Iraq war worth the cost?

[a_unique_person]

And of course we could not have accomplished either of those things without spending trillions of dollars in Iraq. Good one, Captain Logic.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, as was Al Qaeda, IIRC.

 

[Pardalis]

The regime currently in power which they feel is a stooge for recently departed occupying forces.

They may also feel that the occupying powers haven't actually left, not least because of the size of the US embassy in Bagdhad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Baghdad

And yet they attacked a school and a coffee shop...

Unless you haven't noticed, I'm using the expression "freedom fighters" sarcastically. These people are terrorists, they do not care about the country, they want chaos.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, as was Al Qaeda, IIRC.

And now al Qaeda is in Iraq, it's been there since 2003. They are the ones mostly responsible for the deaths since then.

 

[funk de fino]

funk, if the war in Iraq was a farce, why aren't I laughing?

Farces are supposed to be funny.

hey Mr NitPickety

A farce is something that is intended to be seen as ridiculous, particularly a comedy based on an unlikely situation. (noun)

A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery

 

[The Don]

And yet they attacked a school and a coffee shop...

Unless you haven't noticed, I'm using the expression "freedom fighters" sarcastically. These people are terrorists, they do not care about the country, they want chaos.

Well as well as attacking the security forces, the IRA were well known for bombing civilian targets. I'm pretty sure that their objective was the removal of British rule in Northern Ireland rather than just chaos.

One group of people's freedom fighters is another's terrorists. I'm sure that Al Queda's supporters view the fight as being just and the means justified however objectively wrong we think they are.

 

[Pardalis]

One group of people's freedom fighters is another's terrorists.

No, people who directly target children are terrorists.

 

[The Don]

No, people who directly target children are terrorists.

That may be your opinion but I'm sure the supporters of Al Queda believe that their actions are justifiable and that they are freedom fighters.

 

[funk de fino]

No, people who directly target children are terrorists.

So if someone is targeting enemy combatants to kill them, and they know that in doing so they will kill innocent civilians, which include children, then they are terrorists?

 

[eeyore1954]

That may be your opinion but I'm sure the supporters of Al Queda believe that their actions are justifiable and that they are freedom fighters.

I don't know if they use the term freedom fighters but

The "people" who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center thought their actions were justifiable.

The KKK thought their actions were justifiable.

and many other examples.


In my opinion no matter how you slice it targeting a school is terrorism.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't know if they use the term freedom fighters but

Certainly not freedom fighter, "freedom" isn't a word they recognize.

 

[MG1962]

In my opinion no matter how you slice it targeting a school is terrorism.

Yeah it is hard to see it any other way, especially the timing of the bombing. Traditional freedom fighters work hard to get the local population onside, and try channel dissatisfaction against the government into a resource for the fighters themselves

 

[NoahFence]

But back then it was to fight the Evil Occupation! Now what are those valiant freedom fighters fighting against?

....they're fighting against what they wanted to fight against but couldn't because of the Evil Occupation.


Religion?

Who knows.

 

[NoahFence]

Would killing children at their school be considered a war crime JJ?

I thought you supported the insurgency, what are their goals now? What purpose is there in the killing of children and people at coffee shops?

How are you going to pin this on the US now that they've left?

Give her time to come up with something silly.

 

[The Don]

Yeah it is hard to see it any other way, especially the timing of the bombing. Traditional freedom fighters work hard to get the local population onside, and try channel dissatisfaction against the government into a resource for the fighters themselves

IMO unless they view the local population as part of the problem. Again going back to Northern Ireland, the Republicans went to great length to build up influence in their own community but were happy to kill women and children in the Unionist community.

Maybe the Al Queda bombers have relatively few of "us" and rather more of "them". No matter, in their own minds they are attempting to depose a puppet government installed by the United States.

 

[MG1962]

IMO unless they view the local population as part of the problem. Again going back to Northern Ireland, the Republicans went to great length to build up influence in their own community but were happy to kill women and children in the Unionist community.

Fair point and I really don't know the demographics of the city well enough to decide if the linkage is valid or not

Maybe the Al Queda bombers have relatively few of "us" and rather more of "them". No matter, in their own minds they are attempting to depose a puppet government installed by the United States.

Which was a concern I raised earlier in this thread. Iraq traditionally had been politically unstable, and with the stabilizing influence of the US now gone, I do have deep concern for what is to come

 

[willhaven]

Bin Laden is dead and Al-Qaeda have been crushed, having achieved absolutely nothing.

Good.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Click on strategy.

They've already achieved #1 twice.

 

[SezMe]

And now al Qaeda is in Iraq, it's been there since 2003. They are the ones mostly responsible for the deaths since then.

That's not what I've read. It is back to the old Sunni/Shia power struggle. The violence has little or nothing to do with world-wide jihad and bringing down the west. I'd like to see what you base your assertion on.

 

[a_unique_person]

And now al Qaeda is in Iraq, it's been there since 2003. They are the ones mostly responsible for the deaths since then.

Since Bin Laden and al Qaeda were in Afghanistan, I don't know what they had to do with the invasion of Iraq. In fact, Bin Laden was largely forgotten about, the primary focus was WMD and Hussein.

 

[Virus]

So if someone is targeting enemy combatants to kill them, and they know that in doing so they will kill innocent civilians, which include children, then they are terrorists?

No.

 

[Virus]

Since Bin Laden and al Qaeda were in Afghanistan, I don't know what they had to do with the invasion of Iraq. In fact, Bin Laden was largely forgotten about, the primary focus was WMD and Hussein.

Al-Qaeda were the product of Arab political culture. The idea was to break the cycle of violence between the regimes and the terrorists that try to overthrow them by establishing Arab democracy.

Since Iraq was a genocidal fascist regime, the US was already at war with Saddam, he violated the ceasefire agreements, the sanctions were crumbling, overthrowing Saddam was official policy since 1998 (and unofficial policy before that) but indirect methods did not work, it was decided to finish him off.

It's also good to knock off a rogue every now and then. Lest the rest of them get too comfortable.

 

[a_unique_person]

Al-Qaeda were the product of Arab political culture. The idea was to break the cycle of violence between the regimes and the terrorists that try to overthrow them by establishing Arab democracy.

Since Iraq was a genocidal fascist regime, the US was already at war with Saddam, he violated the ceasefire agreements, the sanctions were crumbling, overthrowing Saddam was official policy since 1998 (and unofficial policy before that) but indirect methods did not work, it was decided to finish him off.

It's also good to knock off a rogue every now and then. Lest the rest of them get too comfortable.

So the point you made was off the mark, and you are going to make another one now.