Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat (1 Viewer)

[26 X World Champs]

How many times have we read in this community posts from the radical, rabid Right Wing Bush apologists that the Iraq War has NOT created more terrorists than existed before we invaded Iraq? Remember how they would write "prove it" or "show us proof"?

Well here's an assessment from SIXTEEN different US spy agencies and it states unequivocally that the Iraq War has increased the threat of Terrorism. Good Job Bush!

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: September 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

Need more?

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/w...&en=003f596f66422cfd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

OK GOP apologists...spin this one! Show us how the Iraq War has made us safer when the absolute proof states the exact opposite!

 

[aps]

How many times have we read in this community posts from the radical, rabid Right Wing Bush apologists that the Iraq War has NOT created more terrorists than existed before we invaded Iraq? Remember how they would write "prove it" or "show us proof"?

Well here's an assessment from SIXTEEN different US spy agencies and it states unequivocally that the Iraq War has increased the threat of Terrorism. Good Job Bush!


Need more?




Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/w...&en=003f596f66422cfd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

OK GOP apologists...spin this one! Show us how the Iraq War has made us safer when the absolute proof states the exact opposite!

But...but.....but, World Champs, it's better that we're fighting them over there as opposed to here. Right? *sarcasm*

 

[Captain America]

Never pee on an electric fence or pour gasoline on a fire.

Dig in. It ain't over.

 

[26 X World Champs]

But...but.....but, World Champs, it's better that we're fighting them over there as opposed to here. Right? *sarcasm*

Ain't the truth a bitch? I'm so tired of reading Bush apologist posts from members that are so intoxicated by having a war to fight that they will go to almost any lengths to justify it, regardless of the result of the damn war.

The GOP'ers in this community would argue that the Red Sox still have a chance to win the AL East title this year DESPITE the Yanks having mathematically clinched. They would argue that 2+2=5 if Bush and Cheney told them to.

In my entire adult life (50 years) I've never seen people who accept virtually everything Bush does as gospel even when he's been factually proven wrong and even when HE admits he was wrong. Best example are WMDs. Just ask Stinger, ProudAmerican, Navy Pride, TOT, TurtleDude or JamesRage about WMds in Iraq and they will ignore that Bush siad we never found the ones we went to war over....amazing isn't it?

 

[Captain America]

I wonder how long it took to convince people the earth was round?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I wonder how long it took to convince people the earth was round?

It is? Are you sure? Maybe the same people who doubted that fact then are the ones who claim the Earth is only 6K years old now and that Dinos were a ruse to "make" the planet look older?

I think the same group mentioned above are also the ones who are so sure that Bush's war is just! Yikes!

 

[26 X World Champs]

Now you are taking the fact that right now there are more terrorists, or a greater terrorist threat than before the Iraq war, and claiming that it shows that the Iraq war is wrong. I reject this claim. This is not to say that the Iraq war was right, simply that this does not prove that it is not.

I understand your theory but I do not agree, here's why.

When we went into WWII to fight the Nazi's it DECREASED their chances of world domination, it DECREASED the threat they posed.

When we went into Iraq it INCREASED the threat of terrorism (as this thread shows) and therefore INCREASED the chances of other Terrorist attack(s).

When we declared war on Japan it DECREASED their chances of world denomination and DECREASED the threat against the USA.

Do you see what I mean?

Since we've been in Iraq almost as long as we were in WWII the threat theory from the Axis in WWII decreased as each year passed...but in this war it is increasing.

 

[Captain America]

It is? Are you sure? Maybe the same people who doubted that fact then are the ones who claim the Earth is only 6K years old now and that Dinos were a ruse to "make" the planet look older?

I think the same group mentioned above are also the ones who are so sure that Bush's war is just! Yikes!

Well, at least they are consistant. If they were wrong on Monday, you can pretty much count on them to be wrong on Wednesdays' and Saturday's too!

 

[26 X World Champs]

The mistake is your ignoring the difference between in the long term and in the short term.

As WWII went on the threat decreased. The opposite is true of the Iraq War. We also were attacked first versus our invading Iraq. Our invasion created a greater threat, it inspired more hatred.

Plus had we never invaded Iraq there would be less of a terror threat and less hatred towards the USA. That is THE fundamental fu ckup of the Bush administration.

You're right when you state that there's no "end" to the war on terror. That's why when I hear politicians (mostly Republicans) say we're going to "win" the war on terror the obvious next question is "How would you know we've won?"

The threat factor today is greater than it's ever been. We are all in grave danger and would be in danger had we not invaded Iraq. BUT and it's a big BUT the danger level would be, IMHO, severely lower than the reality of today. I find this awful, sad and grossly ironic in that the Bushie's all seem to believe that the USA is SAFER today than we were pre-Iraq...I think it's something in the water in Republican homes...:2razz:

 

[Iriemon]

Everything, in this life, is a double edged sword. If you kill a murderer, on the one hand you no longer have this murderer in your society, but on the other hand you may, in the process of killing this murderer, move those who love him, or those who sympathize with him (or don't sympathize with you) to murder. If you punish anyone, you will always motivate the urge for revenge amongst those who see the punishment as unjust.

True, although *most* people recognize that a murderer did something wrong and deserves punishment.

However, change your scenario to make it a little more appropriate for Iraq -- kill an innocent person, you are viewed as the murderer yourself, and those who love him are much more likely to feel that vengence and retribution is in order.

And it only gets more complex from there. In war we can only operate in terms of how many innocents will die, be them killed by our enemy, or by ourselves in the process of stopping the enemy, innocents will always die, and it's impossible to justify that out of context, and I dare anyone to try to explain the context to someone whose mother got blown up walking home from the store.

And if the war that killed mom is perceived to have been started wrongly, illegitimately, or mistakenly, it becomes even more difficult to explain.

That is exactly why it makes a difference how the war was started, and why I disgree when folks try to say forget how it started, you can't for this reason, it has a permanent effect on those who lose because of the war.

Now you are taking the fact that right now there are more terrorists, or a greater terrorist threat than before the Iraq war, and claiming that it shows that the Iraq war is wrong. I reject this claim.

I had thought that the point being made related to whether continued indefinite occupation makes sense as a policy, not whether the war was wrong, I agree with you that is not the same issue - though you might deduce from the article that because the war was wrong that is a factor why it is having a negative effect on radical Islam and terrorism.

This is not to say that the Iraq war was right, simply that this does not prove that it is not.

Agree

If the Iraqi government, as an institution, would over time prove to be something that would lead to the creation of a great number of terrorists (and this includes the opportunity cost, which is how many terrorists would've been disuaded as a product of, directly or indirectly, us changing the Iraqi government), than (for all we know) a short term increase in the terrorist threat (which would be possible in any sort of these conflicts) would not outweigh the benefit of what we are doing in Iraq.

Pure speculation, and IMO completely unfounded at that. Iraq did not have a history of creating terrorists, was never implicated in any terrorist attack, at least against the US. The most I have seen from reliable sources is that Iraq (along with other nations) gave money to family survivors of Palestinians killed in their struggle against Israel, including those who had committed terrorist attacks like bombing.

This may seem that I'm dealing in the trivial, but I would disagree. I think this argument, although in this context may seem trivial (since it would seem obvious to even the most casual observer that this war's been, at best, mismanaged), is very important. We learn from experience, and thus it is essential that we take the right lessons from our experiences. Taking overly broad lessons from things leads to **** like Nazi Germany, or modern day France. This implied argument that you guys've presented would dissuade us from any armed conflict, if left unchecked. If we, as a society, take it into our collective mind that any increase in terrorist threat is proof that we are not fighting terrorists correctly, then there isn't a plan in this world that we will have the collective will to follow. Thus all we would be able to do is to sit here and wait to die.

The response is that you are making the similar illogical deduction that because there is a resistance in Iraq, that is proof we are fighting folks would would still otherwise be terrorists there.

This is an interesting point, and nothing more. We should all take note of this, and consider it as we analyze the other information that we have and that we will get. We should not infer a great deal from this.

Here is another source, two separate studies from Saudi Arabia and Israel, concluding the same thing -- that the war in Iraq is acting as fuel for the creation of new "terrorists".


Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq
July 17, 2005

WASHINGTON -- New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank -- both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States -- have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/

 

[Iriemon]

The mistake is your ignoring the difference between in the long term and in the short term.

When we first attacked Japan and Germany, there was very little threat of attack from the Germans and Japanese. I mean there had been only one notable attack (I don't know history well enough to say there had been no other attacks), and considering that after attacking them we lost hundreds of thousands (once again, this is a guess, I'm not all that up on WW2 history), something tells me that there was a point where us attacking them increased the threat of attack from the Germans and the Japanese.

Galenrox, you are a bright guy. How can you honestly say "When we first attacked Japan and Germany, there was very little threat of attack from the Germans and Japanese."

When we went to war, Germany had conquered almost all of Europe and represented the potential of being a superpower that controlled all Europe and its resources. The German army and airforce were probably the most powerful in the world and no one had been able to defeat them.

Germany declared war on the US on Dec 11, 1941. It was after that we declared war on Germany.

In the Pacific, the Japanese navy was much larger than our own, especially in carriers. Japan had conquered most of the Pacific rim, and had directly attacked us on Dec 7, crippling our Pacific battleship fleet.

C'mon -- you cannot realistically assert that "there was very little threat of attack from the Germans and Japanese" when we went to war with them in Dec 41. Nor can you reasonable compare that threat with the "threat" presented by Iraq in 2003.

It's only reasonable to believe that after attacking someone you're gonna increase the threat of them attacking you. The most basic instinct in just about every living creature is that of self preservation, and thus if you intend to threaten one's ability to preserve one's self, then of course they're gonna see you as more of a threat, and thus there will be more of a threat of attack.

Obviously. Ask the Japanese in 1941 and the Iraqis (at least Sunnis) today.

Now we don't know how long the war on terror will be.

If we continue doing unnecessary things to inflame the Muslim world it is going to be a long long time.

In World War 2 there were set leaders that we could directly wage war with, and once they fell, we won. Now there are no clear leaders, and those who are seemingly very important participants we cannot directly wage war with, and instead must use strategy and politics to take them down.

Which is why analogize this to WWII, or a "war" at all, makes little sense. We are dealing with bandits, not governments.

There won't be a clear ending point, because we will never eliminate the tactic of terrorism, we can only defeat it to the point that it reaches an "acceptable" level. This makes is very hard to define an end point to the war, simply because how can you define an acceptable level of terrorism? All that we do know is that it most certainly isn't over yet. And thus we cannot compare the results of an unfinished conflict to that of a conflict that ended many years ago. Of course the results were better, they had to be good enough so that we decided to stop fighting (or bad enough for us to stop fighting, but in this case, good). Once the war on terror is over, then you can compare results, but not until then.

"...because we will never eliminate the tactic of terrorism, we can only defeat it to the point that it reaches an "acceptable" level."

That is the issue, isn't it. How are you going to "defeat it" to the point it reaches an "acceptable" level (isn't this kind of statement what Kerry got skewered for?) if your actions are fueling more and more anti-american radicalism and terrorists faster than we are killing them?

There are 800 million Muslims who are potential terrorists. Killing and captureing a few thousand of them is not going to "defeat" terrorists if our actions have the effect of motivating even a small percentage of Muslims to become terrorists.

And these articles suggest that is exactly what our mistaken war and indefinite occupation of Iraq is doing.

 

[DeeJayH]

As WWII went on the threat decreased. The opposite is true of the Iraq War. We also were attacked first versus our invading Iraq. Our invasion created a greater threat, it inspired more hatred.

Plus had we never invaded Iraq there would be less of a terror threat and less hatred towards the USA. That is THE fundamental fu ckup of the Bush administration.

You're right when you state that there's no "end" to the war on terror. That's why when I hear politicians (mostly Republicans) say we're going to "win" the war on terror the obvious next question is "How would you know we've won?"

The threat factor today is greater than it's ever been. We are all in grave danger and would be in danger had we not invaded Iraq. BUT and it's a big BUT the danger level would be, IMHO, severely lower than the reality of today. I find this awful, sad and grossly ironic in that the Bushie's all seem to believe that the USA is SAFER today than we were pre-Iraq...I think it's something in the water in Republican homes...:2razz:

you are so full of partisan bullshit it is disgusting
you have no proof that during WWII the believers in Naziism was on teh decline, until the country was defeated
when you attack an ideology head on, you rally some troops to the enemy
but when you defeat them, the the 100's of 1000s or Millions
than the ideology becomes less of a threat
Naziism is still alve and well in many countries, including our own
but we crushed their ability to wage global war
and that is what matters, and your nonsensical idealogical BS fails to account for this

that is the fundamental fu ckup of you terrorist apologists/ cowards who want to sing kum ba ya

wrong side of history AGAiN
good luck in the next election :lol:

 

[Joby]

you are so full of partisan bullshit it is disgusting
you have no proof that during WWII the believers in Naziism was on teh decline, until the country was defeated
when you attack an ideology head on, you rally some troops to the enemy
but when you defeat them, the the 100's of 1000s or Millions
than the ideology becomes less of a threat
Naziism is still alve and well in many countries, including our own
but we crushed their ability to wage global war
and that is what matters, and your nonsensical idealogical BS fails to account for this

that is the fundamental fu ckup of you terrorist apologists/ cowards who want to sing kum ba ya

wrong side of history AGAiN
good luck in the next election :lol:

wait...

You still believe Saddam was going to make war on us again? Or that he had any ties to the different ideology that attacked us 5 years ago?
Please clarify what the hell you're trying to prove.

I believe we were lied to, deceived, run amock, and bamboozled when we went to war. But now that we're there, we've got to win.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Are you certain that that's how it worked? Cause from what I've heard, there was a while in WW2 when it was uncertain that we were gonna win, which would imply that the threat was substantially higher than when we entered the war, since if we had not entered the war we would not have immidiately faced the threat of losing our sovereignity.

Allow me to clarify? I agree that in the first years of our involvement in WWII the threat level increased before it decreased. I also understand your "picture in time" analogy but to me there is a difference, namely that in this conflict it is getting worse all the time and that has been duly noted by our own Generals in theater and by just about everyone else (except the drugged Bushie crowd).

Let's not forget that we started this war in Iraq. Iraq was no a threat, imminent or long term. Saddam was ball-less and outrageous ineundos made by the Bushies scared the American people into this war. Just because he was authorized to attack did not mean that he should attack, especially since there was never an imminent threat.

Our being the instigator in this war has fueled our enemy and aided in their recruiting, thusly creating many more combatants who want us dead. Had we not invaded there would be far fewer.

Galen - What do you think the world would look like if we had spent $300 billion fighting terrorism OUTSIDE of Iraq instead of inside of Iraq?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Without proof that this is not merely a temporary increase in terrorist threat, which is a vague thing to say (thus very difficult to prove to be not so), than this doesn't prove anything. For, as you've admitted, there are initial upticks in the threat level during time of war, then without proving that this uptick is not merely one of those upticks, you've got nothing here, other than, as I've said, a piece of information that should be remembered.

Yes....and no....There have to be longlasting consequences of one's actions. In this instance the longlasting consequences of the Iraq War are the growing number of terrorists and thereby the terrorist threat. Cause and effect.

With each failure in Iraq the raisin d'etre has changed. From WMDs and Nukes, to Terrorists to Democracy. Why? I think trying to get 3 distinctly divergent groups to set aside their long term hatred and form a peaceful government was / is a very longshot. Toss in power grabs for oil and toss in secterian hate that is deeply rooted in the fabric of their society and I reach the conclusion this is an unwinnable war...at least as long as there's a significant American military presence to fuel hatred.

We throw gas on the fire by being there. This means there's an everyday increase in terrorists and anti-American hatred. I cannot see any solution that includes our military presence. Can you?

I think we're trying to impose Democracy and American style values via a military occupation into a culture that is alien to Democracy and Americanization. It won't work. It will fester hatred. If we strategically withdraw, gradually "over the horizon" I sincerely believe that would create a downturn in the growing threat as it would remove us as an easy target and would take away the target on our back.

Just my opinion...

 

[DeeJayH]

I have a little logical question. From this post, one could infer that you think that partisan bullshit is bad. Now if I were to infer that, then I would infer from that that it is in your self interest (meant in the broader term, not just meaning "selfishly") to decrease the amount of partisan bullshit. That being said, do you think that this post is or isn't in your own self interest?

Well let's see, what inspires blind partisanship? A complete lack of faith in the other side, to the point that you think that your side should be uncompromisingly listened to. What inspires such a lack of faith? When the other side has done nothing, or at least not enough, to inspire said faith.

So then what inspires faith in those who disagree with you? What is neccisary to show to people that, despite your differences, you both are intelligent, capable people to be making such policy decisions, and thus showing that you are someone who could have valuable input that should be listened to and compromised with?
And here we've somewhat answered our own question. If you are truly opposed to partisanship, you will respond to partisanship by showing the partisan that you are intelligent and capable, in his/her own terms.

For example, 26x and I disagree on a great deal, but you'll notice that 26x responds to the vast majority of my posts directed towards him with consideration, as opposed to the venom that one would expect from someone who so clearly believes that one side is right and the other is wrong. Why is that? Because I extend to him the basic level of respect that is neccesary for two people to actually converse, this is to say that I extend to him the faith that I believe that he is someone who is worth talking to, and someone who's insight is worth consideration.

And thus from this we can tell that your post actually works in direct opposition to your claimed self interest. No one will ever respond to this kind of post well! There is no use in this kind of post other than inspiring further partisanship.

Think about it from his perspective. We can take as assumed that he does not believe that what he is saying is partisan bullshit, but instead that he either believes it to be true, or something that needs to be said because those taking in such information are not intelligent enough to correctly analyze the truth. This is a basic assumption that we can make when approaching a discussion with anyone. From this we can assume that he believes that the overall purpose of saying what he says is a just purpose, and in this particular instance we can assume that the purpose is to further convince people that the war in Iraq was a bad idea. Now unless you show to him that you at the very least understand how he reached this conclusion, you cannot prove to him that you are of the level of intelligence, or that your analysis is of acceptable value, to be worth talking to, and thus you further inspire the vision in his mind that people of your political persuasion are not intelligent enough to make their input worth considering, thus perpetuating the cycle of partisanship.

In short, you need to respect his views, or moreso how he came to them, in order to have any conversation of any value whatsoever. You have to be able to say "I understand why you think what you think, but you should consider this". You will find that people are typically quite a bit more intelligent than you initially give them credit for (or at least this is what I've noticed).

that is correct
your points are true and accurate amongst those not partisan
26x adn Billo are the mirrors of Navy Pride and Aquapub
which is why i take the positions against thiem, as i have
yet i deal with you in a differnet way, as a much more reasonablel, middle of the road individual
they are hacks
and since i have a limited time to debate, sometimes considered as cut-and-running, because i have not the time to address the redundant, circular arguments, i try to get right at the heart of things, which means that Billo and 26x are partisan hacks, which result in the same points ad nauseum
just as NP puts forth the same points ad nauseum

very few on this site, or any site for that matter, actually raise debateable points
most are just the talking points

 

[Iriemon]

If we had made it abundantly clear to the Japanese and Germans that we were indifferent to what they did, as long as we didn't get ****ed with, there would've been little to no immidiate threat. From what I've heard, Japan attacked the US because of some sort of oil embargo (thus we were at greater risk after that embargo), and all of the subsequent attacks against us can be blamed on the fact that we declared war.
What was the threat before we entered the war? When we were entirely isolationist, were we attacked? No,

Yes! Japan attacked the US in a surprise Raid. Until then the US had not taken any military action against Japan.

Unless the argument is Japan was justified in attacking the US because it did not approve of our oil policy. In that case you would be saying the US was in the wrong in WWII. I disagree with that line of thought; one country does not have the right to attack another based on how it uses resources, in my view.

because they knew we were powerful enough that they might not be able to beat us, [.quote]

If the Japanese and Germans had "known" that they would not have attacked us and DOWed us first.

The US army and air force in late '41 were still small compared to the axis nations (though had grown a lot from '39), and while the US Navy was larger, it was divided into two oceans.

and thus if we were attempting to avoid the fight, then they would've, at least in the short term, left us alone. But since we decided that we had to fight them, the threat they felt from us (rightly) increased, and thus we had an increased threat of attack from them. I don't see what's contraversial about this, it seems pretty obvious to me.

You have it completely backwards. We did not attack or declare war on the axis first. We only decided to fight them after they drew first blood.

And you will notice I did not bring up WW2 as an example. 26x tried to use it to show a problem with my claims, and I was simply pointing out that, in general, you cannot compare the results of a war that is in progress with the results of a war that is long finished.

I agree, you cannot even compare them as wars -- totally different.

The operative word is suggest. They suggest that this is what is happening, and to the uncritical ear, this is taken as evidence that what they are suggesting is true. [/quote]

What is your basis for suggesting it is not true?

You and I have one major fundamental difference. While you oppose this war seemingly completely, I only oppose this war in practice, while support the concept of it. I believe that if Iraq had been done correctly, then it could've been one of the biggest godsends that we've ever received.

I still think that if we stop being stupid and start doing this **** right, victory in Iraq will be a boon in the war on terror. [/quote]

What needs to be done to do it "right" in your opinion?

We both have taken similar paths to our conclusions, and thus we agree on a lot. What comes of this is it becomes very difficult to debate with each other, since it is very hard to say an argument that the other actually used in justifying his own different beliefs to himself.

For example, something you and I both believe very strongly in the concept of backlash, and that this needs to be something of very major consideration in the war on terror. Thus when we mention the concept of backlash to each other in argument, it is pointless, since the other one already believes that this concept helps to justify his own beliefs.

And here I think the prominant difference between us is that you believe we must avoid backlash at seemingly all cost, or at least to a very high degree, while I believe that it is simply another thing that goes into the balancing act that makes war complex. We know if we don't fight, we'll eventually be killed.

I don't know this. Depends upon what you mean by "fight." I'd say there is a good chance that whether we fight or not there will be further attempts to attack us and goad us into a jihad. IMO the chances of this increase over the long run if we continue with unjustified military actions.

We know if we fight too much, we'll either have to kill everyone else in the world, and most of our own population, or we'll lose and eventually all be killed. Thus we need something in the middle. We need to fight, but fight intelligently, and find the equilibrium at which point we maximize the benefit in all of the balancing acts, including that between killing our enemies and the backlash from those either sympathetic to our enemies or just unsympathetic to us (thus not seeing our actions as justified, which means they see us as murderers, for isn't that what killing unjustly is?).

I agree, but certainly would not call the war on Iraq fighting intellegently.

 

[scottyz]

But...but.....but, World Champs, it's better that we're fighting them over there as opposed to here. Right? *sarcasm*

We're creating more of them over there, so we can fight them indefinitely over there and probably over here as well.

 

[26 X World Champs]

We're creating more of them over there, so we can fight them indefinitely over there and probably over here as well.

Why should we believe the Spy Agency reports when President Bush keeps telling us the opposite of this report? Bush is always right so no matter what anyone else thinks or proves it does not change the fact that Bush can never make a mistake...he's as close to perfection as one man can be....He's smart, charming, intelligent, well-read and most of all totally fair and ethical.....NOT!

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

I understand your theory but I do not agree, here's why.

When we went into WWII to fight the Nazi's it DECREASED their chances of world domination, it DECREASED the threat they posed.

When we went into Iraq it INCREASED the threat of terrorism (as this thread shows) and therefore INCREASED the chances of other Terrorist attack(s).

When we declared war on Japan it DECREASED their chances of world denomination and DECREASED the threat against the USA.

Do you see what I mean?

Since we've been in Iraq almost as long as we were in WWII the threat theory from the Axis in WWII decreased as each year passed...but in this war it is increasing.

We didn't know that it would work, or that we would decrease anything.

We had to virtually wipe out Japan to get them off our backs which today would be unthinkable.

 

[GarzaUK]

When we went to war, Germany had conquered almost all of Europe and represented the potential of being a superpower that controlled all Europe and its resources. The German army and airforce were probably the most powerful in the world and no one had been able to defeat them.

cough...Battle of Britain.... cough. :mrgreen:

 

[GarzaUK]

How many times have we read in this community posts from the radical, rabid Right Wing Bush apologists that the Iraq War has NOT created more terrorists than existed before we invaded Iraq? Remember how they would write "prove it" or "show us proof"?

Well here's an assessment from SIXTEEN different US spy agencies and it states unequivocally that the Iraq War has increased the threat of Terrorism. Good Job Bush!


Need more?




Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/w...&en=003f596f66422cfd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

OK GOP apologists...spin this one! Show us how the Iraq War has made us safer when the absolute proof states the exact opposite!

I have been saying this for over 3 years now champs. Nobody listened. I tired to tell people than terrorism feed on the hatred that war evitably produces.

The Taliban are rising again in Afghanistan.
Iraq war is now turning into an Iraqi sectartian war
Israel did not destroy or even credibly cripple Hezbollah (Hezbollah was still firing 100 rockets a day at the end of the war)

I will say it now and I'll say it again.
Convential war does NOT defeat terrorism!!!

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

I have been saying this for over 3 years now champs. Nobody listened. I tired to tell people than terrorism feed on the hatred that war evitably produces.

The Taliban are rising again in Afghanistan.
Iraq war is now turning into an Iraqi sectartian war
Israel did not destroy or even credibly cripple Hezbollah (Hezbollah was still firing 100 rockets a day at the end of the war)

I will say it now and I'll say it again.
Convential war does NOT defeat terrorism!!!

I think the internet and cell phones is how they are being fed, and that's not going away. Stop the war and you still have so many ways to communicate. Definitely going to be a challenge no matter what we do. It's a total can of worms.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why should we believe the Spy Agency reports when President Bush keeps telling us the opposite of this report? Bush is always right so no matter what anyone else thinks or proves it does not change the fact that Bush can never make a mistake...he's as close to perfection as one man can be....He's smart, charming, intelligent, well-read and most of all totally fair and ethical.....NOT!

Well if it isn't Mr. PROVE IT posting some Bullcrap without any evidence:mrgreen:

1) You all rush to trumpet some "spy report" when it serves your own self interest yet you all howl when the Bush administration relied on numerous intelligence reports on WMD

2) prove your claims about Bush. NO ONE is elected President of the USA or Governor of a Major state Twice who is stupid and contrary to your BDS created hate, even Bush's political opponents (such as former classmate Lanny Davis) admit he is a charming individual

 

[Captain America]

Now why should we believe 16 different agencies over Mr. Bush?:mrgreen:

Look man, anybody who hasn't concluded that were are in more danger from terrorism today than we ever have been before, needs to lay off the FOXNews Kool-Aid.