• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Causing MORE Terror?

Vote for all these leads that ACTUALLY lead to more brutality and terrorism?


  • Total voters
    11

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Keep in mind that everything was not peachy before Iraq. Muslims already hated us and had been attacking us for decades (not to mention 9/11).

Another distortion the patriotic left has used to undermine our troops and their mission is that by actually standing up to our enemies we are only creating more terrorists. History overwhelmingly disproves this. It is the appease and retreat strategy Democrats relentlessly advocate (they use more appealing words like “restraint” to describe their habitual cowering, but it is still the same thing) that has emboldened the brutality of every regime from Stalin to Saddam.

Bill Clinton retreated from Bin Laden in Somalia under the guise of “getting our troops out of harm’s way,” and what followed was more and more terrorism against our troops, all with further impunity, and eventually, 9/11.

Standing up to bullies causes more violence? Perhaps initially, but once they realize they can’t push you around, they will back off or they will continue to get their asses kicked. Democrats have demonstrated quite thoroughly that what doesn’t work is repeatedly appeasing, retreating, and groveling at the feet of bloody Islam (or N. Korea for that matter).
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aquapub said:
Keep in mind that everything was not peachy before Iraq. Muslims already hated us and had been attacking us for decades (not to mention 9/11).
Sure, some did, but more do now.
Perceptions of America took a sharp drop world-wide as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Apparently, it was enough to push some folks over the edge into violent Islamist jihad who would have been otherwise occupied had we not invaded Iraq. The foreign fighters in the Iraqi insurgency say they were radicalized by the invasion of Iraq.

Fighting our enemy is not enough. The enemy must be fought intelligently and well.

aquapub said:
Another distortion the patriotic left has used to undermine our troops and their mission is that by actually standing up to our enemies we are only creating more terrorists.
I guess you're including the US Intel Community in the category of "the patriotic left."

aquapub said:
History overwhelmingly disproves this.
History nothin. How bout what's actually going on today. Seems more relevant than arbitrary, awkward historical analogies.

aquapub said:
Standing up to bullies causes more violence? Perhaps initially, but once they realize they can’t push you around, they will back off or they will continue to get their asses kicked.
We weren't "standing up to a bully." Saddam was not bullying us. No one bullies the US. Neither Saddam nor anyone else ever had any doubt that we could and would wipe the floor with Iraq.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Sure, some did, but more do now.
Perceptions of America took a sharp drop world-wide as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Apparently, it was enough to push some folks over the edge into violent Islamist jihad who would have been otherwise occupied had we not invaded Iraq. The foreign fighters in the Iraqi insurgency say they were radicalized by the invasion of Iraq.

Remember the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s? We have been getting attacked by "some" Muslims for decades? It is a gross understatement to say that only "some" Muslims hated us before Iraq. Remember them dancing in the streets on 9/11? Ever seen polls about Bin Laden's favorability among Muslims around the world after 9/11?

Come on.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
I guess you're including the US Intel Community in the category of "the patriotic left."

They were basing that on the number of attacks. We have attracted the world's terrorists to Iraq (which was part of the idea-to draw them out and fight them on foreign soil instead of our own). And I'm sure some have been created, but there is no reliable way to measure that and I have seen how much the ranks of groups like Al Queda swell when we DON'T stand up to them too much to buy that fighting creates more terrorists than not fighting them.

They are going to hate us and attack us either way. At least we can let them know that we won't be pushed around.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
We weren't "standing up to a bully." Saddam was not bullying us. No one bullies the US. Neither Saddam nor anyone else ever had any doubt that we could and would wipe the floor with Iraq.


Hitler wasn't "bullying us" when he invaded our ally, Poland, either, but he was being a bully, and we should have stood up to him then, to end it.

Likewise, Saddam was bullying our ally, Kuwait, when he launched an unprovoked invasion of that peaceful nation. Likewise, he needed to be stopped then. He launched missiles routinely at one of our strongest nuclear ally-Israel. He sponsored terrorism against our allies and tried to have our president assassinated. On what planet were we NOT responding to a bully? I guess the same one in which Hitler wasn't a bully either, huh?

Also, he WAS bullying the U.N. and the U.S. indirectly through his oil.
 

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think its stands to reason that there's more terror. Our actions, which from a macro view I did and do consider necessary, have naturally elicited a response from terror organizations.

I think you're right that opponents of the administration have used this as a tool to attack the administration. What's annoying is that this argument is being made from people who are allegedly intelligent enough to know that terror attacks and recruitment we're ultimately going to increase as a result of any actions that we took to combat these organizations. Had we only went to Afghanistan, terror attacks would've increased. Had we only applied diplomatic or economic pressure on rogue regimes, terror attacks would've increased.

To make this argument does a dis-service to the effort because it attempts to convince Americans that our actions are wrong based on the false premise that had we not waged this war, or had we approached it with less vigor, terrorism wouldn't have increased despite all evidence of the past decades to the contrary.
 

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon W. Moon said:
Sure, some did, but more do now.
Perceptions of America took a sharp drop world-wide as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Apparently, it was enough to push some folks over the edge into violent Islamist jihad who would have been otherwise occupied had we not invaded Iraq. The foreign fighters in the Iraqi insurgency say they were radicalized by the invasion of Iraq.
Any actions we took and take in going on the offensive is going to perceived as such. Question is, is removing Sadaam from power and attempting to rebuild Iraq worth the spike in Terror recruitment and activity that necessarily resulted from this?

If Iraq gets passed their sectarian differences and establishes a national unity government, then yes it was worth it. If the US and its allies learn better how to conduct counter-insurgency campaigns and nation building, then yes it was worth it, if we gain an ally in combatting terror organizations then yes it was worth it, if we secure his oil reserves in order to provide a more stable source of oil from the region then, yes it was worth it.

Simon W. Moon said:
Fighting our enemy is not enough. The enemy must be fought intelligently and well.
That's the trick, but the only way to do that is try different methods and learn from the mistakes. Our military has had many successes and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and they've slowly but surely been adjusting their tactics to accomodate a new mode of warfare.

Our diplomacy has also had some great successes and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, again, changes, slowly but surely have been made to adjust to the different problems that have presented themselves.

Simon W. Moon said:
History nothin. How bout what's actually going on today. Seems more relevant than arbitrary, awkward historical analogies.
We always have to refer to history in order to more clearly understand present circumstances. Not to say that History should dictate, but it should be factored into decision making.

Simon W. Moon said:
We weren't "standing up to a bully." Saddam was not bullying us. No one bullies the US. Neither Saddam nor anyone else ever had any doubt that we could and would wipe the floor with Iraq.
Sure we were standing up to a bully. True, he wasn't bullying us, but he was a bully, and there were certainly more reasons than this to remove him from power. Oil reserves, his ruling a primarily islamic nation but being very much a despised figure in the Islamic world, his active persuit of WMD, his active defiance of the world community, his military albeit diminished by the gulf war but none the less a force to be reckoned with in the region, his strategic location in the Islamic world, his crimes against humanity. What better a strategic choice in opening a new front in this war then Iraq?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aquapub said:
It is a gross understatement to say that only "some" Muslims hated us before Iraq.
If it's not some, then it's all or none. So you're saying that all muslims have always hated the US. That falls on its face.

aquapub said:
They were basing that on the number of attacks.
While this was a data point that was used to reach these conclusions, it was not the only information used to reach this conclusion.

aquapub said:
We have attracted the world's terrorists to Iraq (which was part of the idea-to draw them out and fight them on foreignsoil instead of our own).
Riiight, riiight, gotcha. When Rumsfeld spoke of Iraq taking only six week (or six months at the outside), he was speaking of a plan to defeat the "world's terrorists" in a month and a half. Riight, riight, gotcha.

The plan was to rebuild a better, democratic Iraq not turn it into a war zone and shooting gallery to get at "the world's terrorists."
The flypaper-theory crap is a a subsequent rationalization to spin the fact that the initial plan was not going as the Admin expected.

A surprising number of the foreign fighters who make their way to Iraq to aid the insurgency have are not on terrorist watch lists. And why is that? They had no previous involvement with terorists or terrorist activity.

aquapub said:
... I have seen how much the ranks of groups like Al Queda swell when we DON'T stand up to them too much to buy that fighting creates more terrorists than not fighting them.
The choice isn't fight or don't fight. Not all fighting is equal. Some things are better than others. Our invasion of Iraq was blunder. Sometimes, the technique of presenting one's case a choice between only two things hwen in fact there are more choices than that is called using a false dichotomy

aquapub said:
They are going to hate us and attack us either way. At least we can let them know that we won't be pushed around.
For some folks this is undoubtedly true. We can't do much about the folks who've already made up their minds to engage in terroristic violence but render them harmless.
However, this does not preclude our need to prevent the terrorists from being able to reinforce themselves. Al-Qa'ida wanted to provoke the US and, w/ Iraq we fell for it. Even Atta knew that Saddam was a stooge who would provide an excuse for the US to muck about in the ME.

It's as important to prosecute our war on terror in ways that erode the support for violent Islamist jihad as it is to prosecute our war on terror.

aquapub said:
Hitler wasn't "bullying us" when he invaded our ally, Poland, either, but he was being a bully, and we should have stood up to him then, to end it.
Again with the arbitrary, awkward historical analogies. The relative power disparity between WWII Germany and the WWII US is markedly different than the relative power disparity between pre-war Iraq and the US.

aquapub said:
On what planet were we NOT responding to a bully?
I see you've chosen to change the operative verb from "standing up" to a bully to "responding" to a bully. Nice try there. Maybe one day, you'll be as slick as Willy.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Crispy said:
What's annoying is that this argument is being made from people who are allegedly intelligent enough to know that terror attacks and recruitment we're ultimately going to increase as a result of any actions that we took to combat these organizations.
Even if this is true, it still doesn't go to show that all options were equal.

Crispy said:
To make this argument does a dis-service to the effort because it attempts to convince Americans that our actions are wrong based on the false premise that had we not waged this war, or had we approached it with less vigor, terrorism wouldn't have increased despite all evidence of the past decades to the contrary.
Not all action have the same consequences. Just because terrorism might have spiked w/ other initiatives undertaken differently in no way means that our invasion of Iraq was our best or only choice.

Crispy said:
What's annoying is that this argument is being made from people who are allegedly intelligent enough to know that terror attacks and recruitment we're ultimately going to increase as a result of any actions that we took to combat these organizations.
Even if this is true, it still doesn't go to show that all options were equal.

Crispy said:
Question is, is removing Sadaam from power and attempting to rebuild Iraq worth the spike in Terror recruitment and activity that necessarily resulted from this?
As he was not the extra-territorial threat he was presented as, the answer would be no. We unecessarily increased the risk of anti-American terrorism for no real reward, and for very little probable reward. (I know we were promised a fully democratic Iraq and a ME rennaisance resulting from it, but I think we're all finally willing to release that pipe dream and settle for something less.)

Crispy said:
That's the trick, but the only way to do that is try different methods and learn from the mistakes. Our military has had many successes and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and they've slowly but surely been adjusting their tactics to accomodate a new mode of warfare.

Our diplomacy has also had some great successes and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, again, changes, slowly but surely have been made to adjust to the different problems that have presented themselves.
Despite the multitudes of tactical successes you mention, our invasion of Iraq was a strategic mistake. It was not a necessary war and set us backward in our goals.

Crispy said:
We always have to refer to history in order to more clearly understand present circumstances. Not to say that History should dictate, but it should be factored into decision making.
Of course, but when there's present day data that contradicts the assumptions made by observing history, the facts on the ground must be given precedence over the ISTMs drawn from the historical record.

Crispy said:
Sure we were standing up to a bully.
We weren't standing up to him. We already towered over him in ways that he could never hope to match.

Crispy said:
What better a strategic choice in opening a new front in this war then Iraq?
When is opening an additional and unecessary front ever a good idea?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
All of the above. Obviously retreat and appeasement cause more terrorism. Fighting our enemies can either reduce it if it's done correctly, or increase it if it's done Bush-style. The idiocy in Iraq has grossly exacerbated the problem.
 

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon W. Moon said:
Even if this is true, it still doesn't go to show that all options were equal.
Not all action have the same consequences. Just because terrorism might have spiked w/ other initiatives undertaken differently in no way means that our invasion of Iraq was our best or only choice.
I agree with this and I won't say that Iraq was the only course or best course of action. It was the next chosen action is all. All wars start somewhere. Was the invasion of North Africa by allied powers during WWII a better "first front" to open or would the european invasion have been a better start? perhaps the European invasion would have saved more lives in the Nazi death camps. Perhaps not. Because Iraq was chosen in the beginning of this war, and because it has presented many un-forseen challenges, as did North Africa, doesn't make it a wrong choice. History will decide that.

Simon W. Moon said:
As he was not the extra-territorial threat he was presented as, the answer would be no. We unecessarily increased the risk of anti-American terrorism for no real reward, and for very little probable reward.

Even if the other positive results pan out? (sectarian differences are overcome, strategic partner in the ME, Military and diplomatic lessons for us and the world on how to address such problems are learned, stable control over oil reserves). We can see that Military and diplomatic lessons have been learned throughout this campaign. We're seeing Iraqi leaders stepping up trying to overcome sectarian divides despite the problems. We're seeing a rejection of terrorism as means to express religious ideals amoungst more and more populations of the region.

And wouldn't a socially and economically prosperous ME yeild us and the rest of the world the biggest gain? A return on investment that would prove to be without comparison?

Simon W. Moon said:
(I know we were promised a fully democratic Iraq and a ME rennaisance resulting from it, but I think we're all finally willing to release that pipe dream and settle for something less.)
I don't buy this. I buy that its work, more work than anticipated perhaps. Should we write these people off so quickly as lacking the ability to build a peaceful, stable democracy (or rather than just saying democracy which is a decieving term, a country based on "liberal constitutionalism")? Did the rest of the successful countries of the world become this way so quickly?

Simon W. Moon said:
Despite the multitudes of tactical successes you mention, our invasion of Iraq was a strategic mistake. It was not a necessary war and set us backward in our goals.
Again, this can't be answered accurately without the benefit of hindsite. Perhaps not necessary, perhaps. What goals are set back? The Iraq campaign has had its set backs and has its challenges to come but I don't see any of these things as setting back our goals.

Simon W. Moon said:
Of course, but when there's present day data that contradicts the assumptions made by observing history, the facts on the ground must be given precedence over the ISTMs drawn from the historical record.
I'd say it depends on which information we're talking about.

Simon W. Moon said:
We weren't standing up to him. We already towered over him in ways that he could never hope to match.
Battles are always won before they are fought (Sun Tzu)

Simon W. Moon said:
When is opening an additional and unecessary front ever a good idea?
If you view this front as un-necessary then its obviously not a good idea. If you view opening a front other than Afghanistan as important, as I did and do, and you viewed Iraq as a strategically viable front, as I did and do, then the choice was a good one.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
If it's not some, then it's all or none. So you're saying that all muslims have always hated the US. That falls on its face.

Come on, stop splitting semantic hairs. You know damn well I was referring to you saying, "some" as opposed to "many."
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Riiight, riiight, gotcha. When Rumsfeld spoke of Iraq taking only six week (or six months at the outside), he was speaking of a plan to defeat the "world's terrorists" in a month and a half. Riight, riight, gotcha.

The plan was to rebuild a better, democratic Iraq not turn it into a war zone and shooting gallery to get at "the world's terrorists."
The flypaper-theory crap is a a subsequent rationalization to spin the fact that the initial plan was not going as the Admin expected.


Bush made statements shortly after 9/11 (many of them) about taking the fight to the terrorists; giving them a place to fight outside our borders. This is not some crackpot assertion to say part of the intent was to keep the fight in the Middle East, it's common knowledge.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
A surprising number of the foreign fighters who make their way to Iraq to aid the insurgency have are not on terrorist watch lists. And why is that? They had no previous involvement with terorists or terrorist activity.


Riiight, riight, because you know the only terrorists that exist are on our infallible watchlists. :roll:
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
The choice isn't fight or don't fight. Not all fighting is equal. Some things are better than others. Our invasion of Iraq was blunder. Sometimes, the technique of presenting one's case a choice between only two things hwen in fact there are more choices than that is called using a false dichotomy

Nobody here is asserting that there is only one way to fight our enemies. YOU are asserting that the war was a blunder and offering zero alternatives. Naturally, that drags the debate down the path of "to fight or not to fight."

Give an alternative and I will gladly discuss that with you.

Gotta go.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Al-Qa'ida wanted to provoke the US and, w/ Iraq we fell for it. Even Atta knew that Saddam was a stooge who would provide an excuse for the US to muck about in the ME.

Riiight, riiight, it was all part of Al Queda's crafty plan that we finally did something about a genocidal terror-sponsoring warmonger after over a decade of failed diplomacy. Sure. ;)

Taking out Saddam was NOT falling for anything. It was showing common sense.
 
Last edited:

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Again with the arbitrary, awkward historical analogies. The relative power disparity between WWII Germany and the WWII US is markedly different than the relative power disparity between pre-war Iraq and the US.


It did not take us very long to build our military up once war was upon us. If we and our allies would've committed early on (After Poland) to getting Hitler out, there would have been far less bloodshed. The "relative power disparity" is completely irrelevant.

Besides, how much military power we had at the time has nothing to do with whether or not a bully needs to be stood up to.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
I see you've chosen to change the operative verb from "standing up" to a bully to "responding" to a bully. Nice try there. Maybe one day, you'll be as slick as Willy.

Ok? So switch the words around?? Then will you answer the question? What the hell difference does that make?

Again, you change the subject to irrelevant semantics. Debate or don't. :roll:
 
Top Bottom