Berlusconi announce withdrawal - Nice timing

[plindboe]

Berlusconi announce withdrawal of troops - Nice timing

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/08/italy.iraq.ap/index.html

Anyone else who think Berlusconi's announcement has an absolutely idiotic timing? The day of the announcement comes just one day after the London bombings, and the terrorist warnings against Italy and Denmark, that those countries would be targetted unless they pull their troops out.

I'm actually sure that this decision has nothing to do with the bombings, and has been planned for a while, but going ahead with it on the following day gives the impression that the terrorists succeeded in their goals and that violence wins.

 

[RandFan]

This concerns me. It's really hard to say if such acts will embolden the terrorists but It probably won't help. Hopefully it does help Italy and doesn't endanger other nations further.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Italy surrenders? This is supposed to be news?

Pizza munching surrender monkeys! ghhaaaa-tuuu!

 

[Questioninggeller]

It's okay, remember Bush said the world is safer since Saddam was booted from power.

Reviewing the quick progress of the 6-week-old Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bush said it "was carried out with a combination of precision, speed and boldness the enemy did not expect -- and the world had not seen before."
...

He also said removing Saddam from power would make other nations less vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/sprj.irq.bush.speech/index.html

 

[RandFan]

It's okay, remember Bush said the world is safer since Saddam was booted from power.[/url]

I'm confused. Bush has been accused of playing on our fears but this looks like he isn't. ???? Which is it?

 

[Grammatron]

I'm confused. Bush has been accused of playing on our fears but this looks like he isn't. ???? Which is it?

Both

1) There's no threat
2) Bush made us unsafe.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Randfan,

Looks like Grammatron summed it up pretty well regarding Iraq.

Both

1) There's no threat
2) Bush made us unsafe.

 

[plindboe]

It's okay, remember Bush said the world is safer since Saddam was booted from power.

Third reply, and someone is already hijacking the thread. The political forum never disappoints.

 

[Grammatron]

Randfan,

Looks like Grammatron summed it up pretty well regarding Iraq.

So you're ok with the fact it's a contradiction, because you can't have it both ways.

 

[peptoabysmal]

What I'd like to know is what did Bush do before 9/11 that made us unsafe? He barely got his new office organized before we were hit. Do you think he should have started out with Homeland Security as his new platform?

If I follow the illogic that Bush made us unsafe by removing Saddam, then leaving him there should have made us safe, right? We were safe as long as Saddam was free to murder and rape and extort the oil for food program, right?

 

[Questioninggeller]

So you're ok with the fact it's a contradiction, because you can't have it both ways.

No contradiction:

My original quote was:

Looks like Grammatron summed it up pretty well regarding Iraq.

1) No threat from Iraq.
2) Playing on fears of "9/11."

There was no WMD threat or Bin Laden link from Iraq. The fear of terror that was used was from 9/11, once again not Iraq. Thus, international terrorism and Al Queda was linked to Saddam's "WMD programs" as reasons to invade. I fail to see a contradiction.


Destabilizing a country in a already hostile region creates more bad than good.

 

[Questioninggeller]

What I'd like to know is what did Bush do before 9/11 that made us unsafe? He barely got his new office organized before we were hit. Do you think he should have started out with Homeland Security as his new platform?

In 9 months the counter terrorism committee headed by Cheney met how many times? (Answer=0) Richard Carke who served under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said that Bush greatly undermind the effort for counter terrorism, and that Iraq has hurt the war on terrorism. Bush failed at many points to prevent 9/11, and after 9/11 the Bush Adminstration wanted Iraq and wanted to find a link.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
If I follow the illogic that Bush made us unsafe by removing Saddam, then leaving him there should have made us safe, right? We were safe as long as Saddam was free to murder and rape and extort the oil for food program, right?

Why didn't that raise any eyebrows when Reagan was in power, and the US was giving him aid in the 1980's. Or when he was busy killing communists in the 1970's why didn' t the west care? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam#The_Iran.E2.80.93Iraq_War

Speaking of "free to murder," are you outraged at the murders of political dissent in "ally of war on terror" Uzbekistan?

May 13, 2005 - As many as 500 people are feared killed when Uzbek troops fire on thousands of protesters in the eastern town of Andizhan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan

According to the pro-Bush website: http://www.husseinandterror.com Saddam is "responsible" for 811 deaths from terrorism. That is actually lower than more liberal stats of the recent murders in Uzbekistan.


BTW: The reason for invading Iraq was WMD, humans rights was a secondary issue.

 

[RandFan]

1) No threat from Iraq.
2) Playing on fears of "9/11."

But your point is that Bush is assuring the country that everything is ok. That doesn't square with playing on our fears. I'm not certain that You can it have both ways. It's possible I suppose but you don't explain how. Is he playing on our fears or assuring us everything is ok or playing both sides?

 

[Questioninggeller]

If I follow the illogic that Bush made us unsafe by removing Saddam, then leaving him there should have made us safe, right?

Are you disputing that Iraq hasn't backfired and created more resentment and better trained terrorists?

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Iraq emerges as a terrorist training ground

By Warren P. Strobel

WASHINGTON — Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the prime training ground for foreign terrorists who could travel elsewhere across the globe and wreak havoc, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials and classified studies by the CIA and the State Department.

Of particular concern, the officials and studies say, are the urban combat techniques being learned and used by foreign fighters assaulting U.S. and Iraqi troops. There already is evidence that those tactics are being replicated elsewhere.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002357529_iraqterror05.html?syndication=rss

Iraq insurgency produces better trained terrorists: CIA report

MARK COLVIN: American opinion polls are already showing public support for keeping US troops in Iraq is flagging.

Now comes a CIA report that suggests that the insurgency in Iraq is producing better-trained Islamic terrorists than the Afghan War of the 1980's.

The CIA report, leaked to the New York Times, says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of deadly skills, from car bombings and assassinations to well coordinated attacks on police and military targets.

CNN) -- A book written by a top CIA counterterrorism official alleges that the Bush administration has bungled the war on terror, and because of poor decisions the United States faces a choice in Iraq and Afghanistan "between war and endless war."

Written by a high-level counterterrorism expert and published under the name "Anonymous," the book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" is unique in that it was written by an official still working for the CIA.

In his book, the author labeled the invasion of Iraq a "Christmas gift" to Osama bin Laden and said the country has become a "Mujahadeen magnet" attracting Muslims from around the world to fight the occupying U.S. forces.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/27/cia.book/index.html

here's one from 2003 on WMD:

Speaking to troops in Qatar as he headed home from a Middle East peace summit, Bush suggested it shouldn't be surprising that no such weapons have been found, despite the fall of Saddam's regime and the presence of coalition forces in Iraq for more than two months.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/sprj.irq.wmd.controversy/index.html

 

[RandFan]

Well, you certainly prove that there are people that believe the war is going bad. I think there is an argument that this is so. Also note that George H. W. Bush warned that this very thing could happen.

Bungled the war on terrorism? It's one POV, I think reasonable people can disagree on this one. The inteligence was clear that there was a lot of training camps devoted to training terrorists before 9/11. The extent and seriousnes of 9/11 demonstrated the degree to which they were trained and willing to go. We don't know how many terrorists there were at that time or the degree of training. We know it was significant. Is it worse now? I think there is conflicting evidence, certainly the war is not in America so that is a good thing. I honestly can't say I'm convinced of your thesis though I agree that an argument can be made.

 

[Questioninggeller]

But your point is that Bush is assuring the country that everything is ok.

Everything? I wrote there was no threat from IRAQ, there certainly is danger in other groups/governments.

Is he playing on our fears or assuring us everything is ok or playing both sides?

Much like the "threat levels" we're are always in a state of alert, such as we will never reach the green level where there is no threat because there will always be such danger. In certain aspects Bush claims things are better such as he claim that things have gotten better in the war on terrorism (1), but at the same time "we" in in danger (2).





(1) "In the past year, we have made significant progress." then he said, "Our progress has been uneven, but progress is being made."

"And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents."

(2) "There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, 'We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.'"


Both from the 6/28 address: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/28/bush.transcript/index.html

 

[Questioninggeller]

Well, you certainly prove that there are people that believe the war is going bad. I think there is an argument that this is so. Also note that George H. W. Bush warned that this very thing could happen.

^ The CIA. Central Intelligence Agency.

Bungled the war on terrorism? It's one POV, I think reasonable people can disagree on this one. The inteligence was clear that there was a lot of training camps devoted to training terrorists before 9/11.

So the terrorists move their camps to other nations and hide more effectively. You cannot bomb a religious ideology. This is, for radcial Muslims, a "holy war" between outsiders and locals, and thus, cannot defeat it through simply bombs and invasion. If one tries it will cause further resentment and make the US a lightening rod for Muslim extremists. You have to capture the bad as well as poke holes in the ideology by in part understanding their beliefs and remember American culture/values doesn't apply in many Middle Eastern countries. The US invading a Muslim nation and picking its leaders, while setting up Western control of industry is not going to win over the moderates, it'll only give the fanatics sympathizers.

 

[Grammatron]

No contradiction:

My original quote was:

Looks like Grammatron summed it up pretty well regarding Iraq.

1) No threat from Iraq.
2) Playing on fears of "9/11."

There was no WMD threat or Bin Laden link from Iraq. The fear of terror that was used was from 9/11, once again not Iraq. Thus, international terrorism and Al Queda was linked to Saddam's "WMD programs" as reasons to invade. I fail to see a contradiction.


Destabilizing a country in a already hostile region creates more bad than good.

You forgot Afghanistan, out of which they want us to remove our troops as well.

 

[RandFan]

^ The CIA. Central Intelligence Agency.

The same agency that generated the intelligence about Saddam? Hmmm...

So the terrorists move their camps to other nations and hide more effectively. You cannot bomb a religious ideology.

And if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq they wouldn't have done this? Your thesis doesn't change because of the war in Iraq.

This is, for radcial Muslims, a "holy war" between outsiders and locals, and thus, cannot defeat it through simply bombs and invasion. If one tries it will cause further resentment and make the US a lightening rod for Muslim extremists.

They flew planes into the twin towers killing 3,000 people. What is it that people don't get about that? No one says we will defeat it simply through bombs and invasion. This is a straw man. Bombs and an invasion are in hopes of establishing democracy and self rule. Please don't leave that part out. You might not think that it is possible but at least admit it is the goal.

You have to capture the bad as well as poke holes in the ideology by in part understanding their beliefs and remember American culture/values doesn't apply in many Middle Eastern countries. The US invading a Muslim nation and picking its leaders, while setting up Western control of industry is not going to win over the moderates, it'll only give the fanatics sympathizers.

They already have sympathizers. {sigh} I really don't get this line of thinking. The camps were already there. The people were showing up, they were getting ready to carry out a Jihad against the US. They killed 3,000 people. That's pretty damn bold. And we are supposed to do what? Less? Poking holes in their ideology would only cause resentment. Proof that we don't respect them. This plays into their hands as much as anything else. There is a real and workable answer however. The election in Iraq has shown that people would like to pick their own leaders and they would like self rule. The answer to terrorism is freedom, if that is possible. Otherwise the leaders of Muslim countries use the United States as a scapegoat for the misery these people suffer. The leaders can't accept responsibility for being tyrants so they blame everything on the US. This IS what they do. We are the Great Satan. Your answer? Poke holes in their ideology, right. Sorry but that doesn't inspire confidence. The folks with purple fingers does inspire confidence. It's a tough job and there will be set backs and we might even fail but I think we are doing the thing that will most likely bring results.

 

[Leif Roar]

Re: Berlusconi announce withdrawal of troops - Nice timing

Anyone else who think Berlusconi's announcement has an absolutely idiotic timing?

Well, this decision has been announced a while ago already: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/15/italy.iraq/