Originally Posted By DouglasDubh They are going after terrorists in Iraq. Al queda poured money and men into Iraq in order to defeat us there. So has Iran. And yet, the terrorists are losing there.
Originally Posted By X-san Well, duh. If the terrorists were "winning" in an all out conflict I'd be pretty scared about the state of the U.S. military!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Plenty of people here claimed we couldn't win. I bet they'll never admit they were wrong.
Originally Posted By Elderp "And yet, the terrorists are losing there." They are? Hmm, I know the President said "mission accomplished" but that doesn't mean it was. Heck I could say I was President and you wouldn't listen to me.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I know the President said "mission accomplished" but that doesn't mean it was.> Well, it was, since that banner alluded to the successful defeat of Saddam's army. But yes, the terrorists are losing. Their ability to attack us is being reduced, and the people are turning against them. "The more people are exposed to the jihadists' tactics and world view, the less they support them. An ABC/BBC poll in Afghanistan in 2007 showed support for the jihadist militants in the country to be 1 percent. In Pakistan's North-West Frontier province, where Al Qaeda has bases, support for Osama bin Laden plummeted from 70 percent in August 2007 to 4 percent in January 2008." <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/138508" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/id/138508</a>
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Al queda poured money and men into Iraq in order to defeat us there. So has Iran. >>> Absolutely - after we invaded in 2003. Prior to that, the terrorists were running rampant in Afghanistan and certain other places, yet the decision was made to devote most resources to Iraq.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The terrorists were in Iraq as well. Saddam Hussein was a supporter and enabler of terrorist groups.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh How many times do I have to post that? Are you really claiming you are unaware of the vast amount of evidence linking Saddam and terrorism?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336730,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...,00.html</a>
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I'm surprised that so many people still don't understand the concept of vetoing a seemingly beneficial bill when it has been loaded with pork. Far from wanting to deny benefits for Iraq war soldiers and veterans, McCain, Bush and others are rejecting the bill because it includes numerous huge spending items which have nothing to do with soldiers or veterans - like $50 million to track down child predators, $400 million to help rural schools and $350 million fight western wildfires. Senators have added billions of dollars for pet programs such as Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho's immigrant farm labor provision that would allow almost 1.4 million immigrant farm workers to stay in the United States for up to five years. It's not that there might not be merit to some of these provisions, but they shouldn't be in a bill meant to help Iraq war soldiers and veterans. And that's why many legislators wanted to veto it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< How many times do I have to post that? Are you really claiming you are unaware of the vast amount of evidence linking Saddam and terrorism? >>> Humor us - can you provide one example?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Here's an excerpt from the report that the link that spp posted talked about: "The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement. But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks. A review of available Iraqi documents indicated the following: The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq. On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence services directly targeted the regime's perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist groups. Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction, certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000."
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<>>How would he do this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious to know why you believe that Obama will be able to handle the situations that arise in the Middle East better than another candidate.<< Because he hasn't alienated the entire Middle East, and can quickly apologize for the past President's action, which might ease some worries.>> Exactly. Thank you WilliamK99. That's one part of it. Bush doesn't get that: (A) international opinion of the US matters, and/or that; (B) he has sunk our standing to new lows. It's important to our country's security and to our financial health that we un-do the image of America and Americans that Bush has imparted to the rest of the world. Try to think of it from the perspective of a middle-easterner. Or a European. Or a SouthAmerican... For the past eight years, Bush has been... well, I can't help but keep coming up with the term "cowboy." The world sees him as being comically, amazingly uninformed and stupid. And as being unwilling to let his obvious ignorance get in the way of his macho, self-serving actions. And now the US populace can make a choice. We can elect someone who appears (to us, and to the rest of the world) to be very much like Bush. Or we can elect someone who is from the other party, who is -- literally -- visibly different than Bush, and who has made statements that oppose Bush's positions. If we elect McCain, we are telling the world that America thinks that Bush pretty much got it right. That we support ignorance. That we think that we are so superior to the rest of the world that we don't need to be bothered with taking into account cultural differences or anything else that would be bothersome for us to learn. If we elect Obama, we are telling the world that Bush didn't speak for all of us. That we don't subscribe to the "cowboy" approach in dealing with international affairs. That the US is willing to be more thoughtful than it has been in the past eight years.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 >>How would he do this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious to know why you believe that Obama will be able to handle the situations that arise in the Middle East better than another candidate.<< Apart from the post I made above, there's another reason that I believe Obama will be more effective in dealing with mid-east conflict than any Republican. Obama has stated that he would -- GASP!!! -- actually communicate with all parties involved in mid-east conflict in his attempt to help resolve the conflict. Taking that position has cost him much of the Jewish vote. American Jews want him to publically subscribe to a simple, "Jews are good; Arabs are bad" doctrine. And, by some bizarre extension, they demand that he not even communicate with Arabs. And, knowing that, Obama has kept to his common-sense position: if you want to understand a conflict, you talk to both parties involved. Our Republican administration has apparently -- in the eyes of the world, anyhow -- blindly followed a quintessential American position: support Israel; vilify Arabs. Electing Obama would shake up that both that perception and that practice. In a way that would be beneficial for the US.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<And willing to let dictators do what they want.>> This is a meaningless comment as it stands. Please substantiate by responding with some detail and substance to the post to which you were reacting. Thank you.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Ooops! Too many "that"s in post 77. Last paragraph should be: "Electing Obama would shake up both that perception and that practice. In a way that would be beneficial for the US."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Please substantiate by responding with some detail and substance to the post to which you were reacting.> My post had as much substance as yours. Mine was just more succinct.
