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
Sure, some did, but more do now.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).
I guess you're including the US Intel Community in the category of "the patriotic left."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.
History nothin. How bout what's actually going on today. Seems more relevant than arbitrary, awkward historical analogies.aquapub said:History overwhelmingly disproves this.
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 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.
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.
Simon W. Moon said:I guess you're including the US Intel Community in the category of "the patriotic left."
History does prove that appeasement, not fighting back, is what leads to more violence. That is just a fact.Simon W. Moon said:History nothin.
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.
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?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.
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.Simon W. Moon said:Fighting our enemy is not enough. The enemy must be fought intelligently and well.
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:History nothin. How bout what's actually going on today. Seems more relevant than arbitrary, awkward historical analogies.
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 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.
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:It is a gross understatement to say that only "some" Muslims hated us before Iraq.
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:They were basing that on the number of attacks.
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.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).
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 dichotomyaquapub 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.
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.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.
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: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.
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.aquapub said:On what planet were we NOT responding to a bully?
Even if this is true, it still doesn't go to show that all options were equal.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.
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: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.
Even if this is true, it still doesn't go to show that all options were equal.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.
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: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?
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: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.
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: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.
We weren't standing up to him. We already towered over him in ways that he could never hope to match.Crispy said:Sure we were standing up to a bully.
When is opening an additional and unecessary front ever a good idea?Crispy said:What better a strategic choice in opening a new front in this war then Iraq?
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: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.
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.
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:(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.)
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: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.
I'd say it depends on which information we're talking about.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.
Battles are always won before they are fought (Sun Tzu)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.
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.Simon W. Moon said:When is opening an additional and unecessary front ever a good idea?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?