Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War in Iraq, is there a point?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 96 of 308 (235777)
08-22-2005 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
08-22-2005 10:27 PM


Re: American motives
Just a couple of thoughts. First off we will never really know for sure whether the invasion was the better course of action or not as we will only know the result of what did happen and not what might have happened.
Rightly or wrongly the US is in Iraq now and the only reasonable course of action now is to see this thing through. I believe that by not supporting the troops now is only likely to cause more bloodshed, both American, British and Iraqi. I also tend to think that it will be a seen as a sign of weakness by terrorists and make the west more vulnerable to terrorism.
Much of the western world resents American success and power. I think that frankly is pretty sad. I think it is the equivalent of some multi millionaire being resentful of the wealth of Bill Gates.
It does seem to me that there must be a good reason for the success and power of the US, and one of the reasons is the degree of freedom that Americans have. Many Americans, Canadians and Brits etc have died for the freedom of others. Freedom is worth fighting and dying for whether it be for our own freedom or for the freedom of others.
I don't imagine any one doubts that there has been mistakes made in US foreign policy, but on balance the world is a much better and safer place because of the US. Even in the middle east there is finely some improvement in the situation there. Libya has come around. The Saudis are actually doing something to make life more difficult for terrorists. Israel is pulling out of Gaza. Palestinian radicals are less militant than they were and they are losing strength politically.
The UN has proven itself to be corrupt and ineffectual. There is only one major power left in the world and it's the USA. Thank heavens it isn't the USSR or nazi Germany, and from my own Canadian perspective, I'm grateful that it is our next door neighbour and best friend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 08-22-2005 10:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 08-23-2005 1:09 AM GDR has replied
 Message 119 by nator, posted 08-23-2005 9:35 AM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 100 of 308 (235792)
08-22-2005 11:46 PM


Terrorism won't end any time soon

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 111 of 308 (235816)
08-23-2005 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
08-23-2005 1:09 AM


Re: American motives
Faith writes:
If there was anything in my post that raised a doubt about my support of our troops or our action in Iraq let me quell it. Not being behind Bush's hope of establishing democracy doesn't mean I don't support the war in general. In fact I think we should probably have been more forceful in various ways.
I apologise. I don't know why I linked it to your post. I just meant it as a general statement and I should have posted it that way. It wasn't a reflection on anything that you posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 08-23-2005 1:09 AM Faith has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 211 of 308 (236132)
08-23-2005 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
08-23-2005 1:39 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
jar writes:
Please understand that those of us who oppose the current policies of the Administration are not saying we should not oppose terrorism. What we are saying is that the method being used is not effective and in fact is increasing the risk of terrorist attacks.
You may or may not be right but a decision had to be made as to the best method to combat terrorism. No matter what decision was made there would be those who would support it and those who would think it wrong. However, that point is now moot as the decision has been made, and to not support that decision only strengthens the hands of the terrorists.
For example I posted a link, (post #100 this thread), to a CTV story on the recruitment of a middle class male youth in Canada to Islamic terrorism. I contend that those that go out and actively oppose what is being done to fight terrorism, will make the recruitment of home grown terrorism that much easier. I believe that the bombings in London by home grown terrorists is just the start and I also believe that we will see the same thing in this country in the not too distant future.
Your statement also begs the question of what would you have done. It is easy to criticize what has been done, but there has to be a constructive alternative. 9/11 was not the first terrorist attack. The bombings of the American embassies and the attack on the Cole brought the usual response of trying to catch the perpetrators without going after the organization behind it. We can even go back to Munich. If action had been taken sooner maybe 9/11 could have been prevented.
You say that, "the method being used is not effective and in fact is increasing the risk of terrorist attacks". How do you know that? It is nearly 4 years since there has been an attack on American soil.
jar writes:
What is the best method for preventing non-Nation States from getting the means of destruction currently availabe only to Nation States?
Frankly, a nuclear weapon is not the biggest threat. If the terrorists were as smart as they seem to be, they would realize that far more damage could be done to the US with conventional methods and very small budgets than with a classic nuclear device.
But we need to realize that we do have limited resources. The question is how to best use those resources to get the greatest benefit.
No one is saying that terrorism should not be opposed. The debate is, or should be, on how to best use our limited resources.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are at war but that it is a war unlike any other. The enemy is not identifiable, he has no borders, he is hiding in tunnels in Afghanistan and he lives across the street. The enemy does not play by any rules of traditional warfare, he believes that hatred is an attribute and he in many cases places no value on his own life other than the destruction he can cause with it.
The war against terror isn't only being fought militarily. I'm certainly not always in agreement with President Bush. The debt he is running up may become a huge impediment to the long term ability of the US to fight this war. He has however, reached out to people of all faiths, including the Islamic faith, to work passively against terrorism. That is becoming more and more effective as more and more Islamic leaders denounce terrorism.
I don't know how effective it has been but there has been a concerted effort to block the flow of money and other resources to the terrorists.
As to what else can be done I don't think that there is much else that can be done until all countries in the west come to the conclusion that we are at war. Countries like Canada who think that we can sit back and be safe by not offending the terrorists are part of the problem. We have to start realizing that anyone who provides comfort, resources or verbal support for the terrorist cause are our enemies and should be treated as such. It has taken the London bombings to spur the Blair government to finally move in that direction.
It is you that is saying we have to be wiser about using our limited resources. What would you do?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 1:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 3:22 PM GDR has replied
 Message 222 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 3:47 PM GDR has replied
 Message 237 by FairWitness, posted 08-23-2005 4:14 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 215 of 308 (236139)
08-23-2005 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by jar
08-23-2005 3:22 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
jar writes:
Can we agree that the current wold-wide terrorist threats are a new paradigm?
Absolutely. Actually that is just a more concise way of saying what I did in my last post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 3:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 3:35 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 223 of 308 (236152)
08-23-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jar
08-23-2005 3:35 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
jar writes:
Next, can we agree that the paradigm involves more than simply the US against Islam, that the tactics used can be applied to any situation between a Nation State and non-Nation State groups?
No problem with that. I wish I had a better understanding of the Islamic faith. I have read parts of the Koran and have read Bernard Lewis's book "The Crisis Of Islam".
I think that it had the potential to become that, but it is one of the things that I believe the President has handled extremely well. He has reached out to Muslims and their leaders in a way that made it clear that the terrorists were not part of mainstream Islam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 3:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 3:56 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 229 of 308 (236161)
08-23-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by deerbreh
08-23-2005 3:47 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
deerbreh writes:
Well, for one, I think I would get out of Iraq so that we are no longer a target there and focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan which is what we should have done all along. The Taliban are coming back in Afghanistan and Osama is still on the loose in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
IMHO that would be the absolute worst thing to do. It is certainly an open question whether it was the right thing to do in the first place, but that is no longer relevent.
Pulling out now would indicate that the US is not prepared to finish what they start and it would leave Iraq in chaos. Anarchy in Iraq would leave in tatters the progress that has been made towards peace in the mideast.
Insurgents are now established in Iraq and it would give them a new base of operations for world wide terrorism.
The most important reason to not do it is that every Iraqi life is precious, as is there freedom, and it would be mean abandoning a whole nation at the time that they are most in need.
The right thing isn't always easy, but it is still the right thing.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 3:47 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 4:13 PM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 233 of 308 (236166)
08-23-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by jar
08-23-2005 3:56 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
jar writes:
So far so good.
Now can you agree that our reactions so far, things like invading Iraq and Afganistan have been patterned on the old paradigm of Nation State Conflicts?
Actually I don't. If you were to consider Iraq in isolation I could see your point, but when you look at the war against terror in its totality I don't agree.
The US has targeted the terrorists in Afghanistan and formed a working relationship with the Pakistani gov't which has forced bin Laden's camps underground instead of being able to operate openly with the support of the Taliban gov't. They have,(to the best of my knowledge), cut off a great deal of their financial resources. They have realized the necessity of working with moderate Muslims. They have revamped homeland security to deal with terrorism. They have revamped their intelligence network to target terrorism.
It is the US more than anyone who has recogniozed that this is a warunlike any other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 3:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 4:17 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 246 of 308 (236184)
08-23-2005 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by FairWitness
08-23-2005 4:14 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
I'm not sure how but I think that you have totally misinterpreted my post, or else you meant to reply to someone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by FairWitness, posted 08-23-2005 4:14 PM FairWitness has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by FairWitness, posted 08-23-2005 4:32 PM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 251 of 308 (236191)
08-23-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by jar
08-23-2005 4:17 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
jar writes:
Did the US invade Afganistan?
Did the US invade Iraq?
The other things you mention such as working with Pakistan I'll address as we move through. But the issue of invasion and occupation (and we still have troops in Afganistan) is important because of the percentage of the available resources committed.
The invasions took place but it is not an occupation in the historic sense. There may still be American, (and Canadian) troops in Afghanistan but they are only there to track down and control the terrorists. When there is no longer the threat of terrorism from that country there will no longer be troops. The western forces support the local gov't.
The goal in Iraq is again to establish a democratically elected local gov't and get out.
As I said before, There is no one more aware that this is not a conventional war than the Americans and they are adjusting to the new reality.
You may well be right about resources being spread somewhat thinly but at this point that is what is required. The unfortunate thing is that the majority of the rest of the western world is content to let the US, the Brits and the Aussies make the bulk of the sacrifices.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 4:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 5:23 PM GDR has replied
 Message 300 by jar, posted 08-23-2005 6:27 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 257 of 308 (236205)
08-23-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Chiroptera
08-23-2005 5:00 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
Chiroptera writes:
As a citizen of a country that claims to be a democracy, it is not only my right but my duty to voice my opinions, and to do what I can to prevent and correct wrongs done by the government, even if it claims to do its wrongs in my name.
Of course you are right and one of the reasons there are American forces in Iraq is so that they may have the same privelege.
With that privilege though comes responsibility. The invasion of Iraq took place rightly or wrongly. Now that the decision has been made each individual, (even though they may have been opposed to the American forces being in Iraq in the first place), should, I think, support the continuing efforts in Iraq.
As I posted earlier in this thread, if the terrorists sense weakness in the resolve of the US to see this through they will be strengthened in every way possible. (More recruits, more financing, more governmental support etc.) If American reslove weakens it will put more US lives at risk, more Iraqi lives at risk and eberyone will be at greater risk of terrorist attack. JMHO

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2005 5:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-23-2005 5:31 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 262 by FairWitness, posted 08-23-2005 5:32 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 263 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2005 5:32 PM GDR has replied
 Message 265 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 5:34 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 266 of 308 (236216)
08-23-2005 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by deerbreh
08-23-2005 5:23 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
deerbreh writes:
And why is that? Because of the failure of diplomacy on the part of George W. Bush. If he had been willing to work with the French and the Germans instead of insisting on doing it HIS way at every step maybe they (and others) would have joined the Coalition of the Willing. George Bush sowed and we are reaping what he sowed.
This would bethe French who along with the Russians, and others who were making billions along with Saddam Hussein from under the table oil dealings under the cover of the UN food for oil program.
The U.N. Oil for Food scandal - Washington Times
This message has been edited by GDR, 08-23-2005 02:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 5:23 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 6:04 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 267 of 308 (236217)
08-23-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by deerbreh
08-23-2005 5:34 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
deerbreh writes:
No, not if we think it is not in our interest (the U.S.) to continue to stay there. It is a legitimate position even if you disagree. Again these is the same bankrupt argument that kept us in Vietnam until 1973. Had we negotiated a settlement in Vietnam in 1968 we would have gotten just as good of a deal as we got in 1973 - and saved a lot of American and Vietnamese lives.
I agree completely that it is a legitimate position. I was just pointing out why I think it is the wrong one. You are in my view correct in your position on Viet Nam, but I don't think that the two positions are analogous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 5:34 PM deerbreh has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 275 of 308 (236229)
08-23-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Chiroptera
08-23-2005 5:32 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
Chiroptera writes:
A wrong does not cease to be a wrong just because a "decision has been made", nor does one's responsibility to stop it end.
For the sake of argument let's assume that it was morally wrong to invade Iraq. Time only flows in one direction and the fact that the invasion happened can't be changed. I'm just saying that in my view it would be morally wrong to now pull out of Iraq and leaving them ungoverned and defenceless.
In addition I believe it would have a long term negative impact on stability in the Middle East as well as strengthening the terrorists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2005 5:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2005 5:55 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 279 of 308 (236233)
08-23-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Chiroptera
08-23-2005 5:55 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
Chiroptera writes:
In my view, it is up to the Iraqis themselves to determine whether the continued presence of US forces is morally right or wrong, and under what conditions it would be morally right to remain.
Good point and I agree. I'm not just sure who you listen to though. The Kurds definitely want them there, the Sunnis don't and the Shias are a mixed bag.
The elected officials whose lives are constantly in danger most definitely want them there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2005 5:55 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024