1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are the Iraqis really terrorists?

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Techie2000, Nov 23, 2002.

  1. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    You know what, I've been hearing about this whole war with Iraq. I know that Saddam is a nutball and they probably have weapons of mass destruction. But aren't we going after them because of the war on terror? Where are the Iraqi terrorists? Besides fueling money what terrorist actions have these Iraqis been involved with? And besides that, where is Saudi Arabia? I hear that a couple 9/11 hijackers are from there...

    Don't misunderstand me, I'm not completely against attacking Iraq, but I just don't understand the link between terrorism.
     
  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Iraq was behind at least two terrorist plots. One, the 1993 WTC bombing and the attempted assassination of Bush Sr.

    Now we are getting evidence that they may have provided some of the training of the 9/11 attacks. That comes from the former head of their intelligence arm.
     
  3. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    The Iraqis or more correctly, Saddam, is being pursued for two broad reasons. As Shiny pointed out they have been behind terrorist attacks already. Secondly, and the one that gets the most media play, is the WMD.

    That leaves your point re the Saudis. They are becoming more and more of a concern as details of their level of involvement in terroristism become known. The royals are playing the fine line between supporting the west and coping with extremist groups in their society. With the bad health of the head of the royals, there is bound to be a scrap for power once he dies given there are so many waiting in the wings for an opportinity to jump a step or two up the status ladder. The outcome of this will be a major influence on the politics of the whole region.
     
  4. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    IMO, you' d have to add "they're a static target"

    I can't imagine any government who wouldn't prefer to go after the active agents as primary targets rathers than the backers/suppliers.

    But active agents are, by nature, hard to locate; a country isn't. When you can't find one, the other will do. Not as effective, but it does make a noticeable dent in the active agent's ability to create havoc.
     
  5. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Also for your own knowledge Techie, do a Google for "Kurds Black Sunday".
     
  6. immortal one

    immortal one 501st Geronimo

    Saddam is a priority because there are those who want what he has. Eventually, we'll not only have control the flow of his <I>black blood</I> we'll also have military bases there.

    Don't believe it?

    Following the bombing of Iraq in 1991 the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

    After the bombing of Yugoslavia, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.

    After the recent bombing of Afghanistan, the United States winds up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia.

    57 years after the end of WW2, and we still have major military bases in Japan and Germany. 49 years after the Korean War ended, and the US military is still in Korea.

    It's plain to see.
    We want the Caspian reserves, and we want the Pakistani-Afghani route to the Indian Ocean. It's not a secret. In fact, the American oil barons have testified before Congress to that effect. We want to keep Russia and Iran out of the picture. We also want the second largest reserve on the planet, which lies under the dunes in Iraq. When we take out Saddam and install our puppets as we did in Afghanistan, certain oil companies who have friends in the highest places can then move in, and we can add another country plus a few more bases.

    It's called Empire Building. The Pentagon calls it "Full Spectrum Dominance".

    ...and it's all about Saddam? Yeah, right.
     
  7. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Hmm.....it couldn't be that there is another reason to this? It is nice to pick the theory you want and then find the facts that fit them. What about our bases in Grenada, Haiti, Liberia, Lebanon, Somalia, Philippines? Wait none of those areas we developed new bases. Maybe we had the bases in the area's after the Gulf War because there was unfinished business there, like the no fly zones.

    Lets look at the so called bases in Hungary, wait they are a NATO ally. Those other bases, recently within the last ten years have experienced the aggression of their Serbian neighbors.

    Lets also look at the recent bases in and around the Afghanistan area, a place where there are on going military operations. Funny I don't remember us grabbing the land, I believe the soverign govenments of those countries agreed to allow us the use of those basis in return for rent. Darn nice of them and not something that we required them to do, maybe they don't particularily like terrorists either.

    As to the situation in Germany many military planners are looking into turning those bases over to strict NATO control or moving the man power and material elsewhere. The situation in Korea is that there is only an armistice in place, there has been no treaty signed nor anything which prevents the North Koreans from stepping across the line again, but for the existance of those bases.

    Yes, it is about oil but only minorly, the major concern about the oil is that the oil supply is free to flow and not be used as an economic weapon against our country. But hey your entitled to your explaination its a free country, just ignore the contradictions in your opinions or come up with another reason to deny them, it really doesn't matter cause your not making those decisions for our country.
     
  8. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    I think this simple statement is paradoxical in its power.

    People for months have been asking why Iraq and the conclusive answer is that in order for psychological factor to play a role for the American people, one must have a static target.

    America's wars have always had that, even in the unpopular ones such as the Vietnam war. However, the last war with Iraq was even concrete, and divided by a simple line in the sand.

    Terrorism has no concrete footing, it doesn't even have a target. America does not like being with this type of enemy because they have been preparing for decades for Soviet Union, China, or even North Korea. This is a new beast for the US.

    Why I think your statement is assertive and final is because that answer alone will get you on a good footing in understanding the motivational factor for the US military. I do not believe in the simple answer of oil, or that Bush wants his revenge for his father. I think that Iraq became a target around 11-9, if you follow the news media around the world, the decibal level of the rhetoric for the Iraqi war has been raised and if there was a chart graph, one would see a very large spike around 11-9.
     
  9. immortal one

    immortal one 501st Geronimo

    Sure Jim. There could be another reason and explanation for all of this. I too, would love to believe the good side, and see the glass as half-full, but I look around at the state of affairs in our country, and in the world, and I just can't see the proof that it's all done solely out of the pure goodness of our hearts.

    It's about power. We have it. We want more.

    About the other things, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I really do. Perhaps then, I can go back to seeing the glass as half-full.
     
  10. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    Thanks for the information everyone. And immortal one, it seems that Texas is getting at least a little bigger every day...
     
  11. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Come on, Immortal One...the bases in ROK are to prevent the DPRK from coming across the DMZ, and the bases in Japan are for reinforcements. They also serve as a possible containment apparatus against China, should the PRC elect to become more militarily active in the area.

    SM
     

Share This Page