Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 42

That's why foreign policy was so ineffective under Clinton. Terrorism grew under his watch, when he depended on the UN to deal with it, and the UN proved to any who want to notice, that it is totally ineffectual and irrelevant and corrupt.

I get from this that you figure that the US is responsible for 9/11, as well as all the other innocent people who have been killed by terrorists in the last 50 years. Is this right?

I'm glad that you don't believe in such a policy. Neither do I. However, the terrorists and "insurgents" DO. Brute force is apparently the ONLY thing that gets their attention.

Again, what have YOU done to end terrorism, to provide security for YOUR country? At least the US is trying to protect you from terrorism.

Iraq War Post

After writing that last post, I came across this very interesting article that discusses many of the same sentiments posted earlier on this thread. Take a look.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

Is it? I think the US is trying to protect themselves from terrorism which I don't see anything wrong with it, of course the world will get rid of terrorists automatically if the US fight against them but one of the arguments people outside the US have problem to digest is that one: the speech of trying to protect us from terrorism when in reality the main reason is another.

Page 42 Iraq War Post

I was trying to say that we are protecting you (Canada specifically) from terrorism as a side effect of protecting ourselves.

Now for a caveat. From my religious point of view, I abhor the violence in Iraq and elsewhere. As a former military member, I openly admit that I am not particularly civilized. So, when Mr.B claims that brute force won't resolve the situation, I will gladly point out all the situations throughout history where brute force HAS resolved the situation, working backwards and starting with Rwanda, Iran, Saudi Arabia, WWII, WWI, the US Civil War, etc.

Also, as a self-confessed barbarian, sometimes I almost whole-heartedly embrace the maxim, "nuke 'em all, and let God sort them out." At the moment, with the hostage situation going on in Iraq, I could really buy into a solution based on this.

Hostage-taking, as a means of political or military policy, is, IMHO, one of the most barbaric practices possible in warfare. As far as I am concerned, such practices should only be dealt with in the most graphic, overwhelming mode possible.

I would start with a direct warning to Iran. Since Iran is the creator of this tactic, they should take the responsibility to stop it. My first warning would be a MOAB about 1/2 mile outside of Qom. I might issue a special invitation to the Mullahs to watch. Then give them a warning that in three days, 5 MOABS will be released in Qom, if hostages don't start popping out of the woodwork. Then do it.

Following that, start targetting every Iranian governmental and religious site. They are using our religion against us (life is dear to Christians, apparently cheap to Iranian Muslims), so we use their religion against them.

See, we aren't using brute force. We are incredibly tolerant and careful. If we were using brute force, Fallujah would be a parking lot right now. So would Tehran.

Iran has brought themselves into this conflict. It is time to make them pay.

Iraq War Post

I totally agree with you with this statement. I think fighting against these kidnappings going on is and it will be one of the hardest thing to deal with in Iraq by the US forces.

You mention to involve Iran in all this, why do you think Bush is not involving them directly as yet? Afraid maybe that it will cause more controversy? or just trying to show that what everything is going on in Iraq is under control?. What's your opinion?.

Post War Iraq

To keep this thread from becoming a thread about Iran please go to here: USA vs. Iran as a thread has been started for that purpose.

Here is an interesting out look on the 'new' militant tatics, and it is also is in agreement with what Nighthawk was saying about its' use:

---

Taking hostages has been a part of warfare, and conflict, for centuries. But it seems that in modern times, as the whole world becomes more media-savvy, it somehow carries more weight. The Iran hostage crisis, which lasted 444 days, brought down a president, and gave birth to this television program, seems like a lifetime ago now. But it was once front-page news every day. Then, there were the hostages held in Beirut, many of them for years. Periodically there would be videos -- reassuring because it was clear they were still alive, heart-breaking to see them in captivity. It's a common tactic all over the world. Why? Because it works. And now, the Iraqis fighting against the U.S. have discovered it. Video of the three Japanese hostages, knives held against their throats, triggered a crisis in Japan. It is very hard for a government to say, as they do, "we don't negotiate with terrorists," and it is especially hard to say to the families of those hostages. And there is also the widely broadcast video of an American captured in an attack on a fuel convoy, and now being held. It's interesting -- early on, most TV networks obscured his face, but every newspaper I saw showed his face.

Right now, the Iraqis taking hostages seem to be doing so almost at random, taking anyone of any nationality that they can get their hands on. What will happen to them? No one knows. Clearly the U.S. would not withdraw or change its tactics because of this, and that's probably true for every other country involved in Iraq.

Ref. Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
Nightline Offices ABCNEWS Washington D.C.

Post War Iraq - Page 42

Where are the WMDs?

That has been a frequent question in this topic. There are a lot of people who only focused on this single aspect of President Bush's State of the Union, 2003, and ignored the rest of it.

When precursors were found to chemical weapons (WMDs) the statements of the anti-American, pro-(whatever) media and apologists was that they were obviously for pesticides (yeah, the problem being that Kurds, Jews and Americans were the pests they were designed to kill).

When precursors were found for biological weapons, the same people claimed that they weren't WMDs, because they were obviously pharmaceutical related (again, the disease they were designed for wasn't the common cold).

Now, the UN has reported that parts for those non-existent nuclear WMDs have shown up all around Europe! Oh, sorry, the parts contaminated with heavy uraniam are for cancer research, right?

The remains of the Iraqi nuclear program (that didn't exist, according to the Left) have been showing up in scrap metal recyclers in Europe.

I guess Bush was just a maroooon for thinking that the Iraqis weren't serious when they told the world that they had WMDs.

Read this to learn more about this phenomenon.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 42

The US has not been able to come up with one shred of evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. or to Al-Qaida, even Rumsfeld had to admit that no link exist/had been found.
No proof has been found to indicate that Saddam had any intentions of terrorist activity against the US. No evidence of WMD, no great army, no laboratories etc.... in summary the US had NO justification to invade Iraq, NONE.

Today the Bush administration is trying to convince us, it all had to do with Democracy. What about China, North Korea etc.. If the US wanted to free the region of WMD and chemicals, the country who has the most of both is Israel.

The invasion of Iraq and the fight against terrorism are two different things. Bin Laden and Al Qaida are the ones that caused 9/11 and they are the ones responsible for subsequent terrorist acts not Iraqis.

On the true fight on terrorism the world supported the US and provided military assistance to go after the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. In fact, Canadian troops are still in Afghanistan and to all accounts, doing a pretty good job.

Talking about aggressive countries, guess which country has invaded more countries in the last 20years??? the U.S.