Okay you little pin-head, who wasn't even out of diapers when the Cold War ended...

Your earlier-posted tripe:
Any other inane tripe you want to post?

I'm not saying he didn't have the funds or the weapons, I'm saying it was financial idiocy to rely on selling them to terrorists. There was a fat chance that he would directly use them on the United States because we could trace them back (and maybe even from the terrorist's information), and he had little buyers for the merchandise, so what was the next best thing to use them for? Muscle. It was for protection from Iran because, remember, they still weren't on good terms from, oh, say the invasion of the latter's country & senseless loss of life.

So now you're running away from what you said earlier.

Did I hear a fart?

WTF? I just said that Iraq had the weapons, but not the connections, or even a motive. He used his weapons, but on his own people. Never did he use them against the United States or any other nation. Well, I don't know if he used them on Iran or not, but the point is that they were never a threat to the United States.

And no, that's not a fart. That's a sucking sound. Hear the intelligence getting sucked out of this conversation?

Again it seems that some rules are only to be applied according to US requirements. WIll the US EVER ALLOW inspectors into sensitive installations?? Or will it EVER comply with all UN resolutions.. YOu know like the Geneva convention??

Outrage at somebody who acts the EXACT SAME WAY as one self is merely hypocrisy.. nothing more and nothing less.

YOU can cry on about how crazy saddam was, but fact is that he is responsible for fewer deaths the world over than the US during his reign. I say this because the Iran/Iraq war of the 80s was 10 times bloodier becaue the US was lining its pockets by selling weapons to both sides.

It's easier to call others evil than it is to review ones own actions isn't it?

If I recall some years previously Iraq was the invader of another country. That country and several countries in that region requested American assistance. Many young men and women still suffer the effects of coming to the recuse when babies were literally being dumped out of incubators.

Iraq went to war against another nation. That nation they attacked requested help. Iraq's dictator lost.

Going back further than that incident Iraq was considered to be an ally. To bad that dictator decided to use chemicals on his own people. Were those people considered at all? Those thousand upon thousands that were mass murdered or am I missing something here.

It is obvious from Pakistan you as well as many others need to get on over there and tell them all how to make peace with one another and live in harmony. Can we offer you assistance with a plane ticket or something?

Good point .. however:

1) This thread is about the consequences of the Iraq war. Entering into armed conflict on obviously dubious grounds created more terrorists.

2) Whatever type of bastard Saddam was, he was instrumental in making Iraq a ME power AS WELL as maintaining some semblance of peace and cohesion in the area. This was done by keeping the country SECULAR. Iraq was a secular dictatorship under saddam.

3) If the US was all as altruistic as it would like to appear, then Saddam should have been toppled during the first gulf war.. There are a few intersting facts here though.. PRIMARILY the fact that this first gulf war was a war to re-install the hereditary and fundamentalistic dictator of Kuwait.

4) You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in stating that the muslim communities in the world ought to pull themselves together and get a hold of Iraq.. However it is not that easy because:
a) Iraq is a desperate country with desperate people. Speaking peace to desperate people is not of any use until their desperation is dealt with.
b) The "Islamic" front is NOT a cohesive unit as many westerners would like to believe. Apart from sectarian violence, there is a huge divergence in how the sects wish to handle the problem internally. Some favor a violent primitive "jihad" situation, where others wish for a more consensual peace.
c) Terrorism against the US is fueled by different reasons than sectarian violence. EVERY PARTY agrees that the US is an invader and an interloper that has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. This is not a criticism as much as a statement of Iraqi perception. Whether the perception is just or unjust is a different matter. the FACT is the the US is considered the evil invader.
d) THe hypothesis presented in this thread is that the Iraq war has INCREASED the amount of terrorism in the world. Well in order to prove that, one has merely to view the stated purpose of most terrorists. A MAJOR reason for any terrorist activity is always given as the US invasion of A sovereign muslim nation.

THat is not a thesis.. that is a FACT. Alqaeda has TONS of reasons to give to disillusioned muslim youths to convert them to the jihadi cause. Anti-Americanism has always been a cornerstone of jihadi support. And i don't think the US can give much more proof to confirm the anger and prejudice of the terrorists.

It is a self-affirming cycle. Terrorists do bad because the US is following"imperialist" policies.. US retaliates in an imperialist manner.. Alqaeda screams to the high heaven and presents ACTUAL US POLICY as reason for a muslim youth to blow himself up. Youth blows himself up and the cycle repeats itself.

NO doubt that the solution lies in adherence to peace on both sides. But there is a marked difference:

Terrorists are a social phenomena, produced by social conditions. It is an unstructured phenomena, that is only PARTIALLY controlled by OBL. US foreign policy however is a centralized decision that is followed by a cohesive unit called the US government. Since a well-organized central government is the easier place to initiate change, that is what must be done.

A shift in US policy will improve conditions in the ME. That in turn will provide fewer recruitment slogans for AQ. Fewer recruits means fewer bombs which means fewer terrorist attacks which means less fear which means reduced effectiveness of terrorist tactics which means a reduction of AQ power whcih eventually means that a NEW FRONR will emerge.. The peaceful moderate muslim front.

That front on the other hand CAN NEVER EMERGE until AQ stops monopolising the right to voice complaints to the US. This can only happen is moderate muslims feel that their grievances will be heard and dealt with fairly on a proper platform.

The US cannot win anything if it attempts to IMPOSE "peace, democracy and the american way" on people. It can only win if the "muslims" accept it in their hearts. And NOTHING will be accepted in ANYBODY's hearts as long as the US is bombing their cities and incarcerating their citizens.

In as much as they should have taken Iraq at the Gulf war, should have could have it did not happen.

4) "You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in stating that the muslim communities in the world ought to pull themselves together and get a hold of Iraq.. However it is not that easy because:
a) Iraq is a desperate country with desperate people. Speaking peace to desperate people is not of any use until their desperation is dealt with."

Someone elses desperation can not be blamed on the American people. As much as you or anyone else would like to blame Americans for the rest of the worlds problems. It still remains that those problems existed long before. Heck if America does not get involved we are blamed for standing by and doing nothing.

It is really easy to attempt to lay your problems off on another country. A pre existing problem was a problem prior to America being asked by some of these secretarian groups to help because they were being wiped out and like diseases that hate was spreading. It came into our borders and destroyed our citizen. That was an act of war on a nation that did not want war. So since the lack of being a "cohesive unit" as you call it, part of your religious sects started a war. Now you wish to blame this whole situation on the victim of "Islamic" "jihad" extremist. If you cannot get a handle on it how can you blame America for not getting a handle on it as quickly as you would like?

b) The "Islamic" front is NOT a cohesive unit as many westerners would like to believe. Apart from sectarian violence, there is a huge divergence in how the sects wish to handle the problem internally. Some favor a violent primitive "jihad" situation, where others wish for a more consensual peace.


The word "hypothesis" states it all. It is only a matter of slighted opinion.

Ben Ladin was merely an unhappy rich Arab. Since he did not want to start a war against his own family he used his money and influence to create hatred towards American citizens that merely wish to live in peace and take care of their own families. That is fact.


Since there are "disillusioned muslim youths" then
"The peaceful moderate muslim front" needs to put more effort into a solution.

"That front on the other hand CAN NEVER EMERGE until AQ stops monopolising the right to voice complaints to the US. This can only happen is moderate muslims feel that their grievances will be heard and dealt with fairly on a proper platform.

The US cannot win anything if it attempts to IMPOSE "peace, democracy and the american way" on people. It can only win if the "muslims" accept it in their hearts. And NOTHING will be accepted in ANYBODY's hearts as long as the US is bombing their cities and incarcerating their citizens."

Come up with a plan then to stop the hatred and killing. Spouting against Americans only creates another avenue of distrust. Keep in mind it was the people on our soil were attacked first.

Regardless of how "moderate Muslims" feel if you cared about peace you would start working towards that now for the sake of your children and grandchildren. You don't spew out hatred at people who really could have cared less what you did prior to the time they were attacked. Most people in America (98%) go to work each and day to simply take care of their own families. In America on a whole that (98%) even takes care of each other by providing health and welfare programs for the poor and needy. Regardless of how you veiw it, that is the way it is here.

I hate as much as anybody to see on videos seemingly innocent peoples houses being searched for weapons. Those few I have seen on video were necessary in Iraq due to the terrorist take over in villages. How would you propose the men and women being shot at by militants react? Do you have a better proposal or solution?

The other option would be pull out fully and let the innocent there in Iraq be taken over by the violent. Is that what you want?