Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Report from all 16 intel. agencies concludes Iraq War has made US less safe (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Report from all 16 intel. agencies concludes Iraq War has made US less safe
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tommy, I have waited this past hour on this field of honour, and thou didst not show. Therefore thou art proven craven this day, and all gentlemen knowing this will hold your opinion in contempt. Thus my honour is satisfied.

Tom Curtis [Big Grin] [Razz]

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a little couple of nits:

1) No one has any idea what the report says but are still quite willing to draw conclusions. Does no one notice the irony of people who condemn the administration for making judgements on supposedly "cherry picked" intelligence, while enthusiastically reaching conclusions on little-to-no information?

2) I'm surprised at the irrationality of this entire thread. Does no one on this thread not recognize when they are committing the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy? So the number of radical Islamists has risen since the Iraq war started (even though we don't know that the report says this, I'll just join the party and assume it)? Duh!

The number of radical Islamists has been rising for what, 20-30 years (actually, probably since the founding of Israel in 1948 or even earlier)? The US has experienced numerous Islamic terrorist attacks since the American embassy in Tehran was attacked. The attacks accelerated and became more deadly throughout the 80's and 90's, culminating in 9/11. What was the excuse then?

To blame the Iraq war for the growth of a cancer that has been metastasizing for decades is quite a stretch, even if it does play to your prejudices.

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To blame the Iraq war for the growth of a cancer that has been metastasizing for decades is quite a stretch, even if it does play to your prejudices.
The argument here seems to be that the report, from what's known of it, appears to contradict the administration claims that the Iraq war would result in a safer America/region/world. The fact that terrorism had been on the rise previous to the war is not relevant to that argument.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1) No one has any idea what the report says but are still quite willing to draw conclusions.
Not quite. We have a number of sites in the MSM that claim to have seen some or all of the contents making consistent claims. You're right that we haven't seen it, of course. Your second point just says we're just being silly. Noted.
quote:
To blame the Iraq war for the growth of a cancer that has been metastasizing for decades is quite a stretch, even if it does play to your prejudices.
Ok, are you arguing the opposite, then? Given the time, money, materiel, casualties, effect on global politics, etc., have we dealt with this metastasizing cancer effectively?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think the report claims to diagnose the etiology of fundamental Islamic terrorism.

Thats said, I note that invading a region and turning it upside down, even in the name of one's preferred ideology, is usually kinda rough on law and order.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by meworkingman:
Just a little couple of nits:

1) No one has any idea what the report says but are still quite willing to draw conclusions. Does no one notice the irony of people who condemn the administration for making judgements on supposedly "cherry picked" intelligence, while enthusiastically reaching conclusions on little-to-no information?

2) I'm surprised at the irrationality of this entire thread. Does no one on this thread not recognize when they are committing the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy? So the number of radical Islamists has risen since the Iraq war started (even though we don't know that the report says this, I'll just join the party and assume it)? Duh!

The number of radical Islamists has been rising for what, 20-30 years (actually, probably since the founding of Israel in 1948 or even earlier)? The US has experienced numerous Islamic terrorist attacks since the American embassy in Tehran was attacked. The attacks accelerated and became more deadly throughout the 80's and 90's, culminating in 9/11. What was the excuse then?

To blame the Iraq war for the growth of a cancer that has been metastasizing for decades is quite a stretch, even if it does play to your prejudices.

It's fairly simple, the admin. claimed fighting in Iraq would reduce international terrorism even in the short term and make America safer in the short term. If you think it would have been more practical for them to have said otherwise and risk bad PR, maybe you are more honest than them.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if the report also shows (as best it can) that the world would have been safer than it is now if we hadn't invaded Iraq. For all we know we might be less safe now than we currently are if we hadn't gone in.

Do you suppose we'd be safer if we restricted our activities in Iraq to hunting down international terrorist groups in the country? Then the Iraqis would realize that the Sunni-Shiite fighting is their own fault.

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

DaveS:
Ok, are you arguing the opposite, then? Given the time, money, materiel, casualties, effect on global politics, etc., have we dealt with this metastasizing cancer effectively?

Good question. Actually, I'm not really arguing one way or the other. All I'm saying is that *no one* knows the affect the Iraq war has had on the number of nut-case Muslims in the world. As I said, that number has been growing for decades.

I don't claim to know that the Iraq war was a wise investment or not. However, I believed before we invaded Iraq (and still do) that treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue was a *huge* mistake. We're dealing with determined wackos that have one goal: to kill as many of us as possible. If we don't treat this as a war rather than a police action, our civilization is in trouble.

quote:

kenmeer:
Thats said, I note that invading a region and turning it upside down, even in the name of one's preferred ideology, is usually kinda rough on law and order.

Point conceded. However, regional instability cannot be extrapolated to the world at large.

quote:

MattP:
The argument here seems to be that the report, from what's known of it, appears to contradict the administration claims that the Iraq war would result in a safer America/region/world. The fact that terrorism had been on the rise previous to the war is not relevant to that argument.

Of course you aren't going to think that a point is relevant if you've missed the point. The point is that, logically, no one can say what affect the Iraq war has had on the number of Muslim nut-cases in the world because that number had been growing or even exploding before we ever went into Iraq. The war might very well have increased the radical Muslim population but it could just as easily be responsible for reducing that population. Remember that a large number of the bad guys have been killed there and that Libya gave up its weapons after we invaded Iraq.

quote:

Liberal:
It's fairly simple, the admin. claimed fighting in Iraq would reduce international terrorism even in the short term...

Bzzzzzt. Another logical fallacy (straw man). The admin never claimed that deposing Saddam Hussein would reduce international terrorism. The reason given for deposing Saddam was made very clear: after 9/11 a dangerous regime that had a history of supporting terrorism could not be allowed to stand if it was not willing to prove that it didn't possess weapons that the world had ordered it to destroy.

You at least got it part right, it is fairly simple. Iraq was invaded only because it's leader refused to comply with numerous UN resolutions. If Saddam would've complied, there would've been no invasion of Iraq.

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I wonder if the report also shows (as best it can) that the world would have been safer than it is now if we hadn't invaded Iraq. For all we know we might be less safe now than we currently are if we hadn't gone in."

Hard to conduct such analysis in a broken laboratory.

"Do you suppose we'd be safer if we restricted our activities in Iraq to hunting down international terrorist groups in the country? Then the Iraqis would realize that the Sunni-Shiite fighting is their own fault."

Interesting concept. Right now, distinguishing civil war from al-qaeda opportunism from criminal warlord arm-wrestling from Sunni-Shiite conflict from foreign agents provocateur sabotage via the likes of Syria and Iran...

That's one tough cat to bell, especially since it must be identified in the midst of a Kilkenny cats gang bang.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's one tough cat to bell, especially since it must be identified in the midst of a Kilkenny cats gang bang.
And yet, the media seems to think it's been done, and are reporting on the issue as if it were. Odd, that?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't understand what you mean. When you say "it's been done", what is "it"? Civil war? IF so, I note that civil war is as good an over-arching description of rampant intra-social/cultural/national fighting as can be provided. It's not international war, after all. It's all in-state.

THe media I read doesn't say Iraq is in civil war; it reports statements by officials, including commanding generals, invoilved in the situation, who state that the trend, if not reversed, is toward civil war.

Meanwhile, a body count of 40K per annum begs some causus belli definition.

If we can't blame the violence on civil war, what CAN we blame it on? AN invasion by a foreign country?

Nah, that'd be silly...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am less concerned with partisan sniping then institutional sniping. For example, Powell promoted bureaucrats into positions that political appointees used to hold. The servants decided they knew policy better then their bosses. Hence the large number of leaks, petty comments released and critiques. Whether right or wrong, that is not their job.

Now, would such institutional sniping be common in 16 different agencies? Unlikely but we don't know how well this choir is at harmony. Additionally, how sore are these organizations at being left "holding the bag" on the Iraq War?

The question not being asked is "how expansive would the threat of terrorism be without our intervention in Iraq?" A case could be made it would in fact be worse. Look at the advances made when Clinton was focused on other issues (i.e. Israel and the Refugees). Inaction has it's own drawbacks.

[ September 25, 2006, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am reminded of an anecdote I heard regarding the State Department.

The Secretary of the State Department called in all his ambassadors to a meeting and asked them to point to the country they represented on the map.

They snickered and pointed to Kuwait, Switzerland, England et al.

The Secretary then walked up and pointed fully to the United States and said "THAT is the nation you represent".

I find that suggestive.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I don't understand what you mean. When you say "it's been done", what is "it"? Civil war? IF so, I note that civil war is as good an over-arching description of rampant intra-social/cultural/national fighting as can be provided. It's not international war, after all. It's all in-state.

THe media I read doesn't say Iraq is in civil war; it reports statements by officials, including commanding generals, invoilved in the situation, who state that the trend, if not reversed, is toward civil war.

Meanwhile, a body count of 40K per annum begs some causus belli definition.

If we can't blame the violence on civil war, what CAN we blame it on? AN invasion by a foreign country?

Nah, that'd be silly...

I was responding to you:

quote:
Right now, distinguishing civil war from al-qaeda opportunism from criminal warlord arm-wrestling from Sunni-Shiite conflict from foreign agents provocateur sabotage via the likes of Syria and Iran..
Does that clear things up?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
I am reminded of an anecdote I heard regarding the State Department.

The Secretary of the State Department called in all his ambassadors to a meeting and asked them to point to the country they represented on the map.

They snickered and pointed to Kuwait, Switzerland, England et al.

The Secretary then walked up and pointed fully to the United States and said "THAT is the nation you represent".

I find that suggestive.

I think they all left his office and rolled their eyes.

"What a clever man to ask a trick question! He really made me re-evaluate what I'm doing in my ambassadorship...maybe I should stop trying to advance Luxembourgh's agenda and try advancing America's..."

Duh...

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find that a silly ass trick question of the kind that hambone corporate motyivation/manager types pose at meetings that, typically, are of no more use than to remind employees who's in charge.

As if they didn't know.

Asked of me, I would have replied, "For or to?" and enjoyed the look of incomprehension on the boss's face.

"The question not being asked is "how expansive would the threat of terrorism be without our intervention in Iraq?" A case could be made it would in fact be worse. Look at the advances made when Clinton was focused on other issues (i.e. Israel and the Refugees). Inaction has it's own drawbacks."

And Israel isn't at the heart of Islamic terrorist concerns? Geez, Osama was LYING in that manifesto he wrote. The blaggard! And here he was, busy pursuing UN inspections to remove Saddam's WMD, and occasionally bombing the bugger to remind him who his Daddy was.

One thing I enjoy about you fly is how you do go 'round and 'round.

I have a lab/border collie mix. Taken to a local wheatfield, she immediately sniffs out a mousehole, and digs and digs and digs and digs and digs... several times. I;ve seen the mouse sneak out from an exit hole just a few feet away from her muzzle. If she weren't so convinced the mouse was where her nose was, buried in dirt being pulverized by her forepaws, she might have noticed where the hear of the matter actually was.

She has yet to catch a single field mouse.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And Israel isn't at the heart of Islamic terrorist concerns?"

It certainly is the most fashionable excuse.
It certainly is a hot button issue in INDONESIA! [Roll Eyes]

"She has yet to catch a single field mouse"

Nor have you. She does something and you sit back and mock. You are SO much better. Positively Clintonesque. [Wink]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar..
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It certainly is a hot button issue in INDONESIA"

Which in turn has such significant ties with Saddam and Iraq.

"a)She has yet to catch a single field mouse"

b) Nor have you. She does something and you sit back and mock. You are SO much better. Positively Clintonesque."

I'm the HUman God who dilgently takes her out into the woods so she can run free. I don't hunt mice myself, so I don't care myself as better or worse in that regard.

This has reached a new point of absurd humor. Amazing.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"What a clever man to ask a trick question! He really made me re-evaluate what I'm doing in my ambassadorship...maybe I should stop trying to advance Luxembourgh's agenda and try advancing America's..."
Wow, thank you Canadian. You have totally dispelled the concerns of institutional fossilization, ambassadors going native, being overtly influenced or forgetting who exactly IS boss. I can now walk with head high and figure my security is safe in the gentle hands of the State Department.

Now do you still want to play silly buggers?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Which in turn has such significant ties with Saddam and Iraq."

How many Indonesians can find Israel on a map without instructions from their local Madras. Yet they have terrorism. Amazing.

I'm sorry guys. I've hit the limit on my roll eyes function. Can you take it as a given?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wow, thank you Canadian. You have totally dispelled the concerns of institutional fossilization, ambassadors going native, being overtly influenced or forgetting who exactly IS boss. I can now walk with head high and figure my security is safe in the gentle hands of the State Department.

Now do you still want to play silly buggers?

Oh, I could go all day! Unfortunately, buggery isn't my bag, baby. Check your classifieds for a top.

It was an idiotic meeting. If the people in those posts are so fossilized and have forgotten the purpose of their post, much less their allegiance to the country, and a pithy little meeting is the best the Secretary of the State Department can come up with, then I would suggest the problem isn't the underlings.

Such a meeting apparently makes you feel safe.

I find that suggestive.

[ September 25, 2006, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How many Indonesians can find Israel on a map without instructions from their local Madras. Yet they have terrorism. Amazing."

O-KAYYYYY.... so we've established that Israel is not the ONLY complaintof, or causative/contributive factor to Islamic terrorism, particularly Islamic terrorism focused on the Untied States. That's nice, Jimmy. Extra credit homework is always welcome. Your parents must be proud of you.

"You have totally dispelled the concerns of institutional fossilization, ambassadors going native, being overtly influenced or forgetting who exactly IS boss. I can now walk with head high and figure my security is safe in the gentle hands of the State Department."

Wow, can. Didn't know you had it in you. Nor did I know that we hired such idiots in the State Department that they forgot who signs their checks. (As for those who become corrupted by foreign lobbying, I doubt that your instructive anecdote would register. A recitation of the penalties for treason, however, might occasionally be an effective motivation tool for reinforcing national loyalty.)

Fly, all that eye-rolling's getting you dizzy, methinks.

[ September 25, 2006, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by meworkingman:
quote:

DaveS:
Ok, are you arguing the opposite, then? Given the time, money, materiel, casualties, effect on global politics, etc., have we dealt with this metastasizing cancer effectively?

Good question. Actually, I'm not really arguing one way or the other. All I'm saying is that *no one* knows the affect the Iraq war has had on the number of nut-case Muslims in the world. As I said, that number has been growing for decades.

I don't claim to know that the Iraq war was a wise investment or not. However, I believed before we invaded Iraq (and still do) that treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue was a *huge* mistake. We're dealing with determined wackos that have one goal: to kill as many of us as possible. If we don't treat this as a war rather than a police action, our civilization is in trouble.

quote:

kenmeer:
Thats said, I note that invading a region and turning it upside down, even in the name of one's preferred ideology, is usually kinda rough on law and order.

Point conceded. However, regional instability cannot be extrapolated to the world at large.

quote:

MattP:
The argument here seems to be that the report, from what's known of it, appears to contradict the administration claims that the Iraq war would result in a safer America/region/world. The fact that terrorism had been on the rise previous to the war is not relevant to that argument.

Of course you aren't going to think that a point is relevant if you've missed the point. The point is that, logically, no one can say what affect the Iraq war has had on the number of Muslim nut-cases in the world because that number had been growing or even exploding before we ever went into Iraq. The war might very well have increased the radical Muslim population but it could just as easily be responsible for reducing that population. Remember that a large number of the bad guys have been killed there and that Libya gave up its weapons after we invaded Iraq.

quote:

Liberal:
It's fairly simple, the admin. claimed fighting in Iraq would reduce international terrorism even in the short term...

Bzzzzzt. Another logical fallacy (straw man). The admin never claimed that deposing Saddam Hussein would reduce international terrorism. The reason given for deposing Saddam was made very clear: after 9/11 a dangerous regime that had a history of supporting terrorism could not be allowed to stand if it was not willing to prove that it didn't possess weapons that the world had ordered it to destroy.

You at least got it part right, it is fairly simple. Iraq was invaded only because it's leader refused to comply with numerous UN resolutions. If Saddam would've complied, there would've been no invasion of Iraq.

No, Bush said many times that deposing Saddam would reduce terrorism because of all the phony links he made between Saddam and Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that Saddam was supposedly aiding, funding and even equipping. In addition to this the admin. claimed that under Saddam Iraq was a large base of operations for terrorist groups, a claim Cheney made several times. We found out that it was quite the opposite, that terrorism in Iraq has INCREASED post GW2 and that terrorists are setting up shop there that had never been there before. It also affords them a new base of operations in a chaotic country devoid of law and order by which to launch attacks into other countries, such as the North America and Europe, among others.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Point conceded. However, regional instability cannot be extrapolated to the world at large."

THank heaven for sdmall favors. Otherwise, Iraqi instability might spread around the globe.

"a) It's fairly simple, the admin. claimed fighting in Iraq would reduce international terrorism even in the short term...

b) Bzzzzzt. Another logical fallacy (straw man). The admin never claimed that deposing Saddam Hussein would reduce international terrorism. The reason given for deposing Saddam was made very clear: after 9/11 a dangerous regime that had a history of supporting terrorism could not be allowed to stand if it was not willing to prove that it didn't possess weapons that the world had ordered it to destroy."

This would come under the rubric of fighting/reducing/destroying terrorism. You know: dangerous regime, WMDs, supporting terrorism. Not to mention nukular mushroom clouds over NYC.

Your mama sure dresses you funny. Oh, you put those on yourself? Oh... nice. Very nice. Love the bow tie.

Yes, I know that's rude of me. Normally, I bite my tongue more than not. This is a not. The obvious self-contradiction in your statement just seems so... well, anyway, LOVE the propellor beanie. Makes that groovy "Bzzzzzt" sound.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kenmeer's Observation on Straw Men:

if they're so inconsequential, why do we so consistently and vigorously point them out?

After all, the best way to deal with a decoy is to ignore it.

Maybe we just like running a lance through a pretend enemy?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A further note: one would think that the adminstration DId claim that invading Iraq would reduce local terrorism?

That it hasn't reduced local terrorism but has, instead, increased same, was then portrayed by some supporters of the war as a benefit: we were using Iraq as a magnet to atract terrorists and would kill them there. In other words, we would take terrorists from abroad, i.e., international terrorists, and lure them into Iraq and finish them there.

At which point even the circuar argument in this logic derails and simply spirals out of control...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
Tommy, I have waited this past hour on this field of honour, and thou didst not show. Therefore thou art proven craven this day, and all gentlemen knowing this will hold your opinion in contempt. Thus my honour is satisfied.

Tom Curtis [Big Grin] [Razz]

I was at school

I am dishonored [Frown]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The dog ate my rapier.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He always was a thorny bugger...a little shar pei, right?

[ September 25, 2006, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why do you ask, Little Prick?" [Wink]
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Go ahead, steel my jokes. Anneal before your wit.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I dub thee Sir Laffalot.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You two are OC today.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tommy, kenmeer, Canadian, ROFL
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm stupid: what's OC? I too want to ROFLMAO. Help?

[ September 25, 2006, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
meworkingman:

quote:
1) No one has any idea what the report says but are still quite willing to draw conclusions. Does no one notice the irony of people who condemn the administration for making judgements on supposedly "cherry picked" intelligence, while enthusiastically reaching conclusions on little-to-no information?
1) The NYT reported a leak of some of the conclusions of the report, and interviewed "more than a dozen people" who had either participated in preparing the report or who had read the report. Granted the NYT could be just flat out lying, but those of us who don't base their beliefs on convenient fantasies have a fair idea of some of the conclusions of the report.

2) Beyond that, the whole discussion to date has been pointing out that, we don't know the facts behind the report itself, that we don't know that all 16 agencies agreed with the report, that the report reportedly does not adress how likely are attacks on US soil, that in consequence it is consistent with the report that US citizens are in fact safer despite the increase in terrorist groups. These are all points I have personally made. I find it difficult to view it as "cherry picking" the data when the majority of the discussion has focussed on clearly indicating what the report has not told us.

quote:
2) I'm surprised at the irrationality of this entire thread. Does no one on this thread not recognize when they are committing the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy? So the number of radical Islamists has risen since the Iraq war started (even though we don't know that the report says this, I'll just join the party and assume it)? Duh!
1) According to the NYT, the report says exactly that the increase of "the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks." (See below for more relevant extracts from the NYT article.)

2) As I have said, I predicted the increase of terrorism as a consequence of the Iraq war, and I was certainly not alone. To do so, I used a very simple model. I assume that on any subject there is a spread of opinion. If you take the range of those who love the US to those who hate it, then the terrorists will come from the extreme range of those who hate America. Less extreme will be a larger group who hates America, but not as much. Beyond that a larger group still who are indifferent, then a group who like America, and then a group of true Ameriphiles. Any action that tends to shift opinion will effect the size of these groups. If it shifts opinion against America, then some who hated it will start to hate it enough to take up arms; and some who didn't hate America will start to hate America. That's much simplified, but that's the gist.

Now how do you think the war in Iraq has effected opinion of America in the Middle East? What about Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? You don't have to guess, opinion polls have been taken and the answer is clear. Pre 9/11, 75% of Indonesians had a favourable attitude to America. In 2006 that has reduced to 30%. Pre Iraq war, 25% of Jordanians were favourable to the US. In the immediate aftermath, that dropped to 1%. (It has since recovered, but has started to drop again.) In Turkey, pre 9/11 52% of Turks favoured the US. That dropped to 15% post invasion, recovered durring 2004 and 2005 when Iraq seemed to be stabilizing, but has plummetted back down 12%.

Each of those negative shifts represents an increase of ease in recruiting terrorists. It represents a greater liklihood that some new group will form in order to attack the US or its allies. And we know the reason for those shifts in attitudes because the people tell us, in letters the editors, interviews and polls. And the two biggest reasons at the moment are Iraq and Palestine.

To imagine that this is not how it works is bizzare. Do you think support for aggression against Islamic nations rose in America as a result of 9/11? Of course it did, because Americans are human. But because moslems are humans too, percieved attacks against Islam or Islamic nations increase support for violent action against America. That is human nature.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

quote:
An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.


More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.


Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ya gotta unnastan, TC: we're right and they're wrong. We just gotta keep killin' 'em until they see it [Wink]

[ September 25, 2006, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
meworkingman:

(not in order of appearance)

quote:
You at least got it part right, it is fairly simple. Iraq was invaded only because it's leader refused to comply with numerous UN resolutions. If Saddam would've complied, there would've been no invasion of Iraq.
It is hard to understand how you could get this so wrong. While Iraq had been non-compliant for a long time before the invasion, at the time of the invasion, Iraq was fully cooperating with the inspectors, according to the inspectors. In only one area had the inspectors found evidence of non-compliance on WMD, and that was a rocket which in test firings without a payload was found to have a range a few percent over the permissable limit. In the weeks just prior to the invasion, Iraq was establishing a world first by destroying those rockets, even though it was almost certain (was certian IMO) that the US would invade. In other words, Iraq was so compliant that at UN direction, they were destroying weapons that would be needed for its own defence in just a few weeks.

Whatever the pros and cons of the invasion of Iraq, non-compliance with UN resolutions was NOT the reason for it.

quote:
The point is that, logically, no one can say what affect the Iraq war has had on the number of Muslim nut-cases in the world because that number had been growing or even exploding before we ever went into Iraq.
Don't you mean the number of Moslem radicals has been growing even before we went into Iraq for the second time. Even ignoring Israel, since the first Gulf War there have been a number of factors increasing ME disapproval of America, including the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the no fly zones and ongoing bombing of Iraq, and the sanctions against Iraq.

That minor point aside, based on anecdotal evidence , the increase in militancy since the invasion of Iraq has been much greater than what preceded it. Just ask the poms if you don't believe me.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jon Camp,

quote:
I find it interesting that since it's "against Bush" that these intelligence agencies are all believed now, yet when all 16 were *also* in agreement that Iraq either had or was on the verge of having WMD's and we acted on that and found them to be wrong that that was somehow Bush's fault for listening to "faulty intelligence."
Which agreement are you refering to prior to invasion? The information I read both before the invasion and after stated that the agencys believed that he did not have, nor was on the verge of having WMD's.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1