RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Iraq has become the front for fighting terrorism(23 posts)

Iraq has become the front for fighting terrorismLive Steam
Sep 27, 2003 7:10 AM
Better there than here as far as I am concerned!

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/6623.htm

19 QAEDA SUSPECTS HELD IN IRAQ

September 27, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. military forces in Iraq are holding 19 al Qaeda suspects among 248 foreign fighters captured there, the U.S. administrator of the country said yesterday.
"The number is 19 to be precise," Paul Bremer told reporters. The United States has said that foreign fighters moving into Iraq to oppose U.S.-led coalition forces have become a terrorist problem.

Bremer said in response to questions at a Pentagon news conference that he did not have the nationalities of the al Qaeda suspects. But he said a total of 248 foreigners were being held, among them 123 Syrians and a large number of both Iranians and Yemenis.

"That's been a matter that has come out in their interrogations or in their documents," he responded when pressed on how he knew the 19 prisoners in question were members of al Qaeda.

The United States has accused Syria of allowing foreign fighters to infiltrate into neighboring Iraq.

Bremer said he did not know if any of the 19 al Qaeda suspects were members of the radical Ansar al-Islam group in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration have said the two groups are closely linked.

The Bush administration says foreign Arab fighters are moving into Iraq and making it a primary front in the war on terrorism. Reuters
Iraq's the front for Bush re-election. And another thing...Cory
Sep 28, 2003 6:49 PM
It's a constant source of wonder to me how people who condemn the Liberal Media Conspiracy forget all about it when they find something they agree with. Could it be that the media present (wait for it!) BOTH SIDES, and we choose what to believe?
Now, now. So cynical ? nmLive Steam
Sep 28, 2003 7:28 PM
you reallt are thickMJ
Sep 29, 2003 12:37 AM
of course there have been no attacks on the US for the past two years - why should terrorists come to the US when the US can come to them? the fact that Bush & Co didn't see that coming in Iraq is as indicative as his negligence and cowering before and during Sep. 11 - the fact that before the recent US adventure Iraq was not in any way associated with terorrism (or WMD's for taht matter) is disturbing - it took the US invasion to bring that about - funny how that works isn't it?

though I do appreciate your insider knowledge below on how "the slugs" are still trying - really do you know someone special who told you soemthing secret

I am impressed that someone as stupid as you is able to use a keyboard in the first place

and I agree with Cory about your contant stream of bile about the "Liberal Media" - which is a sad indictment of your ability to comprehend objective facts and actual bias in journalism
What a chump!Live Steam
Sep 29, 2003 4:53 AM
Of course Bush saw it coming. That was the plan. You must have the IQ of a 3 minute egg to not figure out that it is better that they are now fighting outr military - people who are trained to fight- and not our civilian population. Again, someone with the IQ of a house plant, wouldn't understand that logic.
if you build it they will comeMJ
Sep 29, 2003 5:02 AM
it's shame Bush didn't say that before the invasion:

"American people, UN, and the global community: While Iraq does not pose any credible threat to the US, or indeed any other nation, we intend to invade the aforementioned country in order to invite terrorists to travel there to engage US combat troops away from US soil. We note that we have not completed our mission in Afghanistan where our aims were roughly similar but trust you will allow us some leeway. September 11 was terrible and we think you'll let us all get away with anything now. We'll be working over the next decade on an exit strategy for Afghanistan or Iraq and note we may incur significant casualties in the military - but we reckon that it will go largely unnoticed as most front line troops are from poor backgrounds and are often not even white..."

Thanks for playing.
I don't have time to respondLive Steam
Sep 29, 2003 5:14 AM
to your post right now. More pressing business like riding :O) But I will return and show you the errors in you thinking. It must be tough going through life with an intellect of a flee! Thanks for playing along though :O)
Hey genius, I thinks that's spelled "flea". (nm)Turtleherder
Sep 29, 2003 12:09 PM
So shoot me :O) (nm)Live Steam
Sep 29, 2003 2:00 PM
now that you're back from your rideMJ
Sep 29, 2003 9:09 AM
you have any comments on your 'statements'
I guess the posts I've made ...Live Steam
Sep 29, 2003 9:16 AM
since returning are way above what you are capable of comprehending. They pretty much reinforce what I have been saying. Maybe you could find someone to explain them to you. Oh the ride was great :O)
so now bush is a prescient genius.rufus
Sep 29, 2003 6:32 AM
this is the new reason for justifying war with iraq-that bush knew if he went in, then all the other terrorists will flock there as well, to be killed at our leisure? TFF! somehow, i believe you are giving the incompetents that run this administration juuuuust a wee bit too much credit. anyone who actually believes this garbage you're spewing is just way too gullible.

however, it is nice to see that you can faithfully regurgitate this admin's current excuse for their woeful under-estimation of the iraq situation and the consequences of their actions.
It sure looks that wayLive Steam
Sep 29, 2003 8:50 AM
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/6707.htm
September 29, 2003
BUSH WINS AGAIN
-- WHEN a beloved cleric was murdered at a holy shrine in the Iraqi town of Najaf and suspects got caught boasting about it at an Internet café, the outraged townspeople didn't lynch them - instead, they got marched off to the police.
It's a small but telling hint that despite decades of Saddam Hussein's brutality, the Iraqi people have the potential be a bulwark of Mideast democracy - and also a clue to the logic behind President Bush's policy.

The cover of this week's Time magazine blares: "Mission Not Accomplished" - as if the Iraq war has suddenly morphed into a total failure. But is that true?

The mission was to get rid of Saddam. He's gone from power. It's an ongoing frustration that he hasn't been caught, but his removal has already brought a major shift in the Middle East, the center of terrorist threats.

Oddly enough, Saddam's exit has been most quickly accepted in the Arab world. The famous "Arab street" didn't erupt. Al-Jazeera TV lost some credibility. And post-Saddam Iraqi leaders were welcomed into OPEC and the Arab League.

It hasn't led to instant Arab-Israeli peace, but it has enormously reduced the potential support for Mideast terror. Saddam is no longer there to bribe the families of homicide bombers. No one but terrorists regrets his fall.

And others, notably Russian President Vladimir Putin this weekend, have joined Bush in warning the other two nations with Iraq in his "Axis of Evil" - North Korea and Iran - against any nuclear-weapons ambitions.



All of which suggests that Bush's action against Iraq strengthened America's credibility around the world, rather than weakening it as critics claim.

After Bush spoke to the United Nations last week, the loudest foes of the Iraq war - France and Germany - rushed to snuggle up to the president and say they'd like a role in postwar Iraq.

And contrary to a lot of press reports, the Iraqi people aren't ungrateful - even in unsettled Baghdad, a remarkable 67 percent of Iraqis are optimistic and expect to be better off in five years. In most of the country, the number is surely higher.

Yes, there were plenty of blunders in planning for the postwar, many perhaps because the State Department and CIA were too suspicious of Iraqi exiles. In hindsight, it would have been smarter to trust the exiles more - and train more of them as Iraqi soldiers and police.

It's also true that the Bush administration has been remarkably inept at communicating the success stories out of Iraq.

One result is the surging growth of an Internet universe - a lot of it linked via Instapundit.com - focused on spreading good news from Iraq and lambasting "Big Media," especially the anti-American BBC, for ignoring it.

But this week's Time magazine is typical of a press corps that has - mostly - raced to highlight every bit of bad news from Iraq, and virtually none of the good news.

When NBC anchor Tom Brokaw went to Iraq, it was as if he was visiting a different country than that any other TV journalist had reported from, because he left Baghdad and many of his reports actually had an optimistic tone.

Why? Perhaps because Brokaw has chronicled the Greatest Generation and World War II, a time of patience instead of attention deficit disorder and a demand for overnight success. Nowadays, one can imagine critics instantly howling for Dwight D. Eisenhower's head over the deaths on D-Day.

It's worth remembering, as critics revive their Vietnam quagmire comparisons, that over 57,000 U.S. troops died in Vietnam and so far the U.S. death toll in Iraq is 308, fewer than the 343 firemen who were killed on 9/11.

Every death is a tragedy. But that doesn't make the war a failure. In fact, it is a success.

Deborah Orin is The Post's Washington Bureau Chief.
<BIG>TERROR WAR REALITY CHECK</BIG>Live Steam
Sep 29, 2003 8:53 AM
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/6705.htm
TERROR WAR REALITY CHECK
September 29, 2003
-- How goes the War on Terror?

Not badly.

Not badly at all.

Certainly there is cause for optimism - never mind the borderline-seditious ramblings of ambitious Democrats and endless Chicken Little clucking from the media.

On the heels of spectacular victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, with boots on the ground in those countries and others unnamed, armed with unprecedented military might and an unequaled economic engine, America is poised to change the course of history in the Middle East - and beyond.

This is not an optional war, regardless of the rhetoric.

America didn't start it, except in the sense that America's unparalleled personal freedom and virtually limitless opportunity silently rebuke the despotism and despair that informs much of the Islamic world.



That is, for as long as America is America, it will be a target for the death-dealers of radical Islam.

This makes the question of how well goes the war nearly irrelevant. After all, when it's "fight or die," you fight.

Or you die.

The good news, of course, is that signs of progress are everywhere.

Washington has shown that it has the means - and an administration with sufficient resolve - to stay the course.

Which is key - because this clearly will be a long campaign.

But consider what's been accomplished to date. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have been deposed.

The Taliban and Iraqi Ba'athists are gone from power.

Stability and renewal are slowly, painfully, coming to the region - in Iraq, Afghanistan and soon even in the Palestinian Arab-occupied territories in Israel.

Terrorist funding is being squeezed. Even more significant, broad geopolitical shifts are under way.

Two realities are becoming ever-more clear, even to some of the most blind and craven regimes:

* America is in the Middle East to stay: We ain't goin' nowhere - and we'll do whatever it takes to win this war.

* Closing one's eyes to terrorists - or, worse, siding with them - can be hazardous to one's political, not to mention physical, health.

Example: Saudi Arabia. Long the locus of Wahhabi terror, the kingdom has itself come under attack; that Saudi soldiers have been waging gun battles with terrorists is, to say the least, interesting.

Meanwhile, more than a few Europeans - cynical, selfish, hoping to gain from America's losses - now see little profit in throwing up roadblocks: Washington has once blown right past them, and will do so again if necessary.

Continued anti-American belligerence can only cost them.

Which doubtless is why U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said last week that it his organization must "face up squarely to the concerns that make some states feel uniquely vulnerable, and thus drive them to take unilateral action."

And then he called for fundamental reform of the world body.

Meanwhile, one-time obstructionists like German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin are now saying they won't block America's efforts to rebuild Iraq.

Why, Germany has even offered to train Iraqi police!

Recently the European Union recognized members of Hamas for what they are - terrorists - and blocked all financial transactions with them.

Amazingly, some Arab states have followed suit.

The Bush team has, in effect, wisely permitted Israel to decapitate the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure.

Jerusalem has not only managed to carve a wide chip in the top ranks of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but it has also put top terrorist Yasser Arafat on notice. Hamas' spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, was actually targeted in an attack by Israel that left him alive, but injured.

Yassin and Arafat have beat their chests in response, but - with
<BIG>TERROR WAR REALITY CHECK</BIG> cont.Live Steam
Sep 29, 2003 8:55 AM
Yassin and Arafat have beat their chests in response, but - with the exception of two strikes that killed 15 Israelis this month - suicide bombings have tapered off significantly in past half-year.

And some reports suggest the terror groups' setbacks may soon prove fatal.

Yes, the cost of this war is steep.

Hundreds of U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, more than 70 have fallen to hostile fire since major combat operations ended.

Military costs are running $5 billion a month, and Bush wants another $87 billion - hardly an insignificant sum.

Still, the most impressive fact is how little this war for the future of the world is costing - in terms of blood and treasure - when compared to other wars.

Vietnam - a favorite, if fallacious, analogy - claimed more than 57,000 lives and cost nearly half a trillion inflation-adjusted dollars. World War II took some 400,000 U.S. lives and cost more than $2 trillion in today's dollars.

And what about the costs of not fighting? 9/11 claimed 3,000 lives in one day. The sum to replace a chunk of Manhattan could easily top $100 billion, not to mention the toll on the broader economy.

Yet surrender is exactly what Democrats - and liberal media outlets - seem to be prescribing.

Descriptions of Iraq have been wildly distorted - suggesting that violence is spinning out of control and casualties are mounting intolerably.

Native Iraqis, they say, are becoming increasingly insistent that U.S. troops hand over control - to the United Nations, or the Iraqis themselves.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, hardly a model of integrity, called Bush a "fraud" for the way he justified the Iraq war.

This is a dangerous game.

Democracy can easily be misunderstood by those unfamiliar with it; the terrorists and Ba'athists may think they need only to continue to prick away at U.S. troops in Iraq, and eventually Washington will tuck tail and run.

If they hold out just a little longer - another month; another year. A Dean or a Kerry or a Clark may take the White House - and presently flies the last helicopter from Baghdad.

All citizens have the right - indeed, the duty - to oppose administration policy if they think it to be wrong.

But those who seek partisan advantage for its own sake, those steeped in blind ambition, need to consider the price of providing the enemy unwarranted hope.

It will be measured in dead young Americans.

This is a just war.

It is a necessary war.

America is winning.

That's the reality of it.
please use your indoor voice ;-) nmDougSloan
Sep 29, 2003 9:13 AM
Sometime you just have to yell to wake them up :O) nmLive Steam
Sep 29, 2003 9:17 AM
LOL! Anyone who has kids knows that saying by heart (nm)ColnagoFE
Sep 29, 2003 1:14 PM
now you're quoting op-ed pieces from the conservative ny postrufus
Sep 29, 2003 11:16 AM
as support for your viewpoint? while you've denounced people who offer up op-eds from the washington post or ny times to support theirs? my my, your intellectual vacuity is showing.
Oooo! Nice word! <I>vacuity</I> Mind if I use that? :O)Live Steam
Sep 29, 2003 11:47 AM
So what's wrong with that? Ya' see you continue to miss the point. Let's see if these other news sources refute what was said in these pieces.
because when the left use op-eds to justify their argumentsrufus
Sep 29, 2003 11:53 AM
you blow a head gasket about it, and complain about how they're all brainwashed by the liberal media.

seems they're about as brainwashed as you are. try thinking for yourself.
Wow. They really write like that at the NYPost?? Holy Hanna128
Sep 29, 2003 12:13 PM
and I thought this was just another "Steamed" rave-up.

That's the first sort of 'stilted stream-of-consciousness'editorial piece I've ever read. Bullet point arguments, one sentence paragraphs, and bold assertions from one topic to another then another. Underwhelming, regardless of the truth of the assertions.
you really are thickMJ
Sep 29, 2003 12:38 AM
of course there have been no attacks on the US for the past two years - why should terrorists come to the US when the US can come to them? the fact that Bush & Co didn't see that coming in Iraq is as indicative as his negligence and cowering before and during Sep. 11 - the fact that before the recent US adventure Iraq was not in any way associated with terorrism (or WMD's for taht matter) is disturbing - it took the US invasion to bring that about - funny how that works isn't it?

though I do appreciate your insider knowledge below on how "the slugs" are still trying - really do you know someone special who told you soemthing secret

I am impressed that someone as stupid as you is able to use a keyboard in the first place

and I agree with Cory about your contant stream of bile about the "Liberal Media" - which is a sad indictment of your ability to comprehend objective facts and actual bias in journalism