Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bush Speech on Iraq
#1
Pretty sharp,3 years late.


SPEECH

So,why is George releasing these terrorists? He's as double minded a man as I ever saw:

HERE
Reply
#2
Palladin Wrote:Pretty sharp,3 years late.


SPEECH

So,why is George releasing these terrorists? He's as double minded a man as I ever saw:

HERE
-----------------------------------------------
Well... 2 comments about George's speech:

1. We don't know if Osama bin Ladin still is alive. In fact, I think he is not. Al Qaeda is just keeping up the belief that he is alive for its own believers.

2. The expansion of Al Qaeda came in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam. If the invasion had stopped with a serious warning of Saddam and the US forces then retreated, then Iraq would have been free of Al Qaeda now. Saddam never invited Al Qaeda to come there. Al Qaeda were the enemies of Saddam as well as Mr. Bin Ladin.

The fact that the Baath-led government was removed was the invitation for Al Qaeda jihadists all over the Mideast to come to Iraq and do their Jihad. As is stated, Al Qaeda in Iraq tries to give the picture that they have many Iraqi followers but in fact 90% of the jihadists are from other ME countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordania, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and even Turkey. They went to Iraq as a result of that Saddam and the Baath Party was removed.

Allow the Baath Party to exist again at least in the Sunni provinces and Al Qaeda will become less active there. The Baath Party promoted a secular view that should be welcomed by the US rather than the extremist muslim views promoted by many current Iraqi leaders. Remember that Baath Party was not equal to only Saddam. It had many followers in the Iraqi society before 2003. It was a stupid decision by the US to prohibit the Baath Party.

/track_snake
Reply
#3
Uh huh. Do you believe the ruling neo-cons in the US didn't count on the surge of Al Queda or whatever terrorists after the US invaded Iraq? Regard it as a main goal of the invasion. What purpose does it serve, the US fueling Islamic terrorism?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#4
For once I agree with our board Marxist,it is likely we wanted jihadis to come to Iraq to die as opposed doing it around American civilians. Gets all those Muslims killed in Iraq instead of us and wears out the jihad on them,not us.

I think that's Bush's problem,like us arming the Russki,he can't,like FDR couldn't,properly explain this fact. Wise policy if you're an American.
Reply
#5
track_snake said
Quote:2. The expansion of Al Qaeda came in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam. If the invasion had stopped with a serious warning of Saddam and the US forces then retreated, then Iraq would have been free of Al Qaeda now. Saddam never invited Al Qaeda to come there. Al Qaeda were the enemies of Saddam as well as Mr. Bin Ladin.

Evidently this is not true. See this link which documents the contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda. There are more such links around.
Reply
#6
At this point,it is insignificant whether jihadists were free to act under Hussein's auspices or not,they're acting in Iraq NOW,we're killing lots of them and otherwise they would be murdering our civilians.

Who but a democrat wants that?
Reply
#7
No - it was very important that Al Qaeda was trying to acquire WMD as well as more plentiful weaponry from Saddam. They were being trained in how to make their own poisons and bio-weapons, as well as in bomb-making from Iraq.

It does not matter if Saddam used the Russian Sarindar program to move his stockpiles of WMD to Syria, and dispose or hide the evidence of their existence... what is ultimately important was in his desire and ability to continue his WMD programs, which were fully mature under his regime, and easily transmitted to terrorists.
Reply
#8
WmLambert Wrote:No - it was very important that Al Qaeda was trying to acquire WMD as well as more plentiful weaponry from Saddam. They were being trained in how to make their own poisons and bio-weapons, as well as in bomb-making from Iraq.

It does not matter if Saddam used the Russian Sarindar program to move his stockpiles of WMD to Syria, and dispose or hide the evidence of their existence... what is ultimately important was in his desire and ability to continue his WMD programs, which were fully mature under his regime, and easily transmitted to terrorists.
----------------------------------------------
Al Qaeda could be trying to do that but did not succeed. Al Qaeda 'officials' could have had meetings with Iraqi intelligence but that was insignificant. Saddam Hussein was generally against Al Qaeda. There were more 'links' between Al Qaeda and Jordania, Egypt or Syria at that time.

If the US wanted to confront Al Qaeda, why not go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan more?

/track_snake
Reply
#9
Quote:No - it was very important that Al Qaeda was trying to acquire WMD as well as more plentiful weaponry from Saddam. They were being trained in how to make their own poisons and bio-weapons, as well as in bomb-making from Iraq.

It does not matter if Saddam used the Russian Sarindar program to move his stockpiles of WMD to Syria, and dispose or hide the evidence of their existence... what is ultimately important was in his desire and ability to continue his WMD programs, which were fully mature under his regime, and easily transmitted to terrorists.
WmLambert,
Saddam had no WMD's, therefore, Al Queda could acquire none from him. It was one of the American lies designed to justify the Iraq war. Does it not make you look a bit dim to repeat this crap any longer? He had chemical weapons back in the 80', provided by America for the use against the Persians and Kurds.

Quote:If the US wanted to confront Al Qaeda, why not go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan more?
Track_snake,
that's simple. US = hypocrisy. They are not interested to end, but fuel terrorism. However, Pakistan has the potential to push the US defence budget into the trillions. Don't be surprised if Musharaff will be removed from power and replaced by a radical islamic regime that controls WMD's. Don't be surprised either, if later on a conspiracy of those radicals and the US is revealed.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#10
Track,

As usual,Quad is wrong. Pakistan while not a perfect ally,is a government resisting al qaeda as much as possible w/o going too fast,too soon and they are a half a century old cold war ally,is it reasonable to think we should invade Pakistan in 2003?

Iraq was a determined enemy state in 2003.

Pakistan definitely has more wahhabio nuts,but the place is 8X the size of Iraq population wise,it is insane to imagine we would have invaded there or Saudi Arabia after 9-11.

Having said this,it is fine with me if we drop atomic bombs on waziristan and Saudi Arabia.
Reply
#11
Palladin Wrote:Track,

As usual,Quad is wrong. Pakistan while not a perfect ally,is a government resisting al qaeda as much as possible w/o going too fast,too soon and they are a half a century old cold war ally,is it reasonable to think we should invade Pakistan in 2003?

Iraq was a determined enemy state in 2003.

Pakistan definitely has more wahhabio nuts,but the place is 8X the size of Iraq population wise,it is insane to imagine we would have invaded there or Saudi Arabia after 9-11.

Having said this,it is fine with me if we drop atomic bombs on waziristan and Saudi Arabia.
--------------------------
Maybe not Saudi Arabia as they have pretty effective intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts. But with Waziristan it is ok. It might be the only way to finally get Al Qaeda out from their. Along with some innocent people.

Now back to Iraq. Before US forces leave Iraq they should:

1. do what they can to transform Iraq into a three-state entity (Shia, Sunni and Kurd).

2. allow the Baath Party to work in the Sunni 'state'.

If so, the region might become more stable than what it is now even after US troops are withdrawn. Allowing the Baath Party to work among Sunnis would be a guarantee that they will not turn to Al Qaeda once the US troops leave.

/track_snake
Reply
#12
Quote:If so, the region might become more stable than what it is now even after US troops are withdrawn

Probably not. What's the difference between a civil war for control of oil between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, versus three independent nations battling each other for control of oil? There is no difference.

Besides that, there's the small problem that massive numbers of Sunnis live in both Kurdish and Shiite territory, and those people don't have any intention of leaving their homes.
Reply
#13
This deal is way larger than seperating Iraq into 3 pieces,we leave and everyone is happy. That is 1 more dream scenario.


Kurdistan is not accessible w/o the permission of some other peoples,it can never be an independent state since all the surrounding neighbors don't want it to be,the thought is so ridiculous it is astounding to me otherwise sharp men discuss it as if it can occur in reality.

There is no boundary between the Shiites and Sunnis,intermarriage is huge in Iraq,Baghdad is a mishmash. I think seperation is illogical.

Either they half way get along in some form of federalism or the Shiites are going to end up driving the Sunnis out and the state will be 80% Shia and 20% Kurds.

Today's problem has become the Shia fear we are re-arming the Sunni to retake power and for all I know we may be(see URL below). I don't think we are,I think we're simply using the anti al qaeda Sunni to fight al qaeda nutters,but you never know when you factor in IRAN into this equation.

We may prefer the Sunni Arabs re-assert hegemony at this point and while they are few in numbers,Sunni Arabs have ALWAYS ruled Arab states except Syria,so they have the tradition and the Shia probably don't really believe they will rule due to a lack of tradition. We've put a lot of effort into this "new paradigm" and it appears to many that the Shia are only interested in hegemony,not in sharing power and being flexible(and who can blame them?).

I don't know that stability is what is needed for now,the only stability we can have now would be Shiite control via massacres and religious cleansing and Iran would benefit from that.

HERE
Reply
#14
The Shia's will drive out Sunni's of mixed neighborhoods, yes. But that has already happened to a large extent.

But western Iraq and the Sunni provinces north/northwest of Baghdad will remain clean Sunni provinces. That is what I propose as the 'Sunni state'. It will be backed by Saudi Arabia and other pro-sunni neighbors.

/track_snake
Reply
#15
Track,

That would be their business,not ours. Anyway,here is a rather interesting piece on the logic of the surge policy ongoing. The recruitment tactics I think are unbelievable. If some guy or guys raped me,I'm here to tell you I would not serve their future interests,more likely I would shoot them in the jaw first chance I got:

HERE

Here's a NYT article on the surge success rate,seems obvious now things are going the proper direction,these guys are not Bush types:

NotBushTypes
Reply
#16
Well, that's an encouraging article from the defeatist NYT. Was their editor asleep?
Reply
#17
Here's one from NPR,can you say freaky deaky?


HERE
Reply
#18
Palladin Wrote:Track,

That would be their business,not ours. Anyway,here is a rather interesting piece on the logic of the surge policy ongoing. The recruitment tactics I think are unbelievable. If some guy or guys raped me,I'm here to tell you I would not serve their future interests,more likely I would shoot them in the jaw first chance I got:

HERE

Here's a NYT article on the surge success rate,seems obvious now things are going the proper direction,these guys are not Bush types:

NotBushTypes
-----------------------------------
Well, Palladin... Yes, I agree that Petraeus has done much to improve the prospects for American troops in Iraq and that he is the best possible commander for this situation. US troops are now mostly doing the right things in Iraq, and the situation especially in Sunni areas has improved. If Sunni and Shia can cooperate it is of course good, but I am doubtful so it might be better to accept separated situation on long term. The next thing for Petraeus and tha Iraqi administration should be to allow the Baath Party to operate again. It would give the stability that Iraq needs.

/track_snake
Reply
#19
Track,

The Sunni leaders will have to form a new party and call it whatever they want,but Baath is not going to work,the Shiites won't tolerate it ever again. I'm sure many Baath can provide leadership in the new Sunni oriented party by a new name with a different view of how much authority they can have.
Reply
#20
Palladin Wrote:Track,

The Sunni leaders will have to form a new party and call it whatever they want,but Baath is not going to work,the Shiites won't tolerate it ever again. I'm sure many Baath can provide leadership in the new Sunni oriented party by a new name with a different view of how much authority they can have.
-----------------
The name doesn't matter.

So then we practically agree?

track_snake
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Iraq Was A Safer Place Without George Bush quadrat 67 13,738 05-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Bush set to re-attack Iraq quadrat 28 8,074 03-02-2007, 11:21 PM
Last Post: Fit2BThaied

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)