Iraq

Actually, terrorists are people who use or threaten to use violence to coerce groups or governments for their own gain. It's a pretty broad definition and anyone can be one.

 

If we just sent John McClane over to Iraq in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

I got a bad feeling about this, Al. I got glass in my feet.

 

@ Joneagle_X - I liked the structure of your post, but not all of the content.

1) If people fear being killed as opposed to tortured for their beliefs, how is that any better?
2) Says who? Who says we are winning the hearts and minds of the people? I don't know how anybody could gage such progress realistically. Who says our control isn't on a downward slope towards collapse as we speak? I don't think anything is that definite.
Also, just because you don't hear about insurgent casualties as much doesn't mean they don't happen as much. How often do you hear about a soldier's death on the news that isn't from your home-state or that wasn't part of a larger death count? Public interest has faded. If they reported the death of every Ali, Omar, and Mohammad in the war, there would be no air time for the more gripping stories, like the jet-skiing squirrel and the trampoline bear.

 

I've been asked to post some sources, so I'll do so.

These are the most credible that I can remember reading.

1) This is a credible journalist who I enjoy reading often. Look up on some of his work. He is often accurate to a T on how events will unravel.

"Summary: By losing the trust of the Iraqi people, the Bush administration has already lost the war. Moderate Iraqis can still win it, but only if they wean themselves from Washington and get support from elsewhere. To help them, the United States should reduce and ultimately eliminate its military presence, train Iraqis to beat the insurgency on their own, and rally Iran and European allies to the cause." - James Dobbins
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050...-dobbins/iraq-winning-the-unwinnable-war.html

2) Something I stumbled across about a reporter embedded in Northern Iraq:

Monroe believes the American public does not know the whole truth about the war in Iraq.

"People don't know half of what's going on," she explained. "There's so much background they need to understand.

"I think you have to blame the media for what they report. People only get two types of stories: death and scandals, and that really doesn't reflect the experience people are having over here. Too often the media lets the bad news take center stage." - http://newsblaze.com/story/20060703083310nnnn.nb/topstory.html

3) If you keep up to date with the AP, you usually get the clean story....

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QRMCU00&show_article=1


Do a google search. That's what I do. I look for reputable names like the New York Times, or BBC, or any number of internationally reputable sources. Stay away from CNN, CBS, and blogs. They're often inaccurate or downright wrong.
The news is there, you just have to look.

I know my post before was a little..... strange... and it's definitely against my political beliefs. But I do believe we can win in Iraq. Does that mean I'm against withdrawing? No. I certainly don't like the way the President has handled and continues to handle the situation. He acts like he's steadfast but floats around like a pansy with the situation. He's a lame duck anyway, he should be pressing for progress any way he can.

I just wanted you guys to know that there IS progress in Iraq, even if its worse than it was when we got there. The situation is fixable. Perhaps with a new helmsman we'll be able to do it?

EDIT: Okay, Nikzad, I see your points. They make sense. It is true that I could be totally wrong in my opinions about what's going on in Iraq. It is tough to gather a feel for the opinion of such a large population in such differing regions.

Don't forget that I've drawn this conclusion from reading a number of sources both complementary and contradictory to the way I've come to feel. I've also asked a number of people that I know who have served in Iraq or have sought the opinions of people who did that I didn't.

As for Russia coming back, it's certainly possible, but that is always an overt threat. I'd be more worried about China and its 2 million men under arms. Serious threat to Taiwan and always will be.

 

Here is a news article from the other side of the planet, for most of you guys

Australia says oil means no Iraq withdrawal
Australian Defence Minister admits for first time that oil key factor for joining US-led Iraq invasion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANBERRA, 06 July 2007

Australia admitted for the first time on Thursday that securing oil supply is a key factor behind its involvement in the US-led war in Iraq.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said a review of Australia's defence strategy to be released Thursday concluded that maintaining "resource security" in the Middle East was a priority.

"The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them," Nelson told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq, but the entire region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world.

"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq," he said.

Australia joined the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Prime Minister John Howard remains a strong supporter of Washington's military campaign in the country, including the current deployment of about 1,575 soldiers.

Nelson said Australia's main reasons for remaining in Iraq were to prevent al-Qaeda-driven violence between the Sunni and Shia populations and to help key ally the United States combat terrorism and stabilise the region.

But he said safeguarding oil supplies was an important part of bringing stability.

"For all of those reasons, one of which is energy security, it's extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security," he said.

Nelson said Australia's troops would remain in Iraq for as long as they were needed and would not be affected by elections here later this year, when Howard's conservative government will seek a fifth term in office.

"We have made a conscious decision that it's the conditions on the ground that will determine how long we stay in Iraq, not the political conditions in Australia," he said.

The centre-left opposition Labor Party, which wants to withdraw Australia's troops from Iraq, said the government's admission that the conflict was linked to oil contradicted its statements before the 2003 invasion.

"When Mr Howard was asked back in 2003 whether this war had anything to do with oil, Mr Howard said in no way did it have anything to do with oil," Labor leader Kevin Rudd told reporters.

"This government simply makes it up as it goes along on Iraq."

Howard will release the biennial defence review, defining national defence policy, later Thursday.

Howard denied the war was linked to oil in an interview on February 2003, on the eve of the invasion.

"It's about the danger to Australia if countries like Iraq continue to have chemical and biological weapons, and those weapons get into the hands of international terrorists -- that fundamentally is what this is about," he said at the time.

Source

 

If the definition of terrorist are "people who use or threaten to use violence to coerce groups or governments for their own gain. It's a pretty broad definition and anyone can be one" aren't U.S. is the terrorist coz they started it first ?

 

anyone can be described as a terrorist, countries cant be terrorists because then it becomes a proper war lol

 

Hey i live in Australia 2!! its a great place =D

TERRORIST!!!!!!!!!!!11

lol...

 

Isnt America denying the Iraqis freedom to have Islamic-law bound societies. If a society wants freedom they will strive to attain it themselves.
Think of all the money thats being wasted on the war, that could be spent on Americans. f**k policing the globe, we need some 1940s isolationism.

 

@Chris Benoit - this thread is talking about the islamist terrorists not terrorists in general. try following the discussion.

@kenshin72 - islamist terrorists started the current big terrorist threat on their own. They dragged the US into it later.


The number one most likely thing that would happen if the US withdraws before the job is done is that the terrorists will become more emboldened. The same thing happened in the beginning with the Iran hostage situation in 1979. Reagan struck a deal with the terrorists which did get the hostages freed but also showed the terrorists that they could use terrorism to coerce the United States. That started it all. Thanks Mr. Reagan, this is why I think you were a horrible horrible president.

 

If America was isolationist and didnt interfere with the Middle East, islamic terrorists wouldnt bother with us. I dont want to wait untill "the job is done" because it will cost taxpayer money. Americans should have a say in where there taxes go. Let redneck hicks pay for the war with their own money and blood.

 

you're walking on thin ice AdmiralAckbar, so watch it

you never know if someone on the forums has a brother or sister or wife or husband or mother or father fighting oversees, so try to be a little more considerate when you post

 

Man, the US cant be isolationist because a lot of their economy depends on messing with other countries. It has been doing so since the 50's.
Also it supports Israel, which is a major cause of middle east unstability, and the rumor goes that supporting Israel also depends on economical factors. Its not a plain neo-nazi lie that jews are extremely important to the united states economy and can press the politicians as they desire.

The military industry is the most important industry of the US. Stop going to war and the economy will start facing serious problems. I mean no offence, but America has been policing the world since it started existing. As soon as the civil war ended, a new war against Mexico started, and it has been that way since the beginning, war after war, after war.

The 9/11 happened for a reason. I hate to see innocent people die, but I think the american's hatred was misplaced. Instead of becoming pissed with the arabs they should have asked "why?" to their own government. Man they even re-elected Bush.

I dont mean that the US people brought the 9/11 upun themselves, but I cant say that their governments external policy didnt help.

 

Our economy depends on "messing" with other countries? Incorrect.
Our economy is based on everyone trading with us because of our being a huge center of commerce. One of the largest.

Our military industry is the most important industry of the US? Incorrect.
Actually, our most important industry could be argued a number of ways.
1) Most influential? Movies/Games/Software
2)Most profitable? Steel and natural resource production
3)Largest quantities? Grain/Other Farm Products


However, you are correct in that the United States cannot combat terrorism by being isonationalistic, unless we just try to stop any terrorist attacks that we can. That would result in a major amount of money being spent in an effort to stop terrorist plot (nearly impossible to do) and a massive loss of life if and when we failed.

Even if we sealed ourselves off from the world, the Terrorists would still attack us because we stand against their primary edict: we're a primarily Christian nation that lives against their extremist islamic law.

@ Akbar , you're wrong. We will allow a theocracy in Iraq. But only as the people want it, not imposed by a group of violent terrorists. In fact, Iraq is already leaning that way.

 

do they want to just create this, or do they want to rule it too? how many of these terrorists actually want to rule it?

 

War and armament are really important to the economy. The war on Iraq was aimed at controlling a resource. Its a really important industry for the US and that you cant deny. The US spends on armament 3 times what Europe does, England included, and thats a lot. The United States has been walking down a road with no return since years ago with the start of the military industrial complex.

Sealing itself agains terrorists? Come on, thats impossible. If the boys in Columbia made such a massacre by themselves, you just cant stop terrorists from doing it. I belive the only reason there have been no more attacks (small attacks) is that the fundamentalists dont give a crap about killing innocent american civillians because they know its pointless and absurd.

Too late to become isolationist.

 

@Lemmy - 9/11 happened because al Qaeda wanted to lure the US into attacking them and to get back at America for shooting cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 destroying terrorist training camps (these cruise missiles attacks were in response to the bombing of the two US embassies in Africa). The targets were symbolic in nature. The Pentagon sybolized the American military, the World Trade Center symbolized the American economy, and the Capitol symbolized the American government. The attacks were actually going to involve a lot more planes including a few blowing up over the Pacific, one hitting the FBI headquarters, one hitting the CIA headquarters, one hitting the tallest building in California, one hitting the tallest building in Washington state, and one hitting the tallest building on the east coast. This was scaled back because of resources. Also, the 9/11 attacks had been in planning and development since 1999 and cost a total of around $500,000 to carry out.

Ironically, the Taliban leader of Afghanistan did not want the 9/11 attack to happen because he was afraid that the US would retaliate against his country (as we all know this is what happened so his fear was justified). However, Bin Laden convinced him that the US would suffer the same fate as the USSR had in Afghanistan in the 80s.

However, Bin Laden seems to be forgetting that the USSR war in Afghanistan was so bad for the USSR for one reason - American aid. America supplied the Afghans with weapons including missiles capable of taking down Soviet helicopters. The Soviets relied very heavily on their helicopters and with that threat removed, they started to lose.

So, quite the opposite happened when America attacked Afghanistan. A battle plan that was carried out almost perfectly with only one flaw, the reliance on Pakistani and Afghan troops to cut off the Taliban and al Qaeda retreat.

As for "I belive the only reason there have been no more attacks (small attacks) is that the fundamentalists dont give a crap about killing innocent american civillians because they know its pointless and absurd."
This is incorrect. They islamist terrorists wish to kill as many innocent american civilians as they can. Experts expect that attacks will try to increase in scale and bodycount in the future (hopefully these attacks will be thwarted). In fact, I think the number of attacks that are thwarted each year is in the hundreds. Now these are not large attacks but they are attacks.


And now for some figures:
GDP per capita
1 Luxembourg $ 71,400
2 Bermuda $ 69,900
3 Jersey $ 57,000
4 Equatorial Guinea $ 50,200
5 United Arab Emirates $ 49,700
6 Norway $ 46,300
7 Guernsey $ 44,600
8 Ireland $ 44,500
9 United States $ 44,000
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Oil Exports in barrels/day
16 United States 1,048,000
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2176rank.html

Proved Oil Reserves (oil that has not yet been mined)
1 World 1,293,000,000,000
2 Saudi Arabia 261,900,000,000
3 Canada 178,800,000,000
4 Iran 132,500,000,000
5 Iraq 112,500,000,000 .
6 United Arab Emirates 97,800,000,000
7 Kuwait 96,500,000,000
8 Venezuela 75,270,000,000
9 Russia 74,400,000,000
10 Libya 42,000,000,000
11 Nigeria 36,250,000,000
12 United States 21,370,000,000
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html
Canada... way up there at #2 (not including World). If all we wanted was oil then we could just pressure them into building more oil refineries and digging more oil wells because while they are #2 in proved reserves, they are #8 in production. Even Mexico produces more oil than Canada. Also take note of Venezuela. They have a dictator who hates the US, they have lots of oil, they are comparatively close to the US, they are almost entirely Christian. Sounds like a much better place for the US to have invaded if all they wanted was oil.

Oil Production
1 World 83,000,000
2 Saudi Arabia 9,475,000
3 Russia 9,400,000
4 United States 7,610,000
5 Iran 3,979,000
6 China 3,631,000
7 Mexico 3,420,000
8 Norway 3,220,000
9 Canada 3,135,000
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html

And one of my favorites, Military Expenditures as a percentage of the GDP
1 Oman 11.40
2 Qatar 10.00
3 Saudi Arabia 10.00
4 Iraq 8.60
5 Jordan 8.60
6 Israel 7.30
7 Yemen 6.60
8 Armenia 6.50
9 Eritrea 6.30
10 Macedonia 6.00
11 Burundi 5.90
12 Syria 5.90
13 Angola 5.70
14 Mauritania 5.50
15 Maldives 5.50
16 Kuwait 5.30
17 Turkey 5.30
18 El Salvador 5.00
19 Morocco 5.00
20 Singapore 4.90
21 Swaziland 4.70
22 Bahrain 4.50
23 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.50
24 Brunei 4.50
25 Greece 4.30
26 Chad 4.20
27 United States 4.06
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
All the way down at 27. Yes, the US does spend more money on the military than any other nation but the US has a LOT more money to spend.

GDP
1 World $ 65,950,000,000,000
2 United States $ 13,130,000,000,000
3 European Union $ 13,060,000,000,000
4 China $ 10,170,000,000,000
5 Japan $ 4,218,000,000,000
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
The ENTIRE European Union doesn't even have as high a GDP as the US.

 

You are completely right about the motivations behind the attacks, yet we could atribute the bombing of the embassys to even more american intervention and keep going this way forever. There have been a lot of statements from al Qaeda members that talk about israeli occupation, american intervention in god knows where and so. I guess thats the reason why they bombed american embassys and not canadian. (Im not justifying it, by the way).

However im not so sure that HUNDREADS of attack attempt are thwarted each year. Do you really think it is possible? The ammount of resources required for that are endless. I have seen and read their propaganda, its bloody, brutal and animalistic, but maybe its just about "scaring". You know, terrorism.

The GDP is a good indicator, yet its not enough to justify the production an exportation of armament. You may be right when you say that the GDP of the US is the biggest of the world, hovever its not a really good argument because its simply an economical indicator, and how much of the GDP is spent is a percentage, and percentages can be really tricky.

So lets talk about population:
China 1,321,851,888 July 2007 est.
India 1,129,866,154 July 2007 est.
European Union* 490,426,060 July 2007 est. *Dont care about it.
United States 301,139,947 July 2007 est.

And military expenditures:
United States 4.06 2005 est.
China 3.80 2006
India 2.50 2006

GDP Per capita:
United States $ 44,000 2006 est.
China $ 7,700
India $ 3,800

GDP:
United States $ 13,130,000,000,000
China $ 10,170,000,000,000
India $ 4,156,000,000,000

So we have got that:
The US spends 533.078.000.000 in weaponry. That means each american "spends" 1770 $ in armament in a year. wow.
China spends 1.468.548.000.000 in weaponry. That means each chinese "spends" 1110 $ in armament in a year. still a lot.
India spends 103.900.000.000 in weaponry. That means each indian "spends" 91 $ in armament each year. Nothing.

So in the end, a single american spends a LOT of money in armament. Something also important: Countries that you mentioned like Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and such DO NOT produce weapons, which means that actually the US can buy more guns than them spending the same amount of money (you know, shipping, taxing, etc).

The point of all this is just to back up what I said before, the military industrial complex that makes so many private companies weapon manufacturers is an important economical factor, without the military industry the US would have some serious economical difficulties, so we cannot say that the US dont need or dont promote war. And when I mean that the US has been walking down a road with no return, thats what I meant.

My source is the same as yours. Anyway we should think if it is a reliable source, seing as how they screwed up with the weapons of mass destruction report. Haha im just kidding, it sure beats wikipedia.

 

Wow that's a LOT of statistics.