Is America's War on Terror Worth the Cost?

[Art]

Recent estimates show the US has already spent a massive $314 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with a further $450 billion expected to be spent over the next 10 years. This will surpass the total cost of $600 billion (adjusted for inflation) for the Vietnam war and the $430 billion cost for the Korean war.

In return there appears to be very few gains. Global terrorism is at an all time high and people feel less safe now than before the wars started, whilst new divides have opened up between former allies.

Just how much more can America afford to spend before it begins to seriously damage her economy and is 'the war against terror' winnable in any case? What happens if a new front opens in the likes of Syria or Iran or even Taiwan?

Will America's power begin to wane from the burden of debt she is accumulating as happened to the european powers after WW2? Or indeed to the USSR more recently?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL

 

[SOS2008]

Did you have to remind me? Oh...you're thinking you can bring the neocons to their senses. Good luck. This was their slogan in 2004:

Four more wars! Four more wars!

 

[The Smoking Man]

Did you have to remind me? Oh...you're thinking you can bring the neocons to their senses. Good luck. This was their slogan in 2004:

Four more wars! Four more wars!

Oh, THAT's what they were yelling!

I thought that was a room 'service' request for:

Four more whores! Four more whores!

My bad.

 

[Smurf]

We're three whores short. Quick Bill! Get married again!

 

[pattylou]

Recent estimates show the US has already spent a massive $314 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with a further $450 billion expected to be spent over the next 10 years. This will surpass the total cost of $600 billion (adjusted for inflation) for the Vietnam war and the $430 billion cost for the Korean war.

In return there appears to be very few gains. Global terrorism is at an all time high and people feel less safe now than before the wars started, whilst new divides have opened up between former allies.

Just how much more can America afford to spend before it begins to seriously damage her economy and is 'the war against terror' winnable in any case? What happens if a new front opens in the likes of Syria or Iran or even Taiwan?

Will America's power begin to wane from the burden of debt she is accumulating as happened to the european powers after WW2? Or indeed to the USSR more recently?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL

It's amazing. I don't understand how anyone can support this. I don't understand.

 

[SOS2008]

It's amazing. I don't understand how anyone can support this. I don't understand.

If we hang in there it will be worth it because Iraq will be a democratic ally in the Middle East--that's what the dude at the water cooler said. Now what's going on in the NFL?

 

[vanesch]

Just how much more can America afford to spend before it begins to seriously damage her economy and is 'the war against terror' winnable in any case? What happens if a new front opens in the likes of Syria or Iran or even Taiwan?

Will America's power begin to wane from the burden of debt she is accumulating as happened to the european powers after WW2? Or indeed to the USSR more recently?

I think that *that* is the real goal of OBL and Co. That's probably why he waited for 9/11 until Bush was elected, just to make sure that the US would "engage"...

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think that *that* is the real goal of OBL and Co. That's probably why he waited for 9/11 until Bush was elected, just to make sure that the US would "engage"...

You banged it on the noggin there vanesch. That is in fact what he states in his address to the USA in 2004:

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinizes the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations – whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction – has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. (When they pointed out that) for example, al-Qaida spent $500 000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost – according to the lowest estimate – more than 500 billion dollars.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Text_of_2004_Osama_bin_Laden_videotape

 

[SOS2008]

You banged it on the noggin there vanesch. That is in fact what he states in his address to the USA in 2004:



http://wikisource.org/wiki/Text_of_2004_Osama_bin_Laden_videotape

Oh m'gosh, that's who Dubya works for -- OBL!

 

[loseyourname]

Now what's going on in the NFL?

Desperate Cardinals fans are hoping the new quartet of Warner, Fitzgerald, Boldon, and Arrington will lead their team to the playoffs for the first time in ages. In the NFC West, you never know.

 

[SOS2008]

Desperate Cardinals fans are hoping the new quartet of Warner, Fitzgerald, Boldon, and Arrington will lead their team to the playoffs for the first time in ages. In the NFC West, you never know.

Very funny (you know I was joking, right?). My real answer to pattylou's question is:

Americans can tell you statistics of every sport, what happened on an episode of a T.V. program last night, what the celebrities are doing, etc. I'm not saying entertainment should be banned, only that it should be kept in proper perspective. Because at the same time, Americans can't find the time to watch the news, or make it a priority to take interest in what's going on in their country or the world (how boring!). Most people hear little comments from others at work, or a family member, or what have you, and that becomes their political position.

I've said this several times. Education needs to be important, and it needs to be more global in nature, and it needs to start young--having children bring in current events articles for example. And parents need to be more proud of academic achievement than sports achievements.

This is the problem.

 

[Art]

I've said this several times. Education needs to be important, and it needs to be more global in nature, and it needs to start young--having children bring in current events articles for example. And parents need to be more proud of academic achievement than sports achievements.

This is the problem.

Have you noticed the neocons are strangely silent. For the first time they seem to have absolutely nothing they can pick on to argue with? Maybe the truth is finally sinking home with them too?

 

[pattylou]

Oh God. I hope so.

Even if it's for the wrong reasons - the almighty dollar - I hope you're right.

 

[Art]

Oh God. I hope so.

Even if it's for the wrong reasons - the almighty dollar - I hope you're right.

lol Yes I think it's just hit them "WHA... WE HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL THIS? "

 

[The Smoking Man]

lol Yes I think it's just hit them "WHA... WE HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL THIS? "

It's okay ... really ...

It's their own companies they are paying.

Construction. Oil exploration. Armed services support. Arms.

I think they are silent because the attacks on other countries for supporting Saddam just revealed their own subsidiaries on the lists too.

They are just staying silent and raking in the cash.

 

[SOS2008]

A lot of the neocons probably aren't even aware of these things. According to recent polls, there is a significant percent of Americans who still believe there is a connection between 9-11 and Saddam.

Then the one's that do know the facts are rationalizing that democracy will take time, but it will be worth it because it will spread throughout the world. They are being smug (not silent) thinking how all the anti-war people will be proven wrong. In the very unlikely chance that will happen, I say they have to apologize for being wrong about links to Al Qeada and WMD first.

 

[vanesch]

According to recent polls, there is a significant percent of Americans who still believe there is a connection between 9-11 and Saddam.

Well, there IS a link, no ? Saddam got kicked out because the American administration didn't know how to handle 9-11, no ?

(like there is a link between de menezes and the bombings of the London subway: he got killed because the police didn't know how to handle the bombings' aftermath)

 

[marlon]

According to recent polls, there is a significant percent of Americans who still believe there is a connection between 9-11 and Saddam.

May i ask you : so what ?

There is a link, there is no link... :zzz: ...it really does not matter. We are all glad that Saddam is gone. The American actions in Iraq are certainly justified and i am glad there is still a courageous nation left that has the guts to stand up against global terror. It ain't going to come from the pussies here in western europe that cannot even manage their own European constitution

Besides, for the future of terrorism, Europe will be the target because thanks to our overall left wing politics, there is quasi no defense against terror, no screening, no control. Why do you think it has been since 911 that there has been an attack on US soil, while they are really the biggest enemy of these inferior terrorists ? The reason is simple, because of strick security measurements. I think the US, as always, is handeling this situation far better then us, Europeans.

But in the end, this terror stuff is losing its influence on the world because we will live with it. Just look at the 'impact' of the latest bombings on the economy.

I say, we must evolve to a more US type of politics (also on social security issues) here in western Europe and please, loose these eastern Europe countries that we have accepted in the latest EU-expansion. I mean, what is up with that ?

regards
marlon

 

[Anttech]

There is a link, there is no link... ...it really does not matter. We are all glad that Saddam is gone

Ends will never justify the means... The deaths and total chaos that is now in Iraq is actually worse than when Saddam was there, and the situation in the ME is by far worse and more unstable now than before... Dont forget that US was very happy with Saddam for the longest time...

courageous nation left that has the guts to stand up against global terror

never realized that Iraq was terrorsing Europe?

The American actions in Iraq are certainly justified

show us the justification... WMD? there is arent any... There are worse dictators in the world than Saddam, why is bush administration not going after them? The War was not endorsed by the UN and in some people eyes it could be deemed as Illegal

I say, we must evolve to a more US type of politics (also on social security issues) here in western Europe and please,

Each country in Europe has different social security system, and politics... just because we have the EU doesn't negate that all countries have the same political systems (or influence)??

loose these eastern Europe countries that we have accepted in the latest EU-expansion. I mean, what is up with that ?

If Europe is to have the same political and economical footing as the like of China in the not so distance future, it needs a large population base, amongst other things... that's "whats up with that"

If we should loose the "eastern European" countries we should also loose Belgium, Belgium was always the poor cousin of France Netherlands and UK, after its creation... If King Leopald didnt rape the congo (whats up with that, and why is the state holding all factual information on this?) I couldn't see how Beglium would have survived as a separate entity.. The underground economy of Belgium, and corruption that is at the heart of politics here is as bad, as our Eastern European neighbors ... There are reason why they call Belgium the "Sicily of the North"

 

[marlon]

The deaths and total chaos that is now in Iraq is actually worse than when Saddam was there

Wrong, saddam was a mass murderer. More (of his own people) died under his command during his gass attacks in the late 80ties then there are people dead during the entire Iraqi 'war'

How about the war with Iran ? How about Quwait ?

Please, look at the facts and do not remain blinded from reality because it is popular to make certain statements. look at the facts.

never realized that Iraq was terrorsing Europe?

No ? Are you really living in Brussels ? Can't you see certain evolutions coming ? Can't you learn from history ?

There are worse dictators in the world than Saddam, why is bush administration not going after them?

Typical, i assure you, if Bush had done that, you would have asked the exact same question.

Each country in Europe has different social security system, and politics... just because we have the EU doesn't negate that all countries have the same political systems (or influence)??

I never said that. I was only comparing the belgian system with that of the US. Our social security system is no longer realistic because of several reasons...i am sure i do not have to explain to you why.

If Europe is to have the same political and economical footing as the like of China in the not so distance future, it needs a large population base, amongst other things... that's "whats up with that"

What ? Based upon what facts are you saying this ? I really do not follow here

If we should loose the "eastern European" countries we should also loose Belgium, Belgium was always the poor cousin of France Netherlands and UK, after its creation...

What is your point ? What you are saying is incorrect and nowadays, the Flemish part of Belgium is one of the richest regions in Europe ? Please, what are you saying here ?

If King Leopald didnt rape the congo (whats up with that, and why is the state holding all factual information on this?)

Wrong again; nearly every nation in Europe has done the same: France, Italy, ...the UK...(not being a member of the EU, smart guys )

Since every nation has had colonies, your point is invalid because the netto effect on EU-economies,relative to each other ofcourse, would have been the same if colonization had not taken place.

I couldn't see how Beglium would have survived as a separate entity..

Well, this is not the place to start speculating, stick to facts, please.

There are reason why they call Belgium the "Sicily of the North"

I have lived in Belgium for 25 years (and i am 25 now) and i have never heard that name. But then again, if this is true, it does not bother me. Following your line of reasoning we could call the entire world, the Sicily-globe or something. Please...


marlon

 

[The Smoking Man]

Wrong, saddam was a mass murderer. More (of his own people) died under his command during his gass attacks in the late 80ties then there are people dead during the entire Iraqi 'war'

How about the war with Iran ? How about Quwait ?

Please, look at the facts and do not remain blinded from reality because it is popular to make certain statements. look at the facts.

You mean all those acts done with US assistance and/or blessing?

Did you forget that the USA were allies of Saddam and supplied him with the technology and the intel during the Iran war?

How about Kuwait? They were proven to be side drilling into the Iraqi wells and when the Brits left, they failed to define a border that was exact.

Iraq repeatedly told them to stop.

 

[marlon]

You mean all those acts done with US assistance and/or blessing?

Oh no, here we go again. Yes i know the US have been the ally of Saddam during the war with Iran. This is just standard geo-politics and you cannot condemn the US for that. It is morally not correct but then again every nation does it. if you start condemning the US, you should do the same with France, Germany,...etc etc...but do you see that happening ?

Nevertheless, Saddam remains a mass murderer, irrespective of whom ever supported him. That is my point.

Every nation is unethical when it comes to geo politics? Should we open the book on the role of China and Tibet or on the role of China's internal political policies and 'respect' for human rights ? We all know what is happening, yet everybody keeps whinning about one nation only: the USA. I am saying, this is all very hyppocrite to me.


marlon

 

[The Smoking Man]

Oh no, here we go again. Yes i know the US have been the ally of Saddam during the war with Iran. This is just standard geo-politics and you cannot condemn the US for that. It is morally not correct but then again every nation does it. if you start condemning the US, you should do the same with France, Germany,...etc etc...but do you see that happening ?

Nevertheless, Saddam remains a mass murderer, irrespective of whom ever supported him. That is my point.

Every nation is unethical when it comes to geo politics? Should we open the book on the role of China and Tibet or on the role of China's internal political policies and 'respect' for human rights ? We all know what is happening, yet everybody keeps whinning about one nation only: the USA. I am saying, this is all very hyppocrite to me.


marlon

Well Marlon, I am sure you could open some big books of irrelevencies and tend to blow more smoke over the issues however, what we are discussing here is a small plot of land known as Iraq and the state that supported them with the WMD that were later tracked and destroyed by Bush I, the USA.

You simply can not bring up those issues as a defence of the USA invading a country when they were the country that gave them the materials.

But then, they not only gave them the materials, they gave them the satelite intel on where to release Chemicals for the greatest efficiency.

 

[marlon]

Well Marlon, I am sure you could open some big books of irrelevencies

War isn't irrelevant.

You simply can not bring up those issues as a defence of the USA invading a country when they were the country that gave them the materials.

Well, that is your opinion. I can just as easily say that you are not able to come up with arguments, proving that the US-saving of Iraq is illegal. Plants to build WMD were found in Iraq, just no WMD. But than again, why are you forgetting about what kind of 'man' Saddam was ? That is a pretty convincing argument to me.


marlon

 

[Anttech]

I never said that. I was only comparing the belgian system with that of the US. Our social security system is no longer realistic because of several reasons...i am sure i do not have to explain to you why.

Say Belgium next time, I am sure if you re-read your post you will find you said:

here in western Europe

Wrong again; nearly every nation in Europe has done the same: France, Italy, ...the UK...(not being a member of the EU, smart guys )

Firstly Italy never had a empire after the Romans (~2000 years ago if you didnt know)

By the time Leopold started raping the Congo, The Netherland UK and Frances idea of colonising was to give back to the colones, not kill more than 10,000,000 of them to make profit from Rubber... Sorry but King Leopold (and I am not saying Belgium but your King, although after he gave the congo to Belgium you weren't much better) idea of colonisation was very differnt to the rest of Europe around the turn of the 20th century, and yes this happen last century not the middle ages.

No ? Are you really living in Brussels ? Can't you see certain evolutions coming ? Can't you learn from history ?

Al-queda and Iraq are NOT synonomus... pft... The increase of terrorism is a consquence of Iraq, but the two are not synonmus

What ? Based upon what facts are you saying this ? I really do not follow here

Its called ecconomics and trade... To import export more goods, at a higher enough level so that you can't be dominated by another region you need a large popluation base, the larger the population base the more weight is behind your politics when it comes to this... Its very simple really

Well, this is not the place to start speculating, stick to facts, please.

Perhaps you should do the same and not run your mouth off when your facts are skewed...

 

[The Smoking Man]

War isn't irrelevant.



Well, that is your opinion. I can just as easily say that you are not able to come up with arguments, proving that the US-saving of Iraq is illegal. Plants to build WMD were found in Iraq, just no WMD. But than again, why are you forgetting about what kind of 'man' Saddam was ? That is a pretty convincing argument to me.


marlon

Okay, take your conviction and now prove to me just how evenly it has been applied. Mugabe ... where is the even handed application of this 'justice'. Then we have this character Cheney in half the regimes with nasties and we find out those neutorn pulse generators he sold to Ghadaffi were used as detonators in his Nuclear program... Remember, this was the guy who was babysat for 20 years while they KNEW he supported terrorism.

Tell me how you can have one country give all of the biologicals and the dual use technology and then condemn the man for producing them.

Iran wants the USA to stand trial with Saddam for what was done. Do you think there is adequate defence to justify this not happening?

 

[marlon]

Say Belgium next time, I am sure if you re-read your post you will find you said:

Sorry but you are mistaken. The part where i mentioned western europe was on the fact that terror will be more successful here nowadays because of stringent internal US security policy. You really should reread my first post here.

Firstly Italy never had a empire after the Romans (~2000 years ago if you didnt know)

Yeah, so ? are you saying that Italy never had a colony ? Please, say yes And besides, if you compare the dates at which these colonies were handed over and if you compare then to the date at which Congo was handed over, you will conclude that your point is invalid.

Besides, why are you always mentioning Leopold two ? You do not know of anybody else or another country that has had colonies.

Besides, you refer to the Roman empire on " a 2000 years ago"-timeline. this is a classic mistake when engaging in the science of history. The Roman empire from the early days was not the same as that at the end of this era. it was different on various scales as politics, ethics, philosophy, colonies , magnitude. You do know that, do you ?

By the time Leopold started raping the Congo, The Netherland UK and Frances idea of colonising was to give back to the colones,

Well this is inconsistent with historical facts and besides, what is your point here ? Does this action justify the deads of millions of people ? Besides, the French have been dominating others since the middle ages, so i think it is nearly fair they gave up their colonies earlier.

Besides, why are not talking about the Spanish and the Portugese ? They whiped out entire civilizations ? really, your point on Leopold the second is childish because you refuse to look at what other countries did.

Al-queda and Iraq are NOT synonomus... pft...

Really, how can you be so sure ?

The increase of terrorism is a consquence of Iraq,

Think about these words for a while will you ? So you are saying that terrorism increases on an international level because of the condition in Iraq ? You think that if Iraq had not been helped out by the US, terrorism would not manifest itself in this way ? Do you think that those inferior terrorists that lead training camps in Afganistan (the most beautiful country in the world, i suggest you visit it, you will like it) really care about Iraq ? C'mon, be realistic, they just use the Iraqi-situation as an argument to set up muslims against the west. If Iraq was not there, they would have found something else, trust me on that. Besides, you do know that Bin Laden will never engage in relations with Saddam because of his inferior Sunni blood.

Again, these statements of yours clearly prove you are not well informed about this and you are just regurgitating popular left wing statements.
I refuse to engage in such pointless discussions any longer.

regards
marlon

 

[Anttech]

I say, we must evolve to a more US type of politics (also on social security issues) here in western Europe and please, loose these eastern Europe countries that we have accepted in the latest EU-expansion. I mean, what is up with that ?

Each country in Europe has different social security system, and politics... just because we have the EU doesn't negate that all countries have the same political systems (or influence)??

I never said that. I was only comparing the belgian system with that of the US. Our social security system is no longer realistic because of several reasons...i am sure i do not have to explain to you why.

Sorry but you are mistaken. The part where i mentioned western europe was on the fact that terror will be more successful here nowadays because of stringent internal US security policy. You really should reread my first post here.

Refute what you said as much as you like, but it is in "black and white" see the smiley face spin

Yeah, so ? are you saying that Italy never had a colony

yes I am, ITALY never ever had any colonies! the ROMANS did: Italy the country was only born in recent times! Look you can split hairs and Ill do the same!

Besides, why are you always mentioning Leopold two ? You do not know of anybody else or another country that has had colonies.

I am not talking about colonies, I am talking about "explotation" as being a major contributor to state of Africa

Well this is inconsistent with historical facts and besides

This is not inconsistent, it is factual... Show me these facts that show which other European countries were comitting mass explotation around the turn of the 20th century, you will find none.. Other European countries by this point didnt need to as they had assemble enough wealthy and were going through a bit of a crises of guilt

Really, how can you be so sure ?

lol... what just like Sadam was behind 7/11 Al-queda were trainning in Afgainistein, until the US blew the crap out of them, now they are in Iraq, not before when Sadam was in power...

trust me on that

politics aside I am sure you are a nice person, but I have no reason to trust you, I haven't found anything in your aguement to justify I trust you, your last paragraph is just pure speculation and contrary to the fact I have seen

 

[Manchot]

There is a link, there is no link... ...it really does not matter. We are all glad that Saddam is gone. The American actions in Iraq are certainly justified and i am glad there is still a courageous nation left that has the guts to stand up against global terror.

I'd agree with you when you say that we are all glad that Saddam is gone. However, I'm slightly confused about something. What is this global terror emanating from Iraq that you speak of? I was under the impression that Saddam had extremely little influence beyond his own borders. Perhaps you meant that our actions stood up to terror on the globe, not all over the globe? I guess I'll find out in coming posts.

Wrong, saddam was a mass murderer. More (of his own people) died under his command during his gass attacks in the late 80ties then there are people dead during the entire Iraqi 'war'

You're right. Current estimates place Iraqi civilian casualties at around 100,000 (not including enemy combatants, mind you). The Kurdish campaign was estimated to have caused 182,000 casualties between 1986 and 1989. Although, granted that it happened 14 years before the invasion and before a decade of economic sanctions in a country that is primarily desert, I wouldn't exactly call him a threat (even to his own people, let alone to outsiders). Also, I wouldn't exactly think that deaths caused in the recent war somehow cancel out the deaths caused by Saddam. Could you elaborate on this? Finally, I'm somewhat troubled by the fact that you put "war" in quotes. War is not irrelevant.

War isn't irrelevant.

I'm glad you agree.

Oh no, here we go again. Yes i know the US have been the ally of Saddam during the war with Iran. This is just standard geo-politics and you cannot condemn the US for that. It is morally not correct but then again every nation does it. if you start condemning the US, you should do the same with France, Germany,...etc etc...but do you see that happening ?

I think the US is being criticized for providing Saddam with the means to kill his people, and then using that as justification to go to war with him. (Well, actually, the justification was WMDs, and the genocide/dictator justification was tacked on later.) In the American legal system, this is akin to entrapment, and as you said, is morally wrong.

Well, that is your opinion. I can just as easily say that you are not able to come up with arguments, proving that the US-saving of Iraq is illegal. Plants to build WMD were found in Iraq, just no WMD. But than again, why are you forgetting about what kind of 'man' Saddam was ? That is a pretty convincing argument to me.

I'm afraid that I'm going to need to see some evidence that WMD plants were found. (Good luck with that.) So, a convincing argument is that because Saddam was a bad man, his country needed to be invaded? Am I understanding you correctly? If so, using the same logic, all countries run by bad men need to be invaded.

Really, how can you be so sure ?

How can I be sure that al-Qaeda is not synonymous with Iraq? Mainly because one's a country, and one's a terrorist organization. If you mean that I shouldn't be so sure that there are no ties between the two, you're right. You may have stumped me.

Besides, you do know that Bin Laden will never engage in relations with Saddam because of his inferior Sunni blood.

Oh yes, that's why. Thanks for reminding me.

Think about these words for a while will you ? So you are saying that terrorism increases on an international level because of the condition in Iraq ? You think that if Iraq had not been helped out by the US, terrorism would not manifest itself in this way ? Do you think that those inferior terrorists that lead training camps in Afganistan (the most beautiful country in the world, i suggest you visit it, you will like it) really care about Iraq ? C'mon, be realistic, they just use the Iraqi-situation as an argument to set up muslims against the west. If Iraq was not there, they would have found something else, trust me on that.

First of all, the majority of Iraqis would disagree with you when you say that Iraq was helped by the US. Secondly, while you are correct when you say that the terrorists would have found something else to dwell on, you are incorrect when you say that terrorism has not increased because of the war. Putting aside the empirical data (which shows a drastic increase in the incidence of terrorism since March 2003), one can consider what al-Qaeda could "use" as recruitment tools at various points in time. Before 9/11, all they had was the support of Israel coming from the US. After 9/11, they pretty much had nothing to recruit with, because they came across as the bad guys. (The war with Afghanistan was a very weak reason, because everyone knew that that wasn't a war of aggression.) Notice that between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, there were very few attacks. Also notice that suicide bombings just flat out didn't happen in Afghanistan. Then, after the invasion of Iraq, terrorist attacks increased vastly, because it was quickly shown to be a war of aggression. I think the reason is clear.

 

[Archon]

Really, how can you be so sure ?

I'm afraid the burden of proof lies on you. This is very much like saying "well, you can't prove that Saddam didn't have ties to Al-Qaida. Therefore, he did have such ties." But using this same logic, I could say, "YOU can't prove that you have no ties to Al-Qaida. Therefore, YOU support terrorism." Obviously, no rational person would accept this as proof: they would require me to support my claims with hard data.

Of course we can't be SURE that Saddam didn't have ties to Al-Qaida, but until we see proof to the contrary, we assume that he didn't.

Also, Al-Qaida and Iraq can't be synonymous because they are (at most) loosely connected by the support of Iraq's once-leader. Al-Qaida isn't based in Iraq, it doesn't get its funds from Iraq, etc.

 

[stoned]

Archon : American government had more connections with Al-Qaida than Saddam Hussein ever could have. And when Saddam H. stand trail don't be fooled by his supposedly true admission of ties to Al-Qaida, because all information must pass thru our " propaganda ministry " first.

 

[SOS2008]

In only a short time since my last post in this thread my points have been proven. There are still Americans who believe terrorism was/is connected to Saddam/Iraq, and that there were WMD. They still believe the cost of the war in Iraq is worth it, but when they discuss this, the topic flip-flops from terrorism (i.e., 9-11, etc.) to ruthless dictatorship--no longer about the security of Americans, but freeing the Iraqi people. I wonder if the body count, tax dollars being spent, etc., are really sinking in--please read the OP over and over until it does.

So where is this reasoning (or lack of reasoning) coming from? Yes, please, let's see some evidence for all this nonsense. But we all know such evidence can't be produced because it's not there. So why do people continue to cling to this thinking? Pro-Bush Pride? Somewhat, but mostly ignorance and susceptibility to propaganda. This is far more frightening to me than terrorist attacks, because empires decline from within.

 

[pattylou]

I think it's pride.

I also think as much as Bush's promotion of polarisation shoves me further left, it also pulls conservatives (some of them) further right. I think some of them who would have assessed more objectively, now feel that they'll "stand by their man" come hell or high water.

I agree, it's depressing and more scary than terrorism. (Actually, terrorism itself doesn't really scare me much - our *response* to terrorism does. I had a few sleepless nights after 9/11, but nothing like what this administration has done to my mental state!)

The whole reaction says something about the human condition that doesn't bode well. Fortunately, there's lots of goodness in the human condition, too. Among all of us! If we can back in touch with our commonalities maybe we can find a reasonable path through the blunders that Bush has committed.

 

[Art]

It seems at least some people in Washington are facing up to the fact that winning in Iraq is going to take a lot more time, money and lives than the Bush administration is prepared to admit.

US must spend ‘billions’, retool Iraq strategy to win

WASHINGTON: Winning the war in Iraq will require at least a decade of US military involvement, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and adopting a new strategy that would see more US troops killed, a top military analyst in Washington has said.
Andrew Krepinevich, director of the Centre for Strategic Assessments, said the US military has little chance of winning the counter-insurgency war in Iraq unless it focuses on protecting Iraqi civilians, instead of killing guerrillas.
The strategy, outlined in an essay in the journal Foreign Affairs, would also quash the Bush administration proposals to cut the number of US troops in Iraq to 60,000 in a year.
Krepinevich said his plan, which he has dubbed the “oil spot strategy,” gives the US its best chance to prevail in Iraq.
Current US operations, based on the same military offensive tactics that failed in Vietnam, are making “little progress” in defeating some 20,000 Iraqi rebels and their few hundred foreign allies.

Full text at http://www.bahraintribune.com/ArticleDetail.asp?CategoryId=2&ArticleId=78732

 

[outsider]

I think it's pride.

I also think as much as Bush's promotion of polarisation shoves me further left, it also pulls conservatives (some of them) further right. I think some of them who would have assessed more objectively, now feel that they'll "stand by their man" come hell or high water.

I agree, it's depressing and more scary than terrorism. (Actually, terrorism itself doesn't really scare me much - our *response* to terrorism does. I had a few sleepless nights after 9/11, but nothing like what this administration has done to my mental state!)

The whole reaction says something about the human condition that doesn't bode well. Fortunately, there's lots of goodness in the human condition, too. Among all of us! If we can back in touch with our commonalities maybe we can find a reasonable path through the blunders that Bush has committed.

To add to this, those who would rather stand by their man than to admit that they are wrong are often those who tend to panic, get defensive and make rash decisions. The are also those who are most fearful, insecure and are unaware of their options due to undereducation, miseducation or some other cultural influence.

As it is also scary to wander away from the flock and be a contrarian in a state where a "management by fear" and strong arm influence exists (anywhere churches rule aka bible belt/ midwest/ I'm not picking on anyone specifically just trying to make a point), it is easier to just do what everyone else is doing because if I'm wrong, we're wrong... and so no one will feel like they need to bare all the guilt.

In my experiences talking to people, I find that some people, especially well educated people, tend to keep their vote a secret, even from their friends and family. While, on the flipside, those who are less educated will seek confirmation from those around them. This is the power of word-of-mouth advertising.

As an action to add to the goodness of the human condition point, those who are educated enough should not just stay within our communities of other smartasses because you are not "converting" votes. To you, you are making the smartest decision for yourself, while due to the belief that everyone is free to make their own decision, you let each person make their own undereducated choice, which is the same undereducated choice that all their brothers, sisters, step-brothers, aunts, uncles... etc are making.

These are the same people who would rather be popular than anything else (aka politically correct). So help them help themselves.