People actually believe this crap?

[JohnnyLingo]

Because it cannot be done. Anymore than you could kill everyone in Iraq.

Actually, if we really really wanted to, we could kill everyone in Iraq.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I don't know that Occam's Razor helps you out here. The simplest explanation is that the terrorists have great difficulty putting together an attack and require several years to accomplish such an attack.

Sure, it is possible that the war has made it more difficult. But we really don't know if that is true or not, particularly in regards to Iraq where Al-Qaeda had very few operations before the war anyways. Afghanistan could be a stronger case, but we just don't know.

If you claim that the absence of terrorist activities is proof that the war is working, I ask you why there were no terrorist activities on US soil during the Clinton presidency. Could I say then that Clinton being president prevented attacks on the US? Such a statement has as much evidentiary support as your claim about the war has.

It's not about proof, it's an issue of objectively looking at the evidence, setting aside the vitriol and hyperbole and comming to terms with the reality of what HAS occured ... Why do terrorist have great difficulty putting together an attack? The simplest answer is they don't, they are doing it daily in their own country in the name of driving out the infidel! This is more than a possibilty, it goes even been conjecture -it is reality.

Furthermore you can lay equal blame on Clinton's Presidency for 911 ... along with every other presidency going all the way back to FDR.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

If you claim that the absence of terrorist activities is proof that the war is working, I ask you why there were no terrorist activities on US soil during the Clinton presidency. Could I say then that Clinton being president prevented attacks on the US? Such a statement has as much evidentiary support as your claim about the war has.

Feb, 26, 1993 - the first time the World Trade Center was bombed.

[MikeWaters]

Um, you all that support this war as a way to fight Al Qaeda.

I'm curious as to what you see Al Qaeda as. Please describe your understanding of this group. TIA.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

The "crap" skilz posted is a position reduced to extremes. It is not believeable as stated. OTOH, neither is th eposition of Robin/MW. Skilz' kill ration is about right, correct? 100 to 1. We also know from the recent Pentagon report that ther has been a large influx, even recently, of Al Qaeda into Iraq in order to fight US troops. THus, there is some empirical evidence to support Skilz' posiiton. What would those Al Qaeda people be doing otherwise? Where would their resources be going? Absent Afghanistan and Iraq would we have been nearly as successsful in capturing or killing as many Al Qaeda leaders as we have and if not, what would they be doing? OTOH, Haditha type events can only, in the near term and even in the long run, hurt our image and breed more discontrent and potential terrorists. Even our mere military presence in certains poritons of the Middle East tends to breed more terrorists.

So putting aside the hyperbole, emotion and politics, what does the evidence show? No one knows for sure. Like Tooblue, I believed that one of the reasons to fight in Iraq was to have the battle that appeared inevitable take place in their front yard instead of mine, so to speak. With hindsight, I am not sure that this is how it has worked out. OTOH, I am not sure that it hasn't either.

I do know this; abuses by our troops must be stopped. Simialrly, we must also stop all the handwringing abotu whether it is a good thing that we went in to Iraq. This is a moot point and arguning about it only distracts from the need to anal;yze what steps we can take on a go forward absis to attempt to make a positive result in Iraq.

I am not sure I follow your "fight in their backyard" rationale in regards to Iraq. We were already in Afghanistan, and so was Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda had VERY little going on inside Iraq until we went there. Wouldn't it stand to reason that just as many terrorists would be flocking to Afghanistan (supposedly keeping the fight in their backyard anyways) even without Iraq?

[tooblue]

You misconstrue my willingness to look at the war as a way to fight Al Qaeda as support for the invasion of Iraq ... I really thought you were more open minded than that?!

I see Al Qaeda in Book of Mormon Gadianton terms ... we will only be freed from this threat by two things: one, our utter destruction; two, divine intervention.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I am not sure I follow your "fight in their backyard" rationale in regards to Iraq. We were already in Afghanistan, and so was Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda had VERY little going on inside Iraq until we went there. Wouldn't it stand to reason that just as many terrorists would be flocking to Afghanistan (supposedly keeping the fight in their backyard anyways) even without Iraq?

I think I spelled this out at some length in some old CB posts, but I am too lazy to dig them out. Suffice it to say that I had and have a more cynical view of the reasons for the war. WMDs were never the real reason. in my mind, that we were going in. I think it was all about establishing a beachhead in the Mid East (and they thought that was not going to happenin a meanginful way in Afghanistan becasue it was such a mess in the first place) and crewating a friendly governemnt that could influence the regioon in a way favorbale to us. I didn't think Iraq would fall apart the way it has, and neither did the Adminsitration. Iraq was to be part of an orchestrated effort to control a region by our presence and throgugh our influence over others. It would give us a base for better intelligence, enhance the chance at democracy spreading there and eventually undermnie Al Qaeda. Thier frointyard, IOW, was the mid east, not just Iraq or Afghanistan.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You misconstrue my willingness to look at the war as a way to fight Al Qaeda as support for the invasion of Iraq ... I really thought you were more open minded than that?!

I see Al Qaeda in Book of Mormon Gadianton terms ... we will only be freed from this threat by two things: one, our utter destruction; two, divine intervention.

Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It's not about proof, it's an issue of objectively looking at the evidence, setting aside the vitriol and hyperbole and comming to terms with the reality of what HAS occured ... Why do terrorist have great difficulty putting together an attack? The simplest answer is they don't, they are doing it daily in their own country in the name of driving out the infidel! This is more than a possibilty, it goes even been conjecture -it is reality.

Furthermore you can lay equal blame on Clinton's Presidency for 911 ... along with every other presidency going all the way back to FDR.

I'm not sure you understood my point. They may not have difficulty putting together an attack in the Middle East, but they likely do here (given the RARE attacks on US soil despite their tremendous anger for the US).

Again, objectively looking at the evidence, why do you think this war is evidence that we are stopping terrorism, but not think that Clinton stopped terrorism (since we actually went LONGER without an attack on US soil under Clinton)?

I am not saying Clinton protected us from terrorism. I don't know the answer to that either. I AM saying there is AS MUCH evidence for that (no attacks in the US during his presidency) as there is for your claim that the war is preventing attacks in the US.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Your "evidence" is simply fallacious reasoning.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You misconstrue my willingness to look at the war as a way to fight Al Qaeda as support for the invasion of Iraq ... I really thought you were more open minded than that?!

I see Al Qaeda in Book of Mormon Gadianton terms ... we will only be freed from this threat by two things: one, our utter destruction; two, divine intervention.

so if we can only vanquish Al Qaeda through God, explain how sending our youth to Iraq helps vanquish Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is a philosphocial/intellectual/spirtual movement. It is only an organization in terms of shared beliefs. In other words, it is a group of people, not necessarily in communication with each other, with extremely loose organizational infrastructure, who share common beliefs/goals.

The idea of Al Qaeda sending "regiments" here or there is not correct, IMO. Does anyone believe the Zarkawi (sp?) is taking orders from OBL? No!

If you can't win the battle of ideas, then you will not win with guns and bombs. That's the simple fact.

I had much more optimism about this whole thing before the war started. I took the naive position that Iraqis would easily embrace democracy and freedom. I pooh-poohed warnings of sectarian war.

I certainly have a different view as to nation building at this point.