Will the USA be safer?

[Trawler]

Well, now that it's a given that Georgy boy and his pals from around the globe are going to romp into Iraq and throw out those nasty Husain characters, do you think that the benefit of removing the risk of Iraq handing out WMD to terrorists outweigh the risk of future terrorist actions?

The reason I ask this is I can only see this course of action causing an increase in anti-US sentiment in the short, medium and long terms, which in turn will more than likely increase the chances of further terrorist actions against the US.

Thoughts?

 

[epicstruggle]

short term: greater threat
medium term: about the same
long term:incredible reduction in threat

THere is more to do then just Iraq. Israel/palestine issue needs to be resolved. Encourage democracy in Iran. Free lebanon from Syria. This will help alot too.

later,

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The reason I ask this is I can only see this course of action causing an increase in anti-US sentiment....

Think about this.

Do you think that action or inaction with Iraq will change the sentiment of terrorists? I don't. We didn't take this course of action before 9/11, and yet terrorists were hateful enough to do the act.

Ousting Sadam or leaving him in power won't change that one bit. We are hated because we are a free society, and that freedom has given us power. The hatred that terrorists have for us won't stop until we are no longer "powerful" at which point they can direct their "anger and resentment" at the next world power.

Ousting Sadam will lessen their ability to act, and make their lives more difficult, and shut off certain financial and resource support: lessen terrorist attacks.

Having said that, I do agree that in the "short term" there is a somewhat higher risk of some type of imminent attacks. Just as there was during the Afghanistan campaign.

Or maybe you're worried about the traditional terrorists, but leftist pacifists who might "turn to terrorism" as retaliation for our actions?

 

[kyleb]

i see it as quite the opposite; right now they are far to pined down to organize attacks against us, eventually our vigilance must faultier to some extent at which point the threat will escalate, and the many enemies we make by doing what we are about to do will add to the threat in the long run. that is why i keep arguing this is not a good course of action.

ohh and Joe, it is not the leftist pacifists that i worry about; it is the boarderline cases that we are about to push over the edge.

 

[Silent_One]

Ousting Sadam will lessen their ability to act, and make their lives more difficult, and shut off certain financial and resource support: lessen terrorist attacks

Completely agree.

it is the boarderline cases that we are about to push over the edge.

I suppose this could happen but I think those who "go over the edge" will have less organized organizations to join. Where will they turn too?

 

[Trawler]

Do you think that action or inaction with Iraq will change the sentiment of terrorists? I don't.

It may well increase the resentment amongst those on the other side of the fence.

We didn't take this course of action before 9/11, and yet terrorists were hateful enough to do the act.

My point being that by invading Iraq we may be increasing the possibility of there being even more terrorists doing nasty things about the globe.

Ousting Sadam or leaving him in power won't change that one bit. We are hated because we are a free society, and that freedom has given us power. The hatred that terrorists have for us won't stop until we are no longer "powerful" at which point they can direct their "anger and resentment" at the next world power.

I think it has a little more to do as what's seen as a large level of uneven interference in foreign affairs.

Ousting Sadam will lessen their ability to act, and make their lives more difficult, and shut off certain financial and resource support: lessen terrorist attacks.

Are there significant amounts of terrorists who work under assets available to them from/via Iraq? Regardless, there are plenty of other places where they can raise capital.

Having said that, I do agree that in the "short term" there is a somewhat higher risk of some type of imminent attacks. Just as there was during the Afghanistan campaign.

Agreed.

Or maybe you're worried about the traditional terrorists, but leftist pacifists who might "turn to terrorism" as retaliation for our actions?

Ha! No, as Kyle mentioned, I'm more afraid of those on the brink of taking on a new day job...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i see it as quite the opposite; right now they are far to pined down to organize attacks against us,

And that's because we ignored their threat....or acted against it?

eventually our vigilance must faultier to some extent at which point the threat will escalate,

Yes, may very well falter once liberals get in charge and start diverting money and resources away from defense and toward things like the education sink-hole or perscrption drugs for those who don't need it.

Yes, this will be a long, possibly never ending war to keep the pressure on and keep them on the run. That is the only way to minimize their potential impact.

The alternative of just letting them mobilize as they please, protected, funded, and aided by regimes is unthinkable.

and the many enemies we make by doing what we are about to do will add to the threat in the long run.

What enemies are we making, that aren't our "enemies" already? This, I do not understand.

that is why i keep arguing this is not a good course of action.

And that is why I keep arguing that your course of action is not good.

ohh and Joe, it is not the leftist pacifists that i worry about; it is the boarderline cases that we are about to push over the edge.

Oh, so you're more worried about borderlines cases that might be pushed over the edge, than the already existing cases that are already over the edge?

Do you see the fallacy of your logic?

 

[Trawler]

I suppose this could happen but I think those who "go over the edge" will have less organized organizations to join. Where will they turn too?

Who needs a organization to join when you can build yourself a home made bomb and wander into a packed subway station?

 

[RussSchultz]

I suppose this could happen but I think those who "go over the edge" will have less organized organizations to join. Where will they turn too?

Who needs a organization to join when you can build yourself a home made bomb and wander into a packed subway station?

And you wonder why we Texans insist on driving one per car to work.

Seriously, though. I hope the actions we're taking in Iraq are an "investment" to diffuse the building anti-west/american-ism in the long run by providing for a political outlet for the rest of the middle east.

Giving the average person a say in their government will go a long way to marginalizing the militant population well into the fringes.

 

[kyleb]

Ousting Sadam will lessen their ability to act, and make their lives more difficult, and shut off certain financial and resource support: lessen terrorist attacks

Completely agree.

i dont agee at all, from what i undertsand Sadaam's reign has been at odds with many terrorist orginisations which will soon have one less dirstraction.

I suppose this could happen but I think those who "go over the edge" will have less organized organizations to join. Where will they turn too?

I suppose this could happen but I think those who "go over the edge" will have less organized organizations to join. Where will they turn too?

well if everyone were followers nothing would ever get done but chaseing our own tail; when there are no leaders but there is a cause, leadership will soon come to appease it.

 

[Himself]

It doesn't have to be that drastic, just turning a blind eye to a terrorist wanting access to something would do it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My point being that by invading Iraq we may be increasing the possibility of there being even more terrorists doing nasty things about the globe.

Well then we'll have to agree to disagree. Because I think by taking the pressure off and indicating we are not "serious" about our war on terrorism, THAT increases the possibility of even more terrorists doing nasty things about the globe.

I think it has a little more to do as what's seen as a large level of uneven interference in foreign affairs.

That's a whole nother debate.

What do "terrorists" care if we attack Iraq or not and meddle in some "foreign affair...." if Iraq really doesn't have anything to do with terrorists?

Are there significant amounts of terrorists who work under assets available to them from/via Iraq? Regardless, there are plenty of other places where they can raise capital.

Yes there are. And we have to go after them one at a time. You are suggesting that we don't actually wage a war on terrorism? That it's fruitless?

I'm suggesting that we apply continuous pressure. We root out all these "other places" where the raise captial. We shut them down. It's a long road, a hard road, a difficult road. And one that's not guaranteed to prevent all attacks.

But it's the best and most responsible road to take.

Ha! No, as Kyle mentioned, I'm more afraid of those on the brink of taking on a new day job...

Vs. afraid of those who ALREADY have a full time job of terrorism? If I were a "borderline terrorist," I might think twice about my occupation if I knew the world was out to get me.

Which is sad, because at this time, it seems it;s "only" the U.S. and it's allies that are serious about the threat, and not the whole world.

 

[kyleb]

Do you see the fallacy of your logic?

every comment of yours i in that post i do see as faulty logic but i wont bother to pick at it unless you want me to, i suppose that is just part of the difference between you and i.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

On a side note...

I just don't get this idea on "boarderline terrorists".

I submit there simply are not any amount of significant people out there thinking "Hmmmm....I REALLY don't like such and such a country. One more incidient and I'm going to start blowing things up!"

Terrorisim is rooted in hatred.

Hatred is more or less TAUGHT and ingrained / propagandized in the culture of a group / following etc. We need to break those things up. We need to stop the process of groups educating based on hatred. This does not occur by stepping down the fight on terrorism. And the U.S. attacking or not attacking the U.S. doesn't change the fundamental issue of breeding terrorism. It just gives the "teachers" another page in the "hate America Handbook", of which there are already thousands.

 

[Silent_One]

trawyer wrote:

Who needs a organization to join when you can build yourself a home made bomb and wander into a packed subway station?

True enough we can't stop everybody that wants to bulid a bomb. We can however make it harder for them to get the materials for a bomb. We can however disrupt their sources for those materials by eliminating and/or disrupting organization.

kyleb wrote:

i dont agee at all, from what i undertsand Sadaam's reign has been at odds with many terrorist orginisations which will soon have one less dirstraction.

As DC said in another thread "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

Joe

I'm suggesting that we apply continuous pressure. We root out all these "other places" where the raise captial. We shut them down. It's a long road, a hard road, a difficult road. And one that's not guaranteed to prevent all attacks.

Just as a point of interest and not to side track the debate , much of the IRA's funding has come from the US. I don't know what the current situation with that is but you can be sure that it is still going on. Will that be stopped too?

CC

 

[Trawler]

Well then we'll have to agree to disagree. Because I think by taking the pressure off and indicating we are not "serious" about our war on terrorism, THAT increases the possibility of even more terrorists doing nasty things about the globe.

I think these terrorists are pretty darn "serious" about what they're up too as well. By upping the ante we're only playing further into their court.

What do "terrorists" care if we attack Iraq or not and meddle in some "foreign affair...." if Iraq really doesn't have anything to do with terrorists?

The mighty power picking on the poor pauper? The crusaders returning to finish off their job? Take your pick.

Yes there are. And we have to go after them one at a time. You are suggesting that we don't actually wage a war on terrorism? That it's fruitless?

Gosh, we're lucky that the UK didn't subscribe to a policy of 'war on terror' when generous hand outs were being collected for the IRA in the States, eh?

Seriously, yes, I think it's fruitless. By attempting to bang terrorism into surpression we're only going to create more terrorism. So there we can agree to disagree.

But it's the best and most responsible road to take.

I disagree. I believe the best and most responsible road to take is to look at the root causes of what drives people to terrorism, mainly poverty and oppression, and fix those in the correct manner.

And I don't agree that invading Iraq is a good way to restore wealth and freedom there, btw. It's too heavy handed and makes the states look more like an oppresor to the impovrished.

Vs. afraid of those who ALREADY have a full time job of terrorism? If I were a "borderline terrorist," I might think twice about my occupation if I knew the world was out to get me.

These guys are ready to die for what they believe in. I really don't see how the threat of violence will deter them?

Which is sad, because at this time, it seems it;s "only" the U.S. and it's allies that are serious about the threat, and not the whole world.

I think everyone sees terrorism as a serious threat. What differs is how other nations think the subject should be tackled.[/i]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I really don't know the current specifics of the IRA, who funds them (I assume you are saying some U.S. private sector folks? Or are you talking U.S. government?) Are they even still actively hostile or still an issue? Seriously, I have no idea.

In any case, we will (that is at least THIS administration) attempt to disrupt any terrorist organization that is deemed a threat to the U.S. IRA probably doesn't fit that description. However, we do recognize that terrorism is a world affair, and if we are asked for assistance by some other nation who deems a threat by terrorism, particularly if the resources come from our country, I'm sure we'd help.

 

[kyleb]

As DC said in another thread "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

and if i agreed with such things it would change my postion, but i do not.

 

[Silent_One]

I disagree. I believe the best and most responsible road to take is to look at the root causes of what drives people to terrorism, mainly poverty and oppression, and fix those in the correct manner.

Joe-
haven't we been down this road before???