Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by weswelker#83, May 8, 2008.
And as long as we're still there they'll be someone to step up and take his place.
Someone would probably step up and take his place if the US pulled out tomorrow.
And what would be their recruiting tool if the US was no longer there?
Don't forget that there was Al Queda before the US was in Iraq.
Yes, but there wasn't Al Qaeda in Iraq. And there wasn't Al Qaeda in the middle east before America got there. The point is that Al Qaeda has a lot more capability to recruit angry young muslims when the U.S. is still there causing "collateral damage."
either way they will be there ... but more while we're there is the right asumption IMO.
Can't argue that .. however that was one rational for being there. that being they would be less likely to attack us elsewhere as long as we were there.
Now, I don't want to argue about this, because it's not that important (and god knows, Wildo and I can argue about almost anything )...but AQ was in how many countries around the world? There were cells in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the Phillipines...hell, apparently even the US...but we're supposed to believe they weren't in the only country in the world openly hostile to the US, with a dictator that had proven he'd work with pretty much anyone who was hostile to the US/Israel?
I just don't understand it.
Saddam hated religion, outside influence, and any other threat to his power. Iraq was probably the most dangerous place in the Middle East for an AQ guy to be...except maybe Israel.
We now know that the majority of AQ was in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Lots in Egypt, too. Virtually none in Iraq.
Like they won't while we're there?
Also, the top AQ dog in Iraq is not the top AQ dog worldwide. He's still alive and free thanks to the traitor moron in the WH and an inept CIA.
Are you saying we should invade Pakistan???
Are you saying Boy King's "we'll make no distinction" promise was a lie?
Initially Faux News, that fair and balanced outlet, is reporting that this may not be true.. now the banner @ 5:20 AM is reporting that they did not capture this guy...
BAGHDAD â€” The U.S. military on Friday said there were "no operational reports" so far to confirm Iraqi government reports that the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq has been arrested.
Iraqi authorities on Thursday said Iraqi police commandos captured the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq in a raid in the northern city of Mosul, in what if confirmed would be significant blow to the Sunni insurgency in its last urban stronghold.
Early Friday, however, the U.S. military said there were "no operational reports" to confirm that Abu Ayyub al-Masri â€” also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir â€” was captured. News of the reported capture was trumpeted by Iraqi state television and numerous Iraqi government and provincial officials.
Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said late Thursday that the arrest was made in Mosul, where insurgents have sought to establish a foothold after being widely uprooted from Baghdad and surrounding areas last year.
We should bomb the snot out of positions where AQ is and then launch precision ground strikes to mop up, then get the hell out immediately. Pakistan won't do it. We need to get Bin Ladin and his criminal punks that killed our citizens and then leave.
But is that worth it if it causes enough instability and anti-US feelings in Pakistan that it leads to overthrow of the government by radical muslims? It is a country teetering on the brink right now, do we need to potentially throw a nuclear country into chaos to go kill/capture someone living in a cave in the mountains?
Right, so we should leave the US too cuz as long as we're here, their will be thugs and criminals...nevermind. We were never in Afghanistan before 9/11.
So you're in favor of invading Pakistan.
Look at what happened to Musharef for helping the US so publically. What happened after they rocketed those madrassa's where AQ was meeting. All this without US forces operating inside their borders. Imagine if we start ground ops, and air strikes in their country. Remember how revered Khan was to those people. We, as in the UN, EU, US, IAEA, couldn't do didly to that guy, cuz it would've created chaos with the populace. People don't like to hear it, but we're not going into Pakistan. Never were, never are. That's why Iraq was targeted. Easiest sell to begin the long term goal of geopolitical change in the ME.
Hit and run clean-up job.
WTF are we supposed to do? Let Bin Ladin and AQ go on forever without consequences? Are we supposed to stay in Iraq forever to contain AQ and hope the Indians do the same on their front with Pakistan...forever?
Maybe we should admit to the families of the 9/11 dead that we're not going to do anything to capture the animals that did their loved ones....just go home and cope with it. In the meantime why don't we just pull out of Afghanistan altogether. We can't do a whole lot if AQ can just run into Pakistan whenever they want. We might as well leave the area for AQ...they have it as it is anyway. Taliban, AQ, Balochistani warlords..what's the difference? Do you think these guys recognize the artificial colonial political borders like we pretend to do?
Is this a serious analogy?
I mean, you're right, its frustrating, but what can we do? We can't seriously risk a nuclear nation coming under the control of radicals. Its a good argument for nuclear non-proliferation, look at how Pakistan's insistence of getting nukes has basically rendered us helpless to affect policy there. If they don't have nukes we probably take the chance of causing regime instability and invade the mountain regions full bore. As it is, no chance.
Then why don't we simply remove their ability to use nukes? We aren't capable of that? What exactly are our capabilities? Honestly, if we can't do something as simple as that, then we might as well pack it in and quit pretending that the world is ours to do with as we please.
It's not happening Wistah. Again, look at what happened after they zapped the AQ guys meeting at a madrassa. This really lead to Musharef's demise.
No offense to anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11, but this is problem is more than simply getting Bin Laden. Most people think invading Iraq has exacerbated the problem. Well, military actions inside Pakistan would be worse. It would have far more severe repurcussions than Iraq has had. So forgive me if I put the long term goal of dealing with the problem, ahead of the victims family's closure. I mean no disrepsect by it, but it's reality. This is an extremely complicated problem, and some actions, while personally gratifying, would only makes things worse. Again, I don't mean to sound unsympathetic to the victims, or their families.
You think removing Pakistans nuclear capability would be simple?
I'm not saying I could do it. It would be simple compared to other things, wouldn't it? You know, like invading and occupying a country like Iraq.
By the way, how are the Saudi pigs doing in their battle against their terrorist organizations that they fund and protect.:rofl:
"War on Terror" ...what a friggin joke!
9/11 should have been treated as what it was: a crime. Everything we've done since in declaring "war" has only made the problem worse. period.
So how would you have handled it?
treated the terrorists as criminals, and sought out all of those involved with the aid of interpol and the countries they were in. You're probably going to say that Afghanistan wouldn't have cooperated, but I think they would have and even if they didn't it would have been a better outcome than what we have now.
Okay, who in Afghanistan was there to cooperate?
Separate names with a comma.