA and seeing all the ‘Jews” doing so well when you’re barely making ends meet brings out your anti-Semitism huh?
And by the way; if you were as rude to me in person as you are in your posts, you would not like the results.

[Beausoleil]

Originally posted by Mike B.
you didn't mention it called for the "Right of return" which means that millions of descendants of Palestinians who never set foot in Palestine or Israel will go back and be assigned land.

Millions of descendants of Jews who never set foot in Palestine or Israel have a right of return. How would this be different? In fact, failing to insist on it seems to me to be legitimising an act of ethnic cleansing.

The difference for the Palestinians is that there are still living people who remember living in what is now Israel.

I'll defend Israel to the hilt as a secular constitutional democracy, with equality before the law for all citizens and citizenship established by birth, residence or descent for all citizens equally. An Israel which discriminates in immigration policy on the basis of religion or notional race can go hang with all the other racist regimes.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Dear Mr. Grab-ass

The only jerk I see is what your knee does when your paranoid opinions are challenged.

I stated three simple facts

A pacified Iraq removes the need for troops in SA.
The lack of “Conquest behavior” in Kuwait (hell anywhere we have troops for that matter).
Bin-Ladin is “mainly” pissed off about the presence of non-believers in his “sacred” homeland.
Three simple facts that even you should be able to understand (or not). Nothing to do with “Think Tanks” of which there are all kinds all over Washington; but that don’t mean they are actually running our government (you’re not that paranoid are you). I missed the world conquest part of the last state of the union address, maybe your anti-American contacts can give you some documents or something that you can cut and paste so you won’t have to use any original thoughts.
George has “maybe’ a another four years to do all this, he’d better hurry, but wait he can’t even get his court nominees approved, I guess he should focus on “WORLD DOMINATION” instead, Doctor Evil would.
I guess living in LA and seeing all the ‘Jews” doing so well when you’re barely making ends meet brings out your anti-Semitism huh?
And by the way; if you were as rude to me in person as you are in your posts, you would not like the results.
Dear Queerdo,

First of all, you started the rudeness. Secondly, I'd kick your ass.

Thirdly, you continue to be juvenile and ignorant. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others involved with the formulation of the strategy I've pointed out to you are part of the government, you twit. And if you paid attention to what is happening, you'd also know that the foreign policy strategy statement issued by the Bush Administration last September closely resembles the strategy goals advocated by the Project for the New American Century, though with toned down rhetoric.

Fourthly, removing the need for troops in SA (the "need" to which you refer is really only the reason given for their presence) does not mean the troops will be removed. They won't be as long as Bush and company and those who think like them are running the show.

Fifthly, you are a juvenile incapable of holding a civil discussion. I politely responded to your original post and provided you with information that you didn't have. You reacted with childish personal attacks. ("Grabass." How old are you? Ten?) You dismiss the information provided without actually considering it and resort to namecalling. So who is the knee jerk reactionary? You, you piece of s**t.
I guess living in LA and seeing all the ‘Jews” doing so well when you’re barely making ends meet brings out your anti-Semitism huh?
What kind of stupid comment is that? That comes completely out of the blue. You know nothing about me or my financial situation. I've said nothing anti-Semitic. Let me guess. You are a little Jewish boy who uses a drawing of a black man as his avatar and who calls anyone who criticizes Israeli policies or politicians in anyway either an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew. You are a bigot, an intellectual coward, and in all other ways a coward.

Get lost, you childish prick! You don't belong here.

[kedo1981]

Oh Gentle Grabass
You so crazy
Why don’t you smoke a little pot and relax?
If I’d known you’d be so upset I would have over looked your non-sense (not really, pissing off people like you is such fun).

Maybe you’re not anti-Semitic (you’re just an apologist for Palestinian terrorists)
Maybe you’re not an idiot (you just think an OP-Ed in a newspaper constitutes proof)
Maybe you’re not delusional (you just think that Bush is trying to take over the world)
Maybe you’re not a moron (you just forgot that US troops were in SA during the Clinton years also; or was he forced to leave them there by the evil Bush overlords)
Maybe you’re not brain damaged (you just forgot that you made the smart-assed “wet blanket” remark in your first reply)
Maybe you’re not that pathetic dork who shoots off his mouth and gets “bitch” slapped for it (you just assume you would “kick my ass” without knowing what you would be up against)

And no I’m not a “little Jewish boy” and you are the first poster who’s anti-Semitisms that I’ve pointed out; you should feel privileged.
If by coward you mean that I feel that I can safely make physical threats against someone a couple a thousand miles away then (oh wait; that was you that you did that).

“Queerdo”?
oh your wit is so razor sharp

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Fourthly, removing the need for troops in SA (the "need" to which you refer is really only the reason given for their presence) does not mean the troops will be removed. They won't be as long as Bush and company and those who think like them are running the show.



Wolfowitz (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/t02202003_t0219npr.html) on NPR (http://npr.org/):


Q: But the presence of -- I have to take you back one more time after the Gulf War. The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia has been one of the most inflammatory things for al Qaeda and groups like that. That they see U.S. occupation or U.S. presence in that country as something that they must fight against. How would it be any different in Iraq?

Wolfowitz: First of all, let's talk about Saudi Arabia. We won't need troops in Saudi Arabia when there's no longer an Iraqi threat. The Saudi problem will be transformed.

It seems at least some in the administration disagree.

MattJ

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It seems at least some in the administration disagree.
Hello, Matt. It's refreshing to speak with another adult for a change.

The quote from Wolfowitz provides some encouragement. One can only hope that more of the neoconservative crowd see the light (if Wolfowitz actually has, though he never said we would remove the troops, but that the Saudi situation would be "transformed") and that policy follows what Wolfowitz is suggesting. I'm not convinced that it will, but I hope it does. Of course, after Saddam falls we may be asked by the Saudis to leave. Let's hope we do rather than exercise regime change there as well.

However, the thread topic is whether a war with Iraq will reduce terrorism. There is not sufficient reason to think that it will.

The CIA, as I pointed out on another thread, has intelligence that terrorist groups are planning guerilla warfare in Iraq against US troops.

FBI director Robert Mueller has warned (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/politics/06THRE.html) that terrorist attacks in the US could increase as a result of the war. According to Coleen Rowley, many of her FBI colleagues expect the war to increase the terrorist threat.
In a letter last week to the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, Ms. Rowley said that he had a responsibility to warn the White House that the bureau would not be able to "stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq."

Ms. Rowley created an uproar last year when she revealed how in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks bureau supervisors in Washington had blocked Minneapolis agents who wanted authority for a broader investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, who has since been indicted as a conspirator in the attacks.

She said that many of her colleagues share her view that an American invasion of Iraq would result in a wave of new domestic terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and that the F.B.I. was ill-prepared to deal with the new threat.

(snip)

Bureau officials also noted that Mr. Mueller has warned publicly that terrorist threats could grow as a result of an Iraq war. So if people whose job is to gather intelligence and assess the threat are saying the war will cause an increase in the threat, it ought to be at least worth considering rather than summarily dismissed with the judgment of a child that the US will then remove its troops from Saudi Arabia and that will placate Islamic extremists sufficiently to give up their campaign against "the crusaders."

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Maybe you’re not anti-Semitic (you’re just an apologist for Palestinian terrorists)
In an earlier post on this thread I said, "I've long said that the Palestinians would have their state by now if they were led by a Gandhi or a King rather than Arafat. I hate the Palestinian terrorists." So is that anti-Semitic? The Palestinian terrorists are Semitic. However, I never said I hate all Semites. And how do you get "an apologist for Palestinian terrorists" out of that?

Originally posted by kedo1981
Maybe you’re not brain damaged (you just forgot that you made the smart-assed “wet blanket” remark in your first reply)
What a weak attempt to deny your guilt as the one who reacted with rudeness! Do you even know what that expression means? It means to extinguish a false hope. You just couldn't tolerate it that someone disagreed with you.

Originally posted by kedo1981
Maybe you’re not that pathetic dork who shoots off his mouth and gets “bitch” slapped for it (you just assume you would “kick my ass” without knowing what you would be up against) And wouldn't you be in for a surprise!

Originally posted by kedo1981
And no I’m not a “little Jewish boy” Okay, then you're fat.

[aerocontrols]

Hello, Wayne

The CIA has not predicted that removing Saddam Hussein will increase the threat of terrorism over the long term. It is reasonable that for Al Qaeda to expect to have any credibilty, they must attempt something against us in Iraq. As far as I'm concerned, they will have less success in Iraq than they have had in Afghanistan. Do you have reason to believe they will do better against US troops in Iraq than they did previously in Afghanistan? It makes sense (to me) that the recent captures are a result of Al Qaeda resurfacing for just this reason. We are already harming Al Qaeda because of the Iraq campaign, before it has even begun.

The CIA assessment you point to indicates that the CIA believes that Al Qaeda is going to attack us troops in Iraq, to which I say... better to face them in Iraq than nearly anywhere else on the globe.

The alternative, it seems to me, is to hope that the Iraqi government cracks down on the Al Qaeda-linked groups in Iraq or that we can consistently stop them at the Iraqi border. Either of these seems a slim hope at best. Do you see another alternative?

It is my understanding that Coleen Rowley has next-to-no counter-terrorism experience.

Re: Wolfowitz. He's one of my favorite people in the administration. Hard core advocate of democracy, like myself.

MattJ

[kedo1981]

“Okay, then you're fat.”
Again your wit perfectly matches your debating skills.

[kedo1981]

Wait Wayne does this mean you’re the only one here that thinks George Bush is out to take over the world.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Or perhaps it will cause young and bright Muslims to gravitate towards the anti-American cause. A single death of a father in a war could result in all of his children becoming terrorists, because they may see it as the only way to avenge their father. The pursuit of revenge is especially strong in the mideast. The fact that people are still killing themselves and others over the existence of Israel after more than fifty years is evidence of this.

Certainly a war is likely to make international diplomacy much more difficult for the US in the future. Many will be convinced that the US simply kills anyone who disagrees with them. Is this really the attitude we want to convey? In any "inspirational" movie, the US would be the bully that everyone is cheering against. If you were in the mideast, wouldn't you cheer against us?

Should have stopped at the word young. No suicide bomber is all that bright. See when I was recruited into the Marines in 1982 I knew the recruiter stood by what I may be called to do. A suicide bombr has to ask why the guy recruiting him is able to recruit him. why hasn't he already died for the cause?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Hello, Wayne

The CIA has not predicted that removing Saddam Hussein will increase the threat of terrorism over the long term. It is reasonable that for Al Qaeda to expect to have any credibilty, they must attempt something against us in Iraq. As far as I'm concerned, they will have less success in Iraq than they have had in Afghanistan. Do you have reason to believe they will do better against US troops in Iraq than they did previously in Afghanistan? It makes sense (to me) that the recent captures are a result of Al Qaeda resurfacing for just this reason. We are already harming Al Qaeda because of the Iraq campaign, before it has even begun.
Matt, as far as I know, the CIA has not publicized any predictions in that regard other than what I provided in that thread. So you cannot deduce from CIA predictions that the threat of terrorism against US troops in Iraq will soon disappear or be ineffective or vice versa.

I have pointed out several times on the JREF board why the recent and ongoing experience in Afghanistan is significantly different from what we are embarking upon in Iraq. I think you've read those comments at least once. I don't have the time to repeat them. I'll add the following, however.

1. While we have been successful in seriously disrupting al Qaida's operations in Afghanistan, the job there is a long way from finished. It would be folly to neglect it. I worry that we will. Also, the help of the locals has been an important--crucial--element of our success there.

2. How successful guerillas will be in Iraq depends on such variables as whether or not Iraq dissolves into widespread and protracted civil war (that would help the guerillas) and the attitudes of the Iraqis toward the guerillas and the Americans.

One source for optimism is Iran. The current situation in Afghanistan and the coming situation in Iraq could both be much worse if it were not for the actions of Iran. Iran has arrested hundreds of al Qaida that crossed its borders since the US went into Afghanistan. Iran is preparing to thwart al Qaida guerillas going into Iraq from its borders. Iran is also making preparations for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi war refugees. Iran is once again trying to improve relations with the United States.

You wrote, "As far as I'm concerned, they will have less success in Iraq than they have had in Afghanistan." Why do you believe this?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
So you cannot deduce from CIA predictions that the threat of terrorism against US troops in Iraq will soon disappear or be ineffective or vice versa

I don't think that I did use CIA predictions to claim that. The CIA claims Al Qaeda will surface to respond to our invasion. I claim that this will give (indeed, it already has given) us an opportunity to capture more of them.


Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
1. While we have been successful in seriously disrupting al Qaida's operations in Afghanistan, the job there is a long way from finished. It would be folly to neglect it. I worry that we will. Also, the help of the locals has been an important--crucial--element of our success there.

You are worrying that we will neglect the hunt for Al Qaeda with respect to their Afghanistan operations one week after we make one of the most significant arrests in the past year? I say again: Al Qaeda stuck its head up to protect its credibility. Every time it does this we hurt them. The CIA and FBI don't stop worrying about Al Qaeda because we go into Iraq. The M1-A2 tanks we move into Iraq are useless in hunting terrorists, anyway. The only people ignoring the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan once we go into Iraq will be the public and the media, not the intelligence services.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You wrote, "As far as I'm concerned, they will have less success in Iraq than they have had in Afghanistan." Why do you believe this?

Because we put far fewer boots on the ground in Afghanistan than we are preparing to do in Iraq. Because currently the non-fundie Kurds and Ansar Al-Islam are fighting for control of Kurdistan, and Saddam works to keep them fighting each other. Once Saddam is gone, the secular Kurds (and US forces) will be able to bring down Ansar Al-Islam.

MattJ

[kedo1981]

By definition; an act of aggression against troops while in combat or during wartime has not been considered “terrorism”.
It’s great that you have access to all this information “Grabass” you must have some great contacts in high places, seeing as how you are privy to all these secrets.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by kedo1981

Fact: We have troops in SA because 13 years ago they asked us to protect their sand and oil from Iraq.



Fact: the Saudis asked for US troops because the US made them believe that Saddam was massing troops at the saudi borders which was not true.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by kedo1981
One Way smacking around Iraq will help end terrorism is that a disarmed Iraq will end the need for US troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia.
This is a little detail that seems to have been passed over in the press.

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

After the US has spent millions and millions to build military bases in Saudi Arabia then after another Gulf War the US is just going to say, "OK that's great! Good job guys, now lets go home!"

The US had been pressuring Saudia Arabia for permission to build bases in their country for years prior to Saddam becoming the enemy of the moment due to US dependence on low cost petroleum for this area. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that the US will just give up these bases because Saddam H. is out of the picture because the oil is still very much in the picture.

I hope this helps!

[Tmy]

Once the US military sets up a strategic base do they ever really leave???

Im trying to think of an example.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tmy
Once the US military sets up a strategic base do they ever really leave???

Im trying to think of an example.

Not really, and even when they do leave one area, they usually just transfer the work load to some other place that is nearby.

Generally speaking, the US military likes to keep as many of its larger overseas bases as is possible because they may be needed some day.

There were quite a few small bases and observation posts closed in Europe at the end of the Cold War because all agreed that it would be more efficient to keep a few big bases as opposed to a network of smaller stations.

Also, it took a good bit of doing, but the US finally did leave the bases in the Phillipines. However due to the WOT, the US/Phillipine ties are almost as strong now as they were 25 years ago so the US still does a great deal of work out of those same bases even though they are no longer US military bases.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Once the US military sets up a strategic base do they ever really leave???

Im trying to think of an example.

France.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by kedo1981
By definition; an act of aggression against troops while in combat or during wartime has not been considered “terrorism”.
It’s great that you have access to all this information “Grabass” you must have some great contacts in high places, seeing as how you are privy to all these secrets.
Are you fishing for a plane ticket to Los Angeles, Queerdo?

[kedo1981]

You see an odd version of history folks
Iraq demanded money from Kuwait and SA as compensation for fighting the war with Iran.
When they refused Iraq made, threatening military movements culminating with the invasion of Kuwait, and a build up of troops on the SA border. SA had/has a modern military and they were perfectly able to assess the threat that Iraq posed. We had no need to "trick" them into letting us build bases, Sa saw the threat.

The need for US military force to control the flow of oil is a strawman, we already control the flow of oil not by pointing guns but by pointing dollar bills, we are "THE" market for the oil, the market controls the flow of goods.

Have we pulled out of countries that we send troops into; how about Grenada; Haiti; we gave up control of the Panama canal (pretty sure we still have bases there though); sent troops into the Balkans, most, if no all of them are out. The point is, the USA has never demonstrated a "conquest behavior", and it would take a radical change in US foreign policy and thinking in general in this country to let that happen.

Am I "fishing" for a plane ticket to LA?
Ohhhh no "Mista Grabass" me just-a big fat coward, and you so brave, so big and bad, why you so brave, you make threats againist someone that you have no chance of meeting, thats much more than I can handle.
If I where in LA which corner on Sunset blvd. do you work

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by kedo1981
You see an odd version of history folks
Iraq demanded money from Kuwait and SA as compensation for fighting the war with Iran.
When they refused Iraq made, threatening military movements culminating with the invasion of Kuwait, and a build up of troops on the SA border. SA had/has a modern military and they were perfectly able to assess the threat that Iraq posed. We had no need to "trick" them into letting us build bases, Sa saw the threat.

The need for US military force to control the flow of oil is a strawman, we already control the flow of oil not by pointing guns but by pointing dollar bills, we are "THE" market for the oil, the market controls the flow of goods.

Have we pulled out of countries that we send troops into; how about Grenada; Haiti; we gave up control of the Panama canal (pretty sure we still have bases there though); sent troops into the Balkans, most, if no all of them are out. The point is, the USA has never demonstrated a "conquest behavior", and it would take a radical change in US foreign policy and thinking in general in this country to let that happen.

Am I "fishing" for a plane ticket to LA?
Ohhhh no "Mista Grabass" me just-a big fat coward, and you so brave, so big and bad, why you so brave, you make threats againist someone that you have no chance of meeting, thats much more than I can handle.
If I where in LA which corner on Sunset blvd. do you work

To: kedo1981

Pardon my negative tone but I think you have an odd version of history.

First of all Iraq did not demand compensation money from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for the Iran/Iraq war. What happened is that Iraq borrowed a good bit of money from Kuwait to finance that war and after the shooting stopped the price of oil went down which made it harder for Iraq to pay its debts. Iraq tried to convince OPEC to cut back on production to drive the price back up (which would help Iraq which was not exporting much oil anyway), but Kuwait (and some others) did not go along with idea since doing so would cause them to loose money since they exported such large volumes of oil. OPEC has learned that once the price of oil starts getting over $25/bbl then people stop buying so much oil.

While this was going on, Kuwait refused to re-negotiate/forgive the Iraqi debts and since there is a long standing border dispute between Kuwait and Iraq (just about all of the Middle East countries have long standing border disputes of one sort or another, which is what set off the Iran/Iraq war) Iraq just went out and grabbed Kuwait thus nullifying both the debt and OPEC problem at the same time.

Also, those US military bases in Saudi Arabia were in place before the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, it is just that the Saudis wanted their existence to remain a secret unless it was absolutely necessary to make the data known to the public. Well, the '91 Gulf War made it necessary.

Additionally, you need to separate the issues of combat troops and military bases. While you are correct in stating that the US does not keep military troops in field indefinitely in all of the different countries that they have operated in. However, that is quite different from the establishment of a large military base which is done with the consent (almost always anyway) of the host country.

I hope this helps!

[Alaric]

Im with Wayne-Bush IS trying to take over and his policies do match those of the conservative thinktanks already mentioned.

As for the lil tizzy here-dont fall for it Wanye. Let the little boy whine at his keyboard. Dont stoop to his level anymore.


What im concerned with (more than the war actually) is what happens afterwards. If the US isnt willing to pump the cash into the reagion and get it straightened out-we are in for it. US bases there will be penal duty for gods sakes with all the attacks on troops.
Either the US dumps cash into Iraq or the troop numbers will need to stay VERY high to keep the system stable(try and prevent the conditions that spawn terrorists) or they risk the whole middle east blowing up in their face. Isnt there a real problem in Saudi Arabia with anti-American sentiment? Iran as well is just waiting for an excuse.

[c0rbin]

First of all, you started the rudeness. Secondly, I'd kick your ass.

Gooooooooooooooo Peace!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Alaric
As for the lil tizzy here-dont fall for it Wanye. Let the little boy whine at his keyboard. Dont stoop to his level anymore.

I was thinking the same thing. There is no point in arguing with an ignorant child. Thank you.

[kedo1981]

Coming from the person who repeatedly made threats of violence that has a real big impact.
Lets review shall we?
You think that George Bush is trying take over the world
We should blame Israel for Palestinian terrorism
And you think you’re brave by threatening someone who you have nearly ZERO chance of meeting
Goodbye Grabass

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Coming from the person who repeatedly made threats of violence that has a real big impact.
Lets review shall we?
You think that George Bush is trying take over the world

This would be the second country he'd attack in a pretty short time.

We should blame Israel for Palestinian terrorism

Yes and no. Israeli's kill palestinians with tanks and flachette shells, Palestinians kill Israeli's with bombs. The cycle just keep repeating.

And you think you’re brave by threatening someone who you have nearly ZERO chance of meeting
Goodbye Grabass
??

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
Tell me, the French are anti-american and yet they dont commit terrorism. Just because people resent you doesn't mean they will kill you.

not against americans, perhaps. they have, however, committed terrorist acts, look up the 'rainbow warrior', a outright act of terrorism.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by corplinx
Tell me, the French are anti-american and yet they dont commit terrorism. Just because people resent you doesn't mean they will kill you.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
not against americans, perhaps. they have, however, committed terrorist acts, look up the 'rainbow warrior', a outright act of terrorism.

Do you realize just how unrelated to his point this is?

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Do you realize just how unrelated to his point this is?

MattJ

it is related. the french just didn't commit terrorism against the US. they aren't that dumb.