It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


All 16 Agencies say Iraq war worsened Terrorism

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:10 PM
Jesus, that is the metaphorical hockey puck to the crotch with no cup for any Bush Loyalists/Apologists/Sycophants. Let me tell you where your new residence will be if you are unfamiliar with this town. Welcome to Realityville Population:You


God it feels good to hear the voice of sanity scream out loudly.
Even though it should be obvious when you invade in a soverign country.

It's a wrap, water carriers. You want to hear a good thing about Iraq? Take a memo: ALL 16 Agencies say this war is a travesty on all levels for this country and it's reputation. We all agree in this insane expedition from rational thought. Now let's save some billions/and thousands of lives and bring every single damn soldier home. And Close that Embassy the size of the vatican that didn't employ any skilled IRAQI's to help in the construction of it. That could be a GOOD thing

Link to Article:

~ We are the Champions my friends

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:24 PM
That's right it's over,the world should surrender now.After all we don't want to create more terrorists.We should listen to the spineless and give up.Everybody knows Bin Laden and his boys will treat everybody just fine.Friday night beheadings live on Taliban TV.Gang rape every Tuesday! Kill the Pope after all he is offensive.Woman not covering their face...public whippings. What a great idea..surrender NOW.

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:20 PM
We're not stopping any of that stuff. The Afghanistan and Iraq invasions had nothing to do with stopping any of that stuff, and all we're doing there is pissing off the entire middle east and creating a REAL hatred and motivation for them to want to return the favor. It's not about surrendering to anybody, it's about having an actual strategy and plan to stop terrorism that makes sense.

posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:35 PM

Even though it should be obvious when you invade in a soverign country.

Yes it should be obvious, so my question is how did you miss it so easily? The only conclusion I can come to is that you are cheering for a silver bullet to justify your opinion on why Iraq was a bad decision, and being personally justified trumps the common sense rational regarding what is at stake today in Iraq, regardless of you being right or wrong.

I was against going into Iraq too, but I am now equally against pulling out. Rational people don't fix stupid decisions with stupid decisions.

In 1945, right after America successfully invaded Okinawa, the entire Japanese population was mobilized into a militia to fight the Americans and die for their country. By taking out Japan across the entire Pacific, America had created an enormous problem for itself because instead of facing only a couple of million Japanese fighters, a large many of which had been killed or captured by 1945, now America and Britain would have to deal with tens of millions Japanese fighters on Japanese soil.

The trend that a war abroad creates more rebellion is historically accurate, but history shows this development isn't shocking or even a terribly bad thing.

Your logic is flawed. Of coarse there are more terrorists now, just like in 1945 when the Japanese cared more about their homeland than they did islands conquored in conquest, the Jihadists in the middle east care more about the Middle East than they do Europe or America. Iraq has become a honeypot, and honey attracts more flies.

If we follow the logic that Iraq is creating more terrorists, and this is a significantly terrible thing, then the same logic applied in history would say beating back Japan was a terrible thing, since success then had the exact same effect. Historically speaking, the result of increased reinforcements by one side engaged in military operations is often a reflection of success by the other side, although I have no doubt anyone opposed to the war would want to draw that obvious conclusion.

To say this development is shocking, aweful, unexpected, or harmful is to say perhaps America should not have engaged Japan in a war after Pearl Harbor – because after all that really made them angry.

It is an interesting development, but I fail to see the meaningful impact of the information, specifically because it means both good and bad things for victory in an ongoing military operation, which historically speaking, has always been the result of the development.

It is not exactly the silver bullet people want it to be as a reason to leave Iraq, which is strange in its own way, because if it was the silver bullet people seem to want it to be, that statement would imply people of some mythical town known as Realityville want the US to lose the war, want Iraq to have a civil war, and are cheerleading for those events to happen.

new topics

top topics

log in