The Unnecessary War

[Shapley]

BTW, I cited this article on this forum a long time ago. Many of you may have forgotten it, so I am relinking it, lest you continue to contend that the Iraq war had nothing to do with the war on terror. Al Qaeda shifted its' focus to Iraq in 2003, where they now find themselves being routed. We met them on a battlefied of our choosing.

[barfle]

AQ is who drove planes into the WTC,

Agreed.

AQ is who we are fighting in Iraq

Only because the chaos resulting from our invasion allowed them in. Saddam didn't like them, and one thing you have to give him credit for, he didn't let much get past him.

you don't think those people we are killing in Iraq are a threat to us here and I do

That's so far from the point that it's not even on the arrow. We should have been killing them in Afghanistan, where they were when we invaded there.

[Shapley]

We should have been killing them in Afghanistan, where they were when we invaded there.

Actually, they fled to Pakistan. We could have invaded Pakistan, an ally in the war on terror; waited for their periodic attacks on Afghanistan; or lured them to a battlefied of our choosing. We opted for the third choice.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

you don't think those people we are killing in Iraq are a threat to us here and I do

That's so far from the point that it's not even on the arrow. We should have been killing them in Afghanistan, where they were when we invaded there.

As I said "you don't think those people we are killing in Iraq are a threat to us here and I do" I accept that there is no common denominator that we can agree on this point. We killed and are killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq. You, presumably, don't see any connetion between killing them there and the lack of attacks in the U.S. I do.

[barfle]

We could have invaded Pakistan, an ally in the war on terror; waited for their periodic attacks on Afghanistan; or lured them to a battlefied of our choosing. We opted for the third choice.

Revisionism at its finest. If anyone thinks the invasion if Iraq had anything to do with al qaeda, I have a bridge in NYC and some beach front property in Florida for you.

[barfle]

As I said "you don't think those people we are killing in Iraq are a threat to us here and I do" I accept that there is no common denominator that we can agree on this point. We killed and are killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq. You, presumably, don't see any connetion between killing them there and the lack of attacks in the U.S. I do.

I didn't say that. What I said is that it's not the point of the discussion.

If AQ is in Iraq, it's because we created a power vacuum there. But they're still in Afghanistan, and we've been there longer than we've been in Iraq.

We don't deserve a reward for cleaning up a mess we made. That's our duty.

[OperaTenor]

We could have invaded Pakistan, an ally in the war on terror; waited for their periodic attacks on Afghanistan; or lured them to a battlefied of our choosing. We opted for the third choice.

Revisionism at its finest. If anyone thinks the invasion if Iraq had anything to do with al qaeda, I have a bridge in NYC and some beach front property in Florida for you.

Word up.

[Shapley]

Again, I cite this article, dated Dec. 7, 2003, relating al Qaeda's intention to focus their resources into Iraq.

You can dispute the article, if you wish. However, to claim that it is revisionism, given that it was written at the early stages of the Iraq war, not after it, I think that claim falls flat.

[jamiebk]

For years now, this administration has said "We'll be in Iraq as long as the people want us there". Afterall, we entered the country to free everyone from the oppression of a hostile dictator and to instill true Democracy; Well...seems like they don't want us there anymore. With all the so-called progress being made, it looks like an excellent time to leave. This what the Demo's have been pushing for for the past YEAR! But of course to hear others speak of it, the congress has done nothing. Ironic that it is the Iraqis themselves who have to demand our timetable for withdrawal. Maybe Bush will listen to them since he doesn't seem to be getting the message from Americans.

Iraq official presses U.S. for pullout plan

National security adviser says any security deal must contain timetable
MSNBC News Services
updated 8:55 a.m. PT, Tues., July. 8, 2008

BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.

The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

On Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.

Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq."

"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy Shiite city of Najaf.

He was speaking to reporters after meeting Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Rubaie said he spoke to Sistani about the U.S. talks, but did not say if the cleric had an opinion on the negotiations. The revered cleric is routinely briefed on key national issues.

"I informed the (clerical leaders) about some of the advances in the talks. There are real problems and difficulties, and we have many roadblocks ahead. There is a big difference in outlook between us and the Americans," Rubaie said.

The Bush administration has always opposed setting any withdrawal timetable, saying it would allow militant groups to lie low and wait until the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq left.

On Tuesday, the White House said the talks were not aimed at setting a hard deadline for withdrawal.

"Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in Japan, where President Bush is attending a Group of Eight summit.

"It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal."

Dispute over immunity for U.S. troops
In a further complication, Iraq's deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiya said lawmakers must approve any deal the Iraqi government reaches and will probably reject the document if American troops are immune from Iraqi law.

It would be virtually unthinkable for the United States to allow its soldiers to be subject to Iraqi law.

Al-Maliki's preference for a memorandum of understanding, which could be an attempt to bypass parliament, is in contrast to earlier talks which have all been leading to the signing of a formal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

"Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds," Attiya told Reuters in an interview.

Washington has SOFA pacts with many countries, and they typically exempt U.S. troops from facing trial or prison abroad.

Iraq said last week Washington was showing flexibility on some key issues, which officials said included dropping a demand for immunity for private contractors working for the U.S. government.

Control of military operations and airspace are other points of contention, along with the detention of prisoners.

Fall in violence emboldens government
Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability, and Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25585978/

[piqaboo]

Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been fought against non-conventional forces with no established base of operation and a willingness to abandon all conventional rules of armed conflict.

hmm, I do believe we bothered the Brits similarly, some 240 yrs ago.

[Shapley]

Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been fought against non-conventional forces with no established base of operation and a willingness to abandon all conventional rules of armed conflict.

hmm, I do believe we bothered the Brits similarly, some 240 yrs ago.

Correct. And we were able to harrass them into leaving. We don't want the same thing to happen to us. We're Americans, we hate to lose (or at least we used to....)

[piqaboo]

Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been fought against non-conventional forces with no established base of operation and a willingness to abandon all conventional rules of armed conflict.

hmm, I do believe we bothered the Brits similarly, some 240 yrs ago.

Correct. And we were able to harrass them into leaving. We don't want the same thing to happen to us. We're Americans, we hate to lose (or at least we used to....)

That, and a king who was having problems staying king.

[OperaTenor]

Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been fought against non-conventional forces with no established base of operation and a willingness to abandon all conventional rules of armed conflict.

hmm, I do believe we bothered the Brits similarly, some 240 yrs ago.

Correct. And we were able to harrass them into leaving. We don't want the same thing to happen to us. We're Americans, we hate to lose (or at least we used to....)

Mmm, mmm, mmm. Manifest Destiny at its finest....

[barfle]

to claim that it is revisionism, given that it was written at the early stages of the Iraq war, not after it, I think that claim falls flat.

Your article is dated December 7, 2003. We invaded Iraq on March 19 of that year. By my math, that's almost nine months. Considering the length of time we've been there, one might consider it to be in the early stages, but it was well after "shock and awe" was over.

We did not invade Iraq because al qaeda was there.

"our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

George W. Bush
March 22, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 30322.html

[Shapley]

Nor did I say we invaded because of al Qaeda. I said we lured them to a battlefied of our choosing. I actually made that comment back when the article came out, in 2003. I thought it a good thing, many (including Haggis) disagreed. I still think it was the proper thing, considering the alternatives.

[OperaTenor]

Nor did I say we invaded because of al Qaeda. I said we lured them to a battlefied of our choosing. I actually made that comment back when the article came out, in 2003. I thought it a good thing, many (including Haggis) disagreed. I still think it was the proper thing, considering the alternatives.

Eh, you care to give me a contemporary government citation as to support that contention?

I'd especially like to see something GWB said to support that prior to March 19, 2003.

(This isn't the first time you've trotted this fantasy out....)

[barfle]

I said we lured them to a battlefied of our choosing.

Indeed, you did.

However, I find it strange that nobody but you claims to have made such a "lure." On the contrary, it appears that al qaeda was tempted to enter Iraq because of the ineptitude of the war's managers (like Rumsfeld in particular).

And a quote from your article: "But there is evidence that the diversion of U.S. attention to Iraq has given Al Qaeda some breathing room, and that U.S. dependence on Pakistani troops and Afghan warlords is proving inadequate, perhaps even counter-productive, against the terror network."

Which supports my original position that we should have concentrated on Afghanistan.

[Shapley]

Eh, you care to give me a contemporary government citation as to support that contention?

I'd especially like to see something GWB said to support that prior to March 19, 2003.

You continue to try to put words into my mouth. Nowhere did I suggest it was President Bush' intention to lure them there. I have no idea if that was his intention, or if it was Rumsfeld's intention, or if it was cooked up by Dr. Strangelove sitting in his chair in the War Room. The battle in Iraq was tempting to al Qaeda where, as the article notes, Osama bin Laden thought it would be easy to kill Americans. It moved the battlefield from the rugged terrain of Afghanistan, and the protective border with Pakistan to the open terrain of Iraq, where our materiel was in place and ready to do battle. They were lured there by us, whether that was the initial intention or not, and the battlefield became one of our choosing.

However, I find it interesting that we have gone from "President led us to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and al Qaeda" to "Prove to me that the President thought Iraq had something to do with al Qaeda".

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I find it interesting that we have gone from "President led us to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and al Qaeda" to "Prove to me that the President thought Iraq had something to do with al Qaeda".

I must have missed both of those arguments.

[OperaTenor]

I find it interesting that we have gone from "President led us to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and al Qaeda" to "Prove to me that the President thought Iraq had something to do with al Qaeda".

I must have missed both of those arguments.

+1