To everyone against the Iraq War

Your ideas have been very lame on the subject of how to defeat Islamic Terrorism. So far, here is what you've presented. I am going to go through each one, and with logic defeat it.

Arguement: 9/11 was an inside job to create a new enemy so the US could be a superpower, fuel the military-industrial complex, and make money for BushCO and his oil war.
Response 1: Motive
First look at the motivation of the suspects and their oppurtunities, and this argument falls apart. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, and Condi could make more money by opening up ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico for drilling. Here they wouldn't risk the death penalty and this is much easier to do than stage a terrorist attack.
Numerous other scandals exist that will make someone richer. Michael Milkin ripped off billions and billions of dollars with white collar crime through the S & L scandals, with a few Senators in his pocket, notably John McCain. Senators and Congressmen made millions of dollars using their stamp privallege. Welfare and healthcare schemes cost the government billions. There are far more lucrative measures than staging 9/11.
Also, BushCO will never have a problem with money in the first place. Every one of them are succesfull in business. Due to their election, they will have seven figure salaries for the rest of their lives. Speaches and book deals alone will make them millionaires.
Response 2: Means
Bush's election was a tossup. No one knew untill well into December if he was going to be president. That leaves him 11 months to stage the largest terrorist attack ever. He will have to create a team of thousand loyal employees that will slaughter women and children without blinking an eye, and without being tempted to go to the NYT or Washington Post and become the most famous figure in US history.
Also no one has come foward with direct evidence or testimony saying, "I piloted the plane by remote control" or "I shot witnesses" or "I placed explosives in the building." With something this large and complex, you will have someone coming foward. Especially in the media capital of the world.

Other notes
A lot of people will say "Okay, he didn't know about 9/11, but he hijacked it to get Iraqi oil." The points above apply to this. They are better oppurtunities for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR. Yet they didn't pursue this. Why?

All the other comments I hear are "Well Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran supports terrorism, so why not them?" Well this is insinuating that Iraq was a just war, so it's dead in the water. It is also not taking in account the projected reforms a successful democratic Iraq will have in the Arab world, and the impossibility of attacking all the regimes we have a slight problem with. With all the above regimes, including Iran, we are still at the negotion table and there is hope for reform. Iraq, there wasn't.

Coming up next: Getting rid of Sadaam created more terrorism than it started.

FWIW, there are folk amongst us who simply don't agree with the premise of the Iraq war - and who don't actually think 9/11 was an inside job, or that it's part of a huge global NWO conspiracy.

Please share with us reasons why this war will solve worldwide terrorism.

It'd be one positive outcome, absolutely! But it's not going to happen.

Perhaps we all need to look a little deeper at what initiated and exacerbates terrorism (Islamic or otherwise). I think we'll find that our military responses have done nothing to assuage the feelings of hostility felt by certain terrorist groups.

The way I read the original post is more directed to specific arguements as he/she pointed out. Perhaps the title is misleading as to assume everyone against the war has those argurements only.

In keeping with the posters points I would have to agree that those do seem to be the big arguments made by many posters in threads on this topic and I think the responses here make sense. If you are against the war, fine, but to hide behind things like "911 was faked" is not the best arguement to make your point. I also think these types of posts may have been answered very differently had we just gone in, removed Sadam and left. I doubt there would be so much to do about it.

Getting Saddam out of there was a good thing, absolutely!

But the way we did it, was not so good, for myriad reasons (not least being we didn't exactly give the Iraqi people much choice about it....).

I actually agree with many of Red's points - particularly those aimed at certain conspiracy theories which have yielded little to no evidence at all therein. But these in themselves are not invalid responses to the question, "Why are you against the War in Iraq".

I'm just not convinced that this war in Iraq will do anything to solve terrorism. If anything, it's likely that it will merely fuel the reasons why there is so much hostility towards the Allies.

Sing it loud RedWhiteandBlood You are spot on so far, with your assessments.

The conspiricy theorists tend to forget what "theory" means. Not that they will accept anything remotely close to the truth, but it will be fun to read their responses anyway.

I think removing Sadam and his boys probably had some impact on terrorism as far as any going on from Iraq. I don't think any one country is responsible for terrorism though as it is very world wide. I think we are finding that out though and believe we thought we would strike a bigger blow to terrorism with Sadam gone than we did.

It appeared to me that the Iraqi people (not all of course) were happy to be rid of Sadam and really only begin to get irratated with us the longer we hung out. I still do not think going there was a mistake, only staying there.

I think that the overthrow of Saddam and his cronies was by far a good thing whether it will lead to a peaceful, democratic, stable region is still far from certain quite probably Iraq will emerge from this whole mess a revitalized democratic nation. However there is a more dark disturbing possibility that even with the new liberties being granted to the people of iraq that with the influence of Iran Iraq might turn it's back on western ideas about equality and democracy and adopt a more Islamized version of a Islamic Republic. Either way getting rid of Saddam Hussein was one of the riskiest and hopefully one of the greatest things this country has ever done. Only time will tell.

Obviously there are still people that believe that the Iraq war is somehow connected to the "war on terror"

It is part of the war on terror, it just got a little out of hand and needs some fixing up. Keep in mind the US has a list of who they consider terrorist countries and for the most part, the terrorist seem to have no problem taking credit for it and standing up and announcing themselves so if attention is what they want, they got it.

Now who is naive enough to think we're in Iraq hunting down terrorists?

Don't we still have troops in Afghanistan?

Al-Qaeda=Goldstein

We as well as other countries are in a few places looking for terrorists and not all operations are full scale military occupations. We took down a terrorist leader and gov't with Sadam so mission done. Of course I suspect it won't last and even the new gov't will eventually go back to their old ways but we tried. I don't suspect other motives or some conspiracy for why we went and as for why we stay, I think we just goofed on the timeline and made plans to go in but no plans on how the heck to get out.

Sometimes events are nothing more than a combination of human error and not some big coverup or scam.

Still, this "war on terror" thing is a huge, unfunny joke. Using 9/11 as an excuse to go picking fights with everyone is just plain pathetic.

Saddam wasn't even a threat!

We should stop being the world policeman/buttinsky. It's unconstitutional. Let other countries deal with their own problems.

Oh, and I'm an isolationist, not that there's anything wrong with that...I'm just for American sovereignty, that's all.

Yes the war on terror is rather big and personally I just don't see how we can really approach it with much success without an international front. But it has to be dealt with thus best thing we can do is leave Iraq, re-group, try and get some time of internationl agreement and approach to finding and stopping terrorists. Sounds good on paper but can it be done?

We are not some big bully but we will also not just sit by and be attacked like on 911 and do nothing. There are times when sitting down to tea and trying to talk out problems just does not work and action is needed. If we are such a bully, do you think we should not have gone after the Taliban gov't in Afgan? or is that ok since we were looking for bin laden? Sadam, bin laden, what really is the difference, they both are terrorist.

Just what will all the anti gov't americans do when the next terrorist country attacks us on our soil again? (and they will). Do we sit on our hands? I know this Iraq situation has gone on too long, I don't disagree with that but our original mission was on target when it began.

Like I said before removing Sadtdam was a good thing however, I don't believe it was essential to the war on terror to launch operation Iraqi Freedom it the time we did. IMHO it has just served as a costly distraction instead of continuing to focus on rebuilding Afghanistan and spreading democracy in central asia (i.e Uzbekistan, Tajikistan) we are bogged down in Iraq. If the situation in Iraq can be rehibilitated great but still it's a fight that could have and probably should have waited.

Originally posted by danwild6
Like I said before removing Sadtdam was a good thing however

I disagree. Saddam's Iraq was a peaceful stabilizing factor in the region. What do we have now ? Civil war and Kurdish separationism that is close to sending the entire region into chaos. The coalition can't reap it's profits. The removal of Saddam was, imo, a big mistake, as he already lost his teeth during the first gulf war. After the UN inspectors decided he conformed with the UN resolutions in destroying/not pursuing WMD, i think he should have been presented the fruits of his cooperation with the international community, through the controlled lifting of economic sanctions imposed on Iraq. That would have been the best solution for everyone, and especially the iraqi people. What do they have now ? Ruins they once used to call homes, hundreds of thousands of dead relatives, a horrible humanitarian/security situation that hasnt improved since the bloodbeasts launched their illegal assault.



[edit on 18-6-2005 by Moretti]

Sadam is good? We are bloodbeasts? Hmmm, not heard that spin before. How exactly was Sadam a stablizing factor?

I would be thefirst to agree with you on how the occupation was botched not that anyone truly wants to be occupied in the first place. However you seem to have forgotten that saddam hussein launched to very bloody and I might add unprovoked conflicts. Not to mention slaughtering the Kurdish population of Iraq. Now I can understand how Americans may not make a whole lot of sense to you when we talk about the middle east but statements like the one you just made make me think you people have your head on backwards!

Although Saddam was violent to his people, and a greedy mother M...f..ker

HE wasnt really a international menace.
He wasnt a threat to his neigbhours,
HE hadnt THREATEND any country in some time,

HE was managing to keep his internal factional bickering amongst his citizens as a dull roar, while imposing strict rules and penalties.

HE was bad, but he was keeping the stability in that region IMO

Now IRAQ Will for ever be looked at by the countries surrounding it, as a tainted land, that has become the most unstabalizing feature in the middleast.

YEah boo hoo about the UN Curroptions with oil for food scandal.
But how many governements out there, including YOURS dont have plenty of dirty little secrets with international agencies... come on be real.. This crap is simply to remove the UN as a credible force. Because as you saw with the protests when the US invaded, there is real world perception that this war is wrong..
the UN = the people

Sure , its hard to imagine that bush was sittin in his oval office on sept 11, listening to a walky talky, giving orders for them to begin the hijack and proceed on mission.

But its feasible to see Bush found out through intellegence prior to sept11, and decided it would be a better course for America to let these Arabs pull off their attack, and give us a perfect EXCUSE for retaliation...

Why else would he read a book while its happening...
He never really expected them to be able too pull it off... All he knew was what the CIA briefing in the morning memo stated..
I mean how many times does the FBI Screw up? here there, sure its human.
But letting these suspicous arabs, train, live, and EXECUTE this plan under their noses?


This was never a freedom fight,

It was never a defensive move against a immenint THREAT

And it wasnt a retalitory shot.


Why else would a superpower attack, and ivade a country, barely a glimpse of the economic/miltary and technological power?
Its Stupid.

I dont know WHY the Gvt decided to invade, I dont think they've come close to start cashing in on it yet, but rest assured there is something in iraq, or AROUND it they saw as primary... and it sure as hell aint the IRAQI people......

Originally posted by danwild6
I think that the overthrow of Saddam and his cronies was by far a good thing whether it will lead to a peaceful, democratic, stable region is still far from certain quite probably Iraq will emerge from this whole mess a revitalized democratic nation. However there is a more dark disturbing possibility that even with the new liberties being granted to the people of iraq that with the influence of Iran Iraq might turn it's back on western ideas about equality and democracy and adopt a more Islamized version of a Islamic Republic. Either way getting rid of Saddam Hussein was one of the riskiest and hopefully one of the greatest things this country has ever done. Only time will tell.

GEtting rid of Saddam was a mistake. It poses more harm than good.

Global Disorder,
Your absolutely right on a number of your points Iraq had been successfully contained and the Iraq people certainly haven't benefited from this hellish ordeal however suppose that the french and the UN got their way no war in Iraq sanctions lifted could you really trust Saddam not to rearm and not to begin threatening his neighbors again I mean come on the man was evil he saw how he could use the UN to his own advantage now can you imagine a more dangerous world than having a psychotic like saddam running around threatening everybody with a nuke and having the UN to thank for it. And I hate to make comparisons like this but just suppose you go back to 1936 Hitler has just marched back into the rhineland do you the french wait for a indecisive League of Nations to act or do you take action, well we all know how it turned out 60 million lives later.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by danwild6]