This is my 2nd post in the pdd, so please be gentle. This may have been addressed before, but what the hell.

My father and I were talking about Iraq and the terrorist threat. His point was that the real reason(at least his theory ) for having troops in Iraq is to focus all terrorist forces against our troops, not our homeland. Why stay here and let them attack us when we can give them a target (one that has the ability to defend itself properly)? Isn't the entire purpose of our army to protect and serve? What better way to do it than act as a decoy, taking the punches for the country you fight for? I think it's a revolutionary defense strategy...

Anyway, I'd like to hear some other perspectives. -BB

___________________
djbenbrown.com

quote:

Originally posted by Benjamin B This is my 2nd post in the pdd, so please be gentle. This may have been addressed before, but what the hell. My father and I were talking about Iraq and the terrorist threat. His point was that the real reason(at least his theory ) for having troops in Iraq is to focus all terrorist forces against our troops, not our homeland. Why stay here and let them attack us when we can give them a target (one that has the ability to defend itself properly)? Isn't the entire purpose of our army to protect and serve? What better way to do it than act as a decoy, taking the punches for the country you fight for? I think it's a revolutionary defense strategy... Anyway, I'd like to hear some other perspectives. -BB

Oh boy. This is not going to be purty.

That's an interesting theory, but I don't think it's anything more than that. Opus is gonna have a field day...

quote:

Originally posted by Benjamin B This is my 2nd post in the pdd, so please be gentle. This may have been addressed before, but what the hell. My father and I were talking about Iraq and the terrorist threat. His point was that the real reason(at least his theory ) for having troops in Iraq is to focus all terrorist forces against our troops, not our homeland. Why stay here and let them attack us when we can give them a target (one that has the ability to defend itself properly)? Isn't the entire purpose of our army to protect and serve? What better way to do it than act as a decoy, taking the punches for the country you fight for? I think it's a revolutionary defense strategy... Anyway, I'd like to hear some other perspectives. -BB

heres another perspective. YOU CREATED THOSE TERRORISTS

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Benjamin B This is my 2nd post in the pdd, so please be gentle. This may have been addressed before, but what the hell. My father and I were talking about Iraq and the terrorist threat. His point was that the real reason(at least his theory ) for having troops in Iraq is to focus all terrorist forces against our troops, not our homeland. Why stay here and let them attack us when we can give them a target (one that has the ability to defend itself properly)? Isn't the entire purpose of our army to protect and serve? What better way to do it than act as a decoy, taking the punches for the country you fight for? I think it's a revolutionary defense strategy... Anyway, I'd like to hear some other perspectives. -BB

I've heard that said before, but only as a joke. I don't think that's why they are there at all. Plus, its not like ALL the terrorists are concentrated there anyway, there are still gonna be cells in just about every country in the world planning and scheming

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King heres another perspective. YOU CREATED THOSE TERRORISTS

Because they have no self-control, correct? They just do what they're programmed to do. They clearly cannot think for themselves, let alone deal with any consequences of their actions.

Last edited by Shakka on Mar-03-2005 at 18:29

quote:

Originally posted by Benjamin B This is my 2nd post in the pdd, so please be gentle. This may have been addressed before, but what the hell. My father and I were talking about Iraq and the terrorist threat. His point was that the real reason(at least his theory ) for having troops in Iraq is to focus all terrorist forces against our troops, not our homeland. Why stay here and let them attack us when we can give them a target (one that has the ability to defend itself properly)? Isn't the entire purpose of our army to protect and serve? What better way to do it than act as a decoy, taking the punches for the country you fight for? I think it's a revolutionary defense strategy... Anyway, I'd like to hear some other perspectives. -BB

Hi Ben,

A little pressed for time today, but I think that this rationale is not only a bit scary, but a bit flawed as well.

First the scary part-

-I've argued in the past that if indeed there were ulterior motives or rationales for us actually going to Iraq, why didn't the President feel compelled to level with us about his true intentions, such as the hypothetical you've mentioned, rather than attempt to pursuade us that:

1. Saddam has WMD pointed at our heads
2. Saddam has ties to Al-Qaeda and 9/11
3. Saddam needs to be removed for humanitarian purposes
4. Removing Saddam is part of a broader geopolitical move based on an ideological conviction of forcing democracy across the globe, with force if necessary

If your father was to argue the position that we're there to divert terrorists away from out borders, then the following 4 rationales which have been used to sell the war to Congress and the US citizens must be dismissed, regardless of whether or not you even agree with those 4 rationales. So the question really would be - why would these 4 rationales even be sold to the US in the first place if our true intentions were otherwise?

And I think what’s more important to ask, or actually demand:

Don’t our troops have a right to know this true motive as well? Do they not have a right to know that they’re giving their lives up to supposedly “thwart terrorism” away from our own borders, rather than search and disarm Saddam’s WMD, give humanitarian support, and promote democracy in the Arab region? IOW, why the fuck would we lie or obfuscate our true motives to the men and women who are fighting this war? I have spoken to several men and women who've fought over in Iraq, and none have mentioned this hypothetical rationale of your father for their reason and purpose for being there.

And yes, of course the purpose of our military is to protect us, but folks such as the National Guard are to protect our Nation by fighting within our borders. This is exactly what Vermont is arguing, quite successfully I might add:

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1...2736476,00.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...thenation/12234
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/n.../02vermont.html

And while the rest of the military's duty is to protect us, they protect us if we are somehow provoked in some way, shape, or form. Even if I were to agree with the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, which philosophically I do but in detail I do not, the rationale and evidence supporting pre-emption should always be sound and supported. This was clearly not the case with WMD, as well as any collaberative ties to Al-Qaeda or Saddam's involvement with 9/11 (which is none, BTW), and this was EXACTLY what was sold to us.

-Now the logical flaw:

A common misconception that many Republicans sell themselves on is we’re fighting terrorists in Iraq so they don’t come over here. Let’s examine this flaw a bit further:

1. There was no evidence that Iraq was in collaborative cooperation with the terrorists that actually attacked us (al-Qaeda), according to both the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the 9/11 Commission Report. Therefore to claim that invading Iraq to fend off al-Qaeda here is fallacious. This may not address your statement, since our supposed goal may be to actually attract terrorists to the region. Nevertheless I think the historical link, or lackthereof is important to address.

2. Al-Qaeda are now in Iraq, ONLY because of our invasion and occupation, and not prior to. Unfortunately the CIA has concluded in their most recent intelligence briefing that our occupation is INCREASING the terrorist activity and supporters. Now you might say that this doesn’t necessarily negate your father’s claim of warding off terrorists here, however-

3. What intelligence or direct (hell even indirect) evidence logically entails that fighting terrorists in a country that once did not harbor them will somehow keep them away from attacking us? In fact, as a direct result of our actions, it’s not just the numbers of terrorists and their sympathizers are going up in Iraq, but elsewhere around the world. I’ve written about this a few times in the past, but you could read a pretty long but detailed article on this in the LATimes here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ist+recruitment

I’m not saying that killing and capturing terrorists is necessarily bad in any way. But I liken such a hypothetical to, say, our current war on drugs. Sure we may get lucky and catch a few tons of coke, catch onto a link in a major drug cartel, and put a minor dent in a drug ring every now and then. But clearly our government no longer kids themselves that such actions does anything to really hamper the drug trade in any manner. Similar to the situation in Iraq – we may capture or kill terrorists, and that’s definitely a good thing. But we’d be kidding ourselves if we were to really believe, given the current intelligence, that such captures really hamper the global terrorist threat in any way.

4. Al-Qaeda’s attack, according to our intelligence, took anywhere between 3-5 years to plan. Now granted, we have taken better security measures, though it’s pretty reasonable to suggest that a great deal more can and must occur. However, what intelligence do we have that directly demonstrates that we have successfully thwarted off AQ from penetrating our borders for another attack, esp. one on the 9/11 type scale? So far I have seen none.

5. Our actions in Iraq have done absolutely nothing to address and attack the guy who actually did attack us on 9/11 – bin Laden. If anything we’ve completely diverted our attention away from bin Laden and AQ, whom are likely hiding in Pakistan or along the Pakistani/Afghan border where bin Laden garners much support. Since we seemingly have a strange and ironic allied relationship with Pakistan at the moment, this really muddies the waters a bit as to how on earth we’ll ever address this problem. And by all intelligence indicators, the Taliban is continuing to regroup as the Warlords continue to really be the rulers of Afghanistan, but I digress.

So I think your father’s hypothetical is interesting, but I must respectfully disagree that this was our Administration’s true intentions.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Benjamin B This is my 2nd post in the pdd, so please be gentle. This may have been addressed before, but what the hell. My father and I were talking about Iraq and the terrorist threat. His point was that the real reason(at least his theory ) for having troops in Iraq is to focus all terrorist forces against our troops, not our homeland. Why stay here and let them attack us when we can give them a target (one that has the ability to defend itself properly)? Isn't the entire purpose of our army to protect and serve? What better way to do it than act as a decoy, taking the punches for the country you fight for? I think it's a revolutionary defense strategy... Anyway, I'd like to hear some other perspectives. -BB

your dad would be correct if there were a finite number of global fighters and they numbered about 20,000, but that is not the case.

most of the insurgents fighting in iraq would not be there if it weren't for the us presence there (i'm guessing). so i agree with CK, many iraqis and non iraqis were politicized by the US presence there, so much that they took up arms.

other more dedicated fighters would clearly see through such transparent tactics so i don't think its part of a larger strategy. a better strategy (cheaper in costs and lives) would have been to support a civil war or something the like. but using such a stragey would not gain the US control and a foothold in the ME so it would be a non starter.

in short, this war has nothing to do with battling 'terrorists' or 'spreading democracy' or finding 'weapons of mass destruction'. how quickly we forget about those WMD's.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

Beleaguered PDD conservatives/neocons reinforcements have arrived

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Because they have no self-control, correct? let alone deal with any consequences of their actions.

That's a more accurate description of our goverment.

Good post, Opus.

Ben, I think that this is the crux of it all right here:

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 2. Al-Qaeda are now in Iraq, ONLY because of our invasion and occupation, and not prior to.

The reason for this is two fold. The first is that foreign insurgents (led primarily by Abu Musab Zarqawi) have taken advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq to attack western military forces. They were not in Iraq beforehand and they would not be in Iraq now if it wasn't for the said power vacuum left in the wake of the deposed Baathist government. If they were not in Iraq now, would they be conspiring to attack the American homeland? Certainly conceivable, but you'd have to question whether they'd have the means or even the will to, considering the organisation that would be required and the difficulty of launching an attack on the US with its heightened security.

Even if it could be demonstrated that Zarqawi would, given the opportunity, attack the US, as Mr. Opus pointed out:

quote:

What intelligence or direct (hell even indirect) evidence logically entails that fighting terrorists in a country that once did not harbor them will somehow keep them away from attacking us?

Firstly, the number of foreign insurgents in Iraq is just a small percentage of total number of individuals associated with the al Qaeda group. If al Qaeda wished to commit a terrorist act on US soil, they would still have the numbers to do so, while still fighting in Iraq. Secondly, given recent news about communications between bin Laden and Zarqawi, there may well be no obstruction to those currently in Iraq planning an attack on the US at the same time:

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. intelligence has intercepted a communication from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq that "reiterates the desire by al Qaeda to target the homeland," U.S. officials have said. [...] One government official told CNN the message indicated a desire for al-Zarqawi to expand operations outside Iraq. [...] [Outgoing Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson] told CNN, "It reminds us that al Qaeda is serious about the United States, and because they're concentrating in other arenas in the world does not mean they've diminished their desire to attack the United States."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/2...=cnn_topstories

However, the most important thing to remember in all this is that the foreign insurgents (the so-called "terrorists" linked to al Qaeda and other extremist groups) make up just a small fraction of the total Iraqi insurgency.

Estimates put the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at less than 1,000:

quote:

In a TV interview Sunday, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, estimated that the number of foreign fighters in Iraq was below 1,000.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0928-21.htm

quote:

Though the Bush administration has maintained that attacks are the work of "regime dead-enders" and foreign infiltrators, hard empirical evidence – often from the U.S. military forces – indicates that the foreign element is minuscule. Evidence which shows that of 8,000 suspected insurgents detained in Iraq, only 127 hold foreign passports, supports this latter claim.

http://www.jamestown.org/publicatio...&&issue_id=3047

Consider this in the context of the overall insurgency, which could number anywhere between 40,000 and 200,000:

quote:

Baghdad - Iraq's insurgency counts more than 200,000 active fighters and sympathisers, the country's national intelligence chief told AFP, in the bleakest assessment to date of the armed revolt waged by Sunni Muslims. "I think the resistance is bigger than the US military in Iraq. I think the resistance is more than 200,000 people," Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani said in an interview ahead of the January 30 elections. Shahwani said the number includes at least 40,000 hardcore fighters but rises to more than 200,000 members counting part-time fighters and volunteers who provide rebels everything from intelligence and logistics to shelter.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010405W.shtml

These are Iraqi nationals who clearly would not pose any threat to US citizens had the invasion not taken place.

In any case, regardless of your feelings on the war, I think it would be difficult to say, with any sincerity, that this war has spared more American lives than it has taken away.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Mar-04-2005 at 00:04

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King heres another perspective. YOU CREATED THOSE TERRORISTS

Here's another. THEY WERE ALREADY THERE.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

I don't want to get into this thread as you guys all apparently type much quicker then me.

But I did want to point out how I think it is funny, ironic, what you will, that some of the same people who are/were arguing that the USA military, the mightiest military this world has ever seen, the military of the biggest defense spender on earth, the military of the sole remaining superpower, had somehow overexerted itself by sending 200,000 troops to Iraq and are now the same people now that are arguing that Al Q )which is estimated to have no more than 20,000 - 40,000 men) are not overexerting themselves in Iraq.

I just find that very paradoxical. That is all.

(boy that was one long sentance).

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.