Whether or not Al Qaeda was active in Iraq before the war, they are certainly engaged there now. Thus it is part of the war on terror.
edit: Damn I need to be faster here…
Whether or not Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda is only a factor in determining whether or not you think the attack on Iraq was appropriate or just.
Whether attacking Iraq was appropriate or just is not the same question as “was attacking Iraq part of the war on terror.” I don’t know why you think they are.
I honestly don’t get it. I can understand the logical assumptions, implications, and derived actions of your positions; I just don’t agree with the assumptions. But you seem to be totally ignoring that everyone doesn’t share your assumptions, and therefore isn’t commiting a crime against logic to disagree with you.
“attacking Iraq was part of the war on terror” != “Iraq is part of the war on terror”
You are taking ‘Iraq’ to be a verb.
edit: That time I was too quick. Looks like Philo did mean Iraq to be a verb…
edit2: or maybe not. Ok I’ll just shut up now :D
Language nazi :D
Maybe because you’re looking at it from a different timeline. To use your quote “was attacking Iraq part of the war on terror”? I agree that a lot of people think the answer to that question was no, because of the differences between Saddam and Al Quaeda and because they don’t understand the dangers of Iraq. All fine, I don’t agree, but that’s not the point.
The question to answer is not retrospective. Is Iraq part of the war on terror now? It clearly is, because it’s been drawn into it, for the right or wrong reasons. You responded to me without recognizing that I wasn’t necessarily disagreeing with you: I was stating a separate point, talking about the here and now, not the assumption you mentioned.
“Is Iraq part of the war on terror now? It clearly is, because it’s been drawn into it, for the right or wrong reasons.”
Oh, fuck it already. Why is it Iraq always ends up in language-parsing discussions?
Edit: And WTF do you mean, it’s been “drawn into it?” The only way I can think of is if you assume that everyone who doesn’t agree with Bush’s response to terrorism (in this case, invading a totally unrelated country) is defacto supporting terrorism.
I realize you said “fuck it,” but then you edited in a question, so I guess you’re still debating. The point he’s making seems really simple to me: that regardless of what you think about the decision to invade Iraq (good or bad, helped against terrorists or didn’t), Iraq is, today, unquestionably a front in the “war on terror.” In that it is full of terrorists, who are attacking us (and we are attacking them as well, of course). So for Spain to pull out of Iraq, today, is conceding at least part of the war on terror. It’s saying “Hey, if terrorists don’t us in Iraq or building a society in Iraq, fine. They can have Iraq.”
Put another way, if the socialists had been in power a year ago, and had said “Hey, we’re not going to invade Iraq because it’s unconnected to terrorism,” you would have a much better argument. Because then the argument would be “Was Iraq connected to terrorism or not?” (I mean, as you know, I think you still lose, since Iraq was clearly connected to terrorism against Israel; but that’s a whole 'noter argument.) But that’s not the question under discussion now, because as it happens, Spain is pulling out of Iraq after it’s become quite clear that Iraq is littered with active al Qaeda terrorists with whom we are fighting every day.
Does that make it make more sense?
It’s been drawn into it because the U.S. attacked them. Just like Cambodia: VietNam, Norway: WW2.
Terrorists believe Iraq is part of the battlefield as the notes left indicated, as do the people in Spain who voted against the government because they thought the terrorist would leave them alone if they pulled from Iraq. Our government believes it. So both sides, plus bystanders, think Iraq is part of the war on terrorism.
They didn’t “insinuate” anything. They came right out and said it. That’s kind of crucial here because if the Spanish people voted out the PP because of the terrorist attacks (which this “analysis” just takes as a given) they would be “surrendering to Al Qaeda,” but if they voted out the PP because of their handling of the terrorists attacks they would just be kicking out a bunch of goddamn liars. Of course the Socialists were building up a lead before the terrorist attacks but we’ll just sort of ignore that.
See, this is what I’m talking about: apparently now “the war on terrorism” is defined to mean “The War on Every Single Terrorist conservatives don’t like on the planet, regardless of popular support or whether they actually attack the US.”
But that’s not the question under discussion now, because as it happens, Spain is pulling out of Iraq after it’s become quite clear that Iraq is littered with active al Qaeda terrorists with whom we are fighting every day.
Did I miss the memo establishing that Al Qaeda is behind all the bombings in Iraq? I see an awful lot of definitive stuff talking about how its:
a) Muslims pissed off we invaded a Muslim nation.
b) Old guard Saddam subordinates who want the regime back.
c) Sunnis who want to make sure that they keep power.
And some speculative stuff about how oh yeah, there’s Al Qaeda people there too.
We created groups a), b), and c). If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, they wouldn’t exist and wouldn’t be attacking anyone, which is why I think it’s pretty goddamn rich that people can get off telling Spain they’re giving in to the terrorists. How dare they not get some of the gasoline we’re pouring on ourselves?
This all appears to be a rhetorical slight of hand to pretend that “all terrorists” is equivalent to “terrorists that attack us and our interests”. It’s an utter bullshit attempt to short-circuit the political process - hey, we don’t have to actually debate foreign policy anymore! We can just attack anyone that some group of people in the US (neocons, this time around) doesn’t like and call it “the war on terror!” If you oppose sucking up to Isreal and killing lots of Palestinians, you’re a terror-lover - after all, they’re terrorists. Ditto for every contentious insurrection in the entire world.
Mysteriously, this argument doesn’t get invoked for people the ruling powers-that-be actually like; I think they’re just pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes by pretending they have a principle here beyond political expediency. I’m 100% certain we’d support a “terrorists” against a leader we don’t like, just like we did in the 1980s with Afghanistan.
And Philo, are you seriously arguing that foreign nations had an obligation to attack Cambodia even though we US attacked them in a completely illegal and unjustifiable manner, because we happened to do so in the process of fighting another war that was (possibly) right?
So both sides, plus bystanders, think Iraq is part of the war on terrorism.
Then how the hell come Spain said they’d continue prosecuting the war on terror, yet they’re going to pull out of Iraq? They sure don’t talk like they believe Iraq is part of the war on terrorism.
To clarify: there’s a broad majority in favor of the US attacking terrorists that attack us. There is not a broad majority of attacking every guy in the entire world who sets off a car bomb.
Pretty sure there isn’t one for “everyone is morally obligated to help us attack everyone who fights back against us, regardless of how justified we were for attacking them in the first place.”
In summary: we are not fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. We are fighting various groups in Iraq who aren’t happy about us occupying the place, which include to some extent members of Al-Qaeda.
Even if Al-Qaeda disappeared overnight, we would still face a serious ongoing insurrection which we are solely responsible for creating through our botched invasion. Spain is perfectly justified in refusing to be involved in that; there’s little or no evidence that even if they came in and helped us clean up our mess, it would result in anything good in the long-run. There’s not even any evidence we’re affecting Al-Qaeda at all by fighting those of them who are in Iraq, so what’s the point?
I personally suspect that we’ll either:
- Going to stay for 20 years Vietnam-style, with ever-expanding bloodshed under a succession of puppet “councils”
- Abandon the country to anarchy
- Install a replacemnt strongman/council for Saddam - which will turn out just as annoying in the long run - and flee.
I don’t know, but I missed the part of my post where I said they were behind every bombing. But if your contention is that they’re not behind most of the bombings–particularly in the last few months–then not only did you miss the memo, you apparently missed the news reports as well. Although I will concede that they fall into your category A (“Muslims pissed off we invaded a Muslim nation”). But that doesn’t make them “not al Qaeda.”
This all appears to be a rhetorical slight of hand to pretend that “all terrorists” is equivalent to “terrorists that attack us and our interests”.
I don’t think it’s slight-of-hand. In the first place, it’s pretty clear that al Qaeda is both a group of terrorists in Iraq and a group of terrorists that attack us and our interests. It sounds like you’re kind of taking this extreme position where we can only attack terrorists who we have predetermined personally plan on attacking US soil. I think it’s completely reasonable for us to attack terrorists who belong to a group that attacks US soil (or US interests overseas), even without determining whether the individual group-member was heading out to bomb the American embassy or a local police station.
More than that, though, anyone attacking in Iraq is by definition attacking our interests, since we’re in Iraq trying to establish a democracy. Again, you might disagree with the idea of establishing democracy there, but to pretend that the terrorists there aren’t “attacking our interests” is pretty crazy. They are attacking our interests. In fact, when they can get away with it, they’re attacking our citizens, usually civilians nowadays. I’m not sure how that somehow counts as non-terrorism in your mind. People not in uniform gun down American civilians helping with water infrastructure = anti-American terrorism. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Mysteriously, this argument doesn’t get invoked for people the ruling powers-that-be actually like; I think they’re just pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes by pretending they have a principle here beyond political expediency.
I absolutely agree with you here. It’s important that we not support terrorists no matter whose “side” they are on. Terrorists attacking our enemies aren’t on our side.
just like we did in the 1980s with Afghanistan.
And here we are disagreeing again. I’m no Afghan War expert, but my understanding is that the Afghani insurgents attacked military targets. Guerilla war against military and infrastructure targets is not the same as terrorism, although I realize we’ve had this argument several times before. There’s a huge difference between attacking the military and blowing up or shooting civilians.
Oh, and the Vietnam parallels are starting to seriously worry me.
90 day rotations for CIA guys.
An army without sufficient manpower to make headway, but no political will to expand it.
Uselessly vague endgoals (“democratic, peacful Iraq”), with a pie-in-the-sky method of getting there (“kill all the rebels.”)
Usage of the war as a political wedge by the administration.
Pretending the controversial war can be substituted one-for-one for a larger, uncontroversial war (unbelievably, it was a lot easier to say Vietnam was the same as fighting the USSR than Saddam is the same as fighting Al Qaeda).
Every estimate I’ve seen recently is that the large majority of terrorists in Iraq are al Qaeda people (which is getting to be a somewhat loose term, I agree, but generally includes anyone trained, financed, equipped, or given targets by the core leadership of al Qaeda, primarily Zawahiri (sp?) in Iraq). So while I guess your statement might be techincally true, it’s incredibly misleading because it implies that most of the terrorists are home-grown people who would be fighting us even if al Qaeda never existed (in fact, the next paragraph says that outright). I think you’re absolutely wrong about that.
I personally suspect that we’ll either:
- Going to stay for 20 years Vietnam-style, with ever-expanding bloodshed under a succession of puppet “councils”
- Abandon the country to anarchy
- Install a replacemnt strongman/council for Saddam - which will turn out just as annoying in the long run - and flee.
As Dan would say, here we are at the magic moment where you reveal that as far as you’re concerned, any action America takes is the wrong one. If we stay, we’re in the wrong; if we leave, we’re in the wrong. Yay! Well done!
I’ll readily agree that the post-invasion was utterly botched. Not enough guys, not nearly enough preplanning for re-establishment of infrastructure, government, and civil order. But that doesn’t mean that there is now no right choice to be made. The right choice (as far as I’m concerned) is to repair the damage as best we can, by staying there to help keep the peace, helping them rebuild their country, and turning over sovreignty to a democractic government of one form or another as quickly as we possibly can.
More than that, though, anyone attacking in Iraq is by definition attacking our interests, since we’re in Iraq trying to establish a democracy. Again, you might disagree with the idea of establishing democracy there, but to pretend that the terrorists there aren’t “attacking our interests” is pretty crazy. They are attacking our interests. In fact, when they can get away with it, they’re attacking our citizens, usually civilians nowadays. I’m not sure how that somehow counts as non-terrorism in your mind. People not in uniform gun down American civilians helping with water infrastructure = anti-American terrorism. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
And this goes back to the original question that Philo thinks is irrelevant - was Saddam connected to terrorism? Because none of the things you’re talking about would have happened if we hadn’t invaded Iraq (or even hadn’t botched the invasion.)
If Saddam wasn’t connected to terrorism, and didn’t have WMDs - and those were the only casus bellis we had for invading - our presence there is totally unjustified. In addition, there is no sign that we’re even going to improve the lot of Iraq in the long run; we don’t have the slighest idea what we’re doing. We’re simultaneously trying to abandon the country and ramp up our troop strength. There’s no reason for us to be there, much less our allies to get their soldiers killed for no reason.
Again, this goes back to what’s in my opinion the totally ludicrious starting point - that there’s a broad majority in favor of attacking every terrorist, everywhere, no matter the costs and no matter the benefits.
Rywill, my point is that nothing we can do will help Iraq at this point. We’ve proven we’re incapable of getting it right, and it’s think it’s almost-totally ruined already anyway. I guess theoretically I can imagine fixing Iraq in its current state, but I simply don’t have any idea how the government - regardless of party in control - could do the complete 180 necessary to do so.
Every estimate I’ve seen recently is that the large majority of terrorists in Iraq are al Qaeda people
Erm, from where? This is totally at odds with what I’ve seen.
Still, point remains - Al Qaeda would be attacking us elsewhere regardless, so I’m not sure what the tactical point of going after them in an unfriendly hostile environment is, or what Spain refusing to attack them in that unfavorable, no ROI circumstance is a surrender to terrorism. To boot, the only reason Al Qaada is even in Iraq in the first place is our invasion - there’s no evidence, contrary to Chalabi/Cheney’s crazed statements, that Saddam had ties to them.
Oh yeah: the mujaheddin were responsible for atrocities, and they were innocent chidren compared to some of the other barbaric groups we’ve supported. I’d suggest research on CIA involvement in Italy, South America, Africa…
Jesus, it’s like going in circles with you. You’re like the scourge of Politics & Religion as far as I’m concerned. I’ll give it one last shot, you can then reassert your initial positions as if I’ve never said anything, and then I’m done. You can go back to spinning your wheels here with everyone else.
And this goes back to the original question that Philo thinks is irrelevant - was Saddam connected to terrorism? Because none of the things you’re talking about would have happened if we hadn’t invaded Iraq
He thinks it’s irrelevant because it is irrelevant to the topic of this conversation, which is “Is Spain caving on part of the war on terror by leaving Iraq?” Whether the opposition in Iraq was connected to terrorism a year ago or not makes no difference. What matters is whether the opposition in Iraq is connected to terrorism today. They clearly are. Philo is not arguing that invading Iraq was a move against international terrorism. He’s arguing that fighting in Iraq today is.
In addition, there is no sign that we’re even going to improve the lot of Iraq in the long run
Although this is also irrelevant to the proposition under discussion, I just wanted to quote it because it’s so laughably deluded. You know that people used to be plucked off the streets, watched their family get raped and crippled, and were then slowly lowed into acid, all to please a lunatic, right?
Again, this goes back to what’s in my opinion the totally ludicrious starting point - that there’s a broad majority in favor of attacking every terrorist, everywhere, no matter the costs and no matter the benefits.
You’re right. That’s totally ludicrous. Which is probably why nobody believes that or said that or is talking about that (except for you). Nobody is saying every terrorist or everywhere or no matter the costs or no matter the benefits. We’re saying these al Qaeda guys, in Iraq, with the costs to our troops and civilians and the Iraqi people and the benefits of hopefully fighting back and defeating al Qaeda in that theater (and, if we manage things well, getting an exemplar Arab democracy going in the Mideast).
EDIT: I’m biting my tongue on your prior two posts (which I hadn’t seen when I wrote this one) because I promised myself I was done after this. But just wanted to say that I hadn’t read them when I wrote this, so the fact that I’m not addressing them doesn’t mean they aren’t addressable. And also wanted to say nice job bringing up totally unrelated conflicts when I pointed out the mistake about the Afghanis. Whoops. Okay, now I"m done. Bye.
Well using that definition…you know what else would be a move against international terrorism? Invading Saudi Arabia to draw Al Qaeda there, and create a whole bunch of new terrorists.
[quote]In addition, there is no sign that we’re even going to improve the lot of Iraq in the long run
Although this is also irrelevant to the proposition under discussion, I just wanted to quote it because it’s so laughably deluded. You know that people used to be plucked off the streets, watched their family get raped and crippled, and were then slowly lowed into acid, all to please a lunatic, right?[/quote]
For the lives of Iraqis to get better, it needs to become a functioning democracy with rights for the minority groups. There’s no sign we’re going to stick around long enough to make that happen - we’re handing over control so Bush can say he’s “won” before the election, remember? I’m certain what the Iraqis will get is something like a Chalabi dictatorship, so things will end up just a bad as before or nearly so, especially if you include the destruction and people we killed.
Even if we weren’t abandoning the country - this could still happen, as we’re trying to leave our troops their for an indefinite period of time, so I can see maybe how the political handover is just a PR slight-of-hand - we’ve shown no sign we have the slightest idea how to fix the country. It’s been nothing but disaster since Saddam fell, and the leadership is totally unwilling to change their approach in the slightest, no matter how much evidence its not working. I don’t really think Kerry or presidents further down the line can fix it, either, because it’s gotten so bad over there.
[quote]Again, this goes back to what’s in my opinion the totally ludicrious starting point - that there’s a broad majority in favor of attacking every terrorist, everywhere, no matter the costs and no matter the benefits.
You’re right. That’s totally ludicrous. Which is probably why nobody believes that or said that or is talking about that (except for you). Nobody is saying every terrorist or everywhere or no matter the costs or no matter the benefits. We’re saying these al Qaeda guys, in Iraq, with the costs to our troops and civilians and the Iraqi people and the benefits of hopefully fighting back and defeating al Qaeda in that theater (and, if we manage things well, getting an exemplar Arab democracy going in the Mideast).[/quote]
Like hell they’re not. David Frum, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Cheney are all saying that since all terrorism is alike we need to go after Hamas/support every stupid thing Israel does, because it’s totally clear they’re just like Al Qaeda. Remember Wes Clark talking about how the Pentagon guys told him after 9/11 the powers that be were drawing up a plan to eventually invade the entire middle east? Remember that subordinate of Perle’s who gave, at his invitation, a presentation to the Pentagon recommending seizing the Saudi oilfields and invading Egypt?
Rywill, my point is that nothing we can do will help Iraq at this point. We’ve proven we’re incapable of getting it right, and it’s think it’s almost-totally ruined already anyway.
Nothing the US can do will help Iraq? That’s a pretty far reaching statement. And if you call Iraq “totally ruined”, I’d hate to see what you’d have to say about someplace where you can’t play counter-strike.