Q, I am not heated and definitely respect your opinions. I just think that while other countries may have capabilities and even threatened action, none have actually done so except Iraq. I'm not sure all the reasons for going there are sound (but they may still be), but it sure as hell has sent a message to the world which was sorely needed, that we will no longer continue to tolerate terrorism.

Do you honestly believe

Also, could somebody please define WMD for me? Does it have to be a nuclear war head? or is toxic gas good enough? They have repeatedly attacked our allies, which in the book of foreign policy is the same as attacking us. What Bush did may not have been the "best possible" solution, but nobody says what would have been better, just that he was wrong. What would you do, Q, wait for another attack killing thousands before commiting military forces. How many thousands have to die before 500 military casualties is acceptable?

OK, I lied. I'll respond :-).

OK, this is the part where I get frustrated. What is it exactly that they have done, other than perhaps tweaked their nose at us. Iraq attacked Kuwait over 10 years ago and we responded appropriately at that time.

What "action" have they taken since then?

I would prefer that we actually go to war with countries that are actually supporting terrorism against us (Afghanistan as an example) as opposed to one that isn't just to "send a message".

The last time I asked if you read/watch the news I was being a smartass but now I have to think you really don't. There are many weapons that qualify as WMD, toxic gas being one of them. NONE has been found. Your question seems to indicate you think it has.

Toxic gas was used against Iran and the Kurds over 10 years ago and it *appears* we were successful with our subsequent inspections in getting them to destroy it. But again, even if some toxic gas existed, I would not have supported war unless there was evidence that it was an imminent threat against us. Many other countries possess toxic gas, Libya being one of them as I pointed out.

Again, what are you referring to? They attacked Iran with our support and blessings and then attacked Kuwait over 10 years ago. What does that have to do with now? Since then they have been largely disarmed and have attacked no one.


This message was edited by QQQ on 03/07/04 01:14.

Continuing to fight terrorism by actually going after the people/countries really supporting it? Do you support fighting crime by executing people not involved with crime to "send a meesage"?

It’s a nonsensical question because I obviously don’t believe they were a direct threat to us. It’s like asking you why you don’t support going to war with Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria (or maybe you do, I don’t know?) and how many lives we have to lose before we go to war with them.

In fact, because Saddam wasn’t a fundamentalist, and only cared about his own power, I actually think he was one of the smaller threats in the region because he didn’t want to go against us and risk another war. Unlike fundamentalists who are willing to die to attack the “great Satan”.


This message was edited by QQQ on 03/07/04 01:27.

Thon,

Can I ask you a question, maybe I am assuming things I shouldn't be. Do you think Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks?

Q, yes I absolutely believe it. I lived in Tehran from 1975-77 and have traveled extensively through the middle east, most westerners (us) don't have any idea what these people are capable of. And I still ask "what would you do differently?" I think our actions so far have been very efficient and effective. It is very easy to criticise what has been done, but that part of the world is a powder keg and needs SOME kind of attention. They only seem to understand force since they're floating on $billions, so I still ask (and am willing to listen) what is the perfect solution to the multiple problems that exist there? I think our occupation there was inevitable and Iraq is as culpable as any.

To contribute... as a former member of the military intelligence community, I am not really qualified to comment on national level issues, as the compartmentallization of the organization leaves me with little more insight than the outside observer would have... although as collector (trainee, never operated) I do have some insight as the the process of getting intelligence.

The first challenge is to actually get the intel. The second challenge is to recognize the fact that you have it.

Collection is step 1... Analysis is step 2. With the cellular nature of terrorist organizations, you will never be able to collect intel on every group. Most all of our intel is photo/sat (NRO National Reconnaisance Office, a subdivision of the CIA) and the good 'ole NSA. They are great at collecting intel against larger organizations / countries with a well defined structure. To get the small cells, you need to rely more on HUMINT (Human Intelligence). The fact that we can tell who has nukes, who is producing nuclear materials, allows us to engage countries that are producing nuclear WMD... a good example is DPRK. We had a pretty well defined and executed policy against them. When they were able to acquire delivery systems, they became a very major threat.

...to address 9/11, I don't think that you can effectively contain small cells like those that performed the attack with large military mobilization against other countries. I think that our military forces have given a substantial blow to existing terrorists organizations and their ability to sustain existing operations. ...but this will change with time. The terrorists are just at an advantage to reacting to a fluid environment than our military structure. America is the world's premier expert on conventional war. Every modern war that we have engaged in has been a total tactical victory... As soon as targets become scarce and we can't cleary designate ordanance, strike packages, etc... that is when we begin to have difficulties.

I prefer to view it as an issue of recruitment. For the most part, America has an unlimited recruitment capability. Our population is so big and we have such a modern military (compared to others), we will always be able to field a military force more powerfull than any other country... Analysts give us about 20 years where this is an absolute truth. The "terrorists", and I quote, because its not just "us" versus "them"... its also our allies, the Israelis, the French, etc... and the "thems" are almost too numerous to count. When we go into a country and us military force, we can eliminate a certain percentage of the threat, but much of the original threat will simply be scattered for awhile, later to reform... and our actions will incite hostile feelings from the area of operation, allowing these groups to increase their recruitment rate. Think of it as attacking a creature made of gummy bears with a large hammer. You can change the shape of the original creature, but most of the bears will just scatter and not really be damaged. The harder you hit, the more bears that come out of the woodwork.

I'm not saying that attacking Iraq was a bad thing... but just not THE solution, although it may be part of the solution. There is a popular belief, especially among the Republican party, that we must continue to premptively strike terrorist organizations. I think that this will become much more difficult to do, and the longer we cling to conventional application of military force, the more we will increase the threat's recruitment rate.

Premptive strikes may be necessary, but should be prosecuted by a force that looks more like a police force than a conventional military organization. If possible, these forces should be indigenous to minimize the anti-american/western sentiment. I'm drifting away from my original point... but I suppose it was about the collection and analysis of intel. The Israelis have the most hands on experience with this... and they are pretty successful, but they have a relative small area of operation and a well known enemy. The area of operation is mapped out down to the individual rooms within every building and are using thermal, sonic, laser, radio, and any other form of Signals Intelligence / observation methods that we could not possible apply at the same scale to our area of operation.

I think that 9/11 was horrific. I think that it is quite possible it will happen again to another city. I think that how often it happens and to what degree of violence is directly related to the course of action that we take as a country. Europe must look at us and be very frightened for themselves because of our foreign policy. They are closer to the source of the problem and could potentially be the next victim of the backlash.

When it comes to fighting wars effectively, the people who really win them for us are the logisticians. This is not tic-tac-toe, but a war of attrition. There is not going to be a single policy that will "stop terrorism", but there can be an intelligent policy that optimizes the effects of this new type of war in our favor.

I used to live 3 block from the trade center site and walked by the hole on a daily basis. There are still days that a tear comes to my eye for not only a friend that I lost, but for the countless others that I never even met. I am somewhat aware of the inner workings of the military and wish that people who don't know how to properly apply it would stop making uneducated claims at how to insulate us from the terrorist problem. I'm sorry for if this was rambling a bit... but I was trying to make an intelligent point.

I wish the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that are now on their workups good luck and good hunting. ...and a safe return for those in country now.

-Tom

well said T, and that is also my point. This is an extremely complex issue that we will be struggling with for a long time. If there is a better solution, let me hear it, I think our present actions have at least neutralized the threat and at the very least liberated at terribly oppressed country.

Ah, now it makes sense. In addition to the fact that we have not found poison gas in Iraq even the Bush administration has stated there is no evidence Iraq was behind 9/11.

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks".
President Bush

Tom, a bit long, but a nice post.

I think that some of the stuff you posted is the reason a lot of us thought it was a bad idea, and unlike the war with Afghanistan, the reason a large chunk of the allies did not join in.

I will be honest, like you, I don't know why Bush felt the war with Iraq had to happen at this time. And since Bush was not ready to give the real reasons we can just speculate (but I don't know if gas was a reason, but if it is, I don't think it is the only one)


there we don't agree. What threat has been neutralized? If Iraq had weapons they are in the hands of terrorists now. If not nothing is done. Did 9/11 piss you off? did you want revenge? did you want to get those aholes that did this? the answer is probably yes, and was what we all felt. The question is do you recognize the fact that there are some people that might have been just as pissed off with the invasion of Iraq? some Arabs in other areas that might say look at these Americans they are ready to blow up a country of Arabs that had nothing to do with 9/11 and does not pose a threat just because all Arabs are guilty of 9/11. What do you think they will want? revenge maybe? and now you have the next generation of terrorists. Has it neutralized a threat? no has it postponed it? maybe, but even that I am not sure. But if it has postponed it then I think there is a greater chance that it will come back stronger then weaker because of this.




terribly oppressed? yes. Liberated? I will wait until the US is out of there and puts the country in the hands of the Iraqis. With a legit government that is not influenced or influentiable by anyone outside

Good points, gentlemen. Hind sight is 20/20.

With a legit government that is not influenced or influentiable by anyone outside
____________

And What did they have before we went to war?

Does anybody remember the quantity and the voracity of the lies and threats against our military just before we entered Baghdad? Do you remember the lies against it's residents?

Does anybody think for a minute that perhaps mobile weapons platforms had existed, and were maybe transported out of the country, or simply buried? Entire fighter jets have been found buried. This is not the actions of someone capable of rational thought.

Do you think for a minute that Sadam would have waited to unleash toxins both on our military forces and his own people? Sadam has somehow managed to create a population who is hateful of the US, will die for him, and whose people he was able to kill thousands at a time for his own agenda.

If stockpiles of toxins or anything else were to be discovered. NOBODY would have been surprised. He HAS used and tested these weapons in the past, and based on what he and others were saying. We had no choice but to try as best were could to substantiate his claims and try to neutralize not only this threat, but many other simultaneously.

The Iraqis have been born and bred to resent everything about the US, and I never thought we would have much support from their civilians, but they are still by and large very happy to have Sadam out of power. It's going to be a lot of change, and there will still be terrorist cells and more for years to come.

If you think the men of our military fought and died in vein, then that's too bad for them, the troops who have supported the actions.

How many times has our Terror threat been raised since 9/11? What has actually happened?

While I'm sure we have to watch out for small groups more than ever. The idea that they are going to get funding and support from any nation is dwindling. Libya understands this, so does Afghanistan. So do other countries.

Iraq will recover to be a far better off society than it was Prior to 9/11. Myths about the US and it's intentions there will begin to fade with the Iraqis, and in 5, 10 or 20 years the bad blood should be washed away even more.

Go to Germany and ask them what they think of the US. You may get a mixed reaction. Then ask them what they think of Hitler?

Hatred and embarrassment for having served and lived under what is now recognized as nothing more than a criminal.

Don't forget the atrocities.

I'm not looking for love and thanks from the middle east. I just want them to have a chance at a normal life. For when they are able to put their horrific past far behind them, the sooner were will get along.

Both their children and ours will have benefited from everones sacrifice. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts that have been laid out for more years than we will ever know.

I hope and pray for that


that is irrelevant. If you say they are liberated, then it has to be an Iraqi government that is looking out for Iraq. If it is a puppet government or something similar then how can you say they have been liberated?


if this is true, who has the weapons now? a bunch of terrorists maybe? Isn't that more dangerous? As long as Iraq was under the UN eye, they could not do anything, if some small groups of terrorists have them they can do a lot more damage

Once and for all people, we went to war with Iraq because of material breach of UN1441 which had to do with destruction of weapons left over from the Gulf War, that everybody agreed they did have (because they were witnessed). The UN voted unanimously on this. Because we can't find them now, simply means they aren't in any of the places we have looked.