|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Iraq Will Become "Launchpad for Terrorism" If We Cut and Run
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Iraq Will Become "Launchpad for Terrorism" If We Cut and Run
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| VacateTheWord |
Iraq a "terrorist Disneyland" if U.S. goes: expert
By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent
Tue May 15, 10:53 AM ET
A U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launchpad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said on Tuesday.
Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.
If U.S., British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries -- countries in Europe, North America - would become such that after two or three years, the U.S. forces will have to go back to Iraq."
The Singapore-based academic and writer said the epicenter of international terrorism had already switched from Afghanistan to Iraq. "In many ways, the terrorist threat has now shifted 1,500 miles closer to Europe."
Republican President George W. Bush is locked in a standoff with a Democratic-led Congress over funding for the war in Iraq, now in its fifth year, in which more than 3,400 American troops have been killed.
Democrats are pushing for a time frame for withdrawal , something the White House opposes as sending the wrong message to U.S. forces, allies and enemies alike. Some Republicans are also questioning the war more publicly.
Britain, the leading U.S. partner in Iraq, is scaling back its troops there, although the idea of an immediate pullout was rejected this week by Gordon Brown, the man expected to succeed Bush's close ally Tony Blair as prime minister next month.
Addressing the same conference, a top British security official acknowledged home-grown Islamist militants had exploited the British troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq for propaganda purposes.
But the official, Sir Richard Mottram, said any decision on withdrawal should be taken based on its impact on the two countries, not its effect on the views of radicals in Britain.
"I'd be very cautious about withdrawing from Afghanistan in circumstances where the field was left to the Taliban," said Mottram, Permanent Secretary for Intelligence, Security and Resilience at the Cabinet Office. He declined comment on Iraq.
A former head of Britain's foreign intelligence service MI6 described Gunaratna's analysis as convincing.
"Clearly al Qaeda are focusing on Iraq now, and focusing on some sort of propaganda victory over the United States," Sir Richard Dearlove told reporters.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070515...iraq_alqaeda_dc |
|
|
| Halcyon |
| :snore: borefest... more fear-tactics from the party of hating America |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
:snore: borefest... more fear-tactics from the party of hating America |
translation - I cannot refute the fact that if we withdraw from Iraq then we will hand the deed to Anbar Province to Al Qaeda, so I'll just post a few meaningless words of liberal blather. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
translation - I cannot refute the fact that if we withdraw from Iraq then we will hand the deed to Anbar Province to Al Qaeda, so I'll just post a few meaningless words of liberal blather. |
No, you're right... Iraq will be a breeding ground for terrorism.... if we pull out, or if we stay.
So fear-mongering like you like to do, really doesn't mean shit. The only real solution was to keep the man who kept the terrorism in that country at bay.
But as long as Bush says to do it, you're all about it... Jump for cock! |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| so should we stay there forever? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
No, you're right... Iraq will be a breeding ground for terrorism.... if we pull out, or if we stay.
So fear-mongering like you like to do, really doesn't mean shit. The only real solution was to keep the man who kept the terrorism in that country at bay.
But as long as Bush says to do it, you're all about it... Jump for cock! |
First of all we will stay until the terrorists have been defeated.
Second - you are advocating keeping Saddam Hussein in power? The man who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and killed countless amounts of his own people?
Yikes, you've gone off the deep end, my friend. And you've given yet another example of why the Republican party is known as the "party of life" while the Democratic party is known as the "party of death." You advocate keeping a man in power who committed genocide. That's real nice.
You should be ashamed. |
|
|
| booybob |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
so should we stay there forever? |
Not forever, but we have been in Japan,Germany,Korea for over 50yrs.
Even though those countries are friendly towards us we are still there.
It may not be as an occupier but we are there.
Eventually, Iraq will come around and we need to be there when they do.
If we leave, Iran,China, or maybe Russia will fill the void. Do you want that??
We will need to have bases their and we will need to secure the oil.
For all you dupes who think this war was not about oil WAKE UP.
Saddam was a bad guy, and he did use WMD's before, but he was no threat.
Since we are unable to drill for oil in our country we must secure oil else where.
Iraq had a 4th rate military. why not start there. |
|
|
| Da Truth |
| It already is, stupid. :hw: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
so should we stay there forever? |
No, we should stay until the terror threat in Iraq is wiped out - then we leave. If we leave before that, as the article clearly states, we will leave a safe haven for Al Qaeda and other terror groups to train and plan for future attacks against the United States. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
First of all we will stay until the terrorists have been defeated.
Second - you are advocating keeping Saddam Hussein in power? The man who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and killed countless amounts of his own people?
Yikes, you've gone off the deep end, my friend. And you've given yet another example of why the Republican party is known as the "party of life" while the Democratic party is known as the "party of death." You advocate keeping a man in power who committed genocide. That's real nice.
You should be ashamed. |
First: Your president has already said that we cannot defeat all the terrorists... we can only hope to achieve an 'acceptable level of violence'.... so you lose there
Second: Saddam gassed and killed his own people, but terrorism didn't run rampant, nor did the Kurds or other Iraqi citizens send a PLEA to us for help and to install a democracy. I don't remember that being asked of us by them... so you're a little twit with the mentality of a 3rd grade retard who thinks we should FORCE our way of life on another country.
YOU are off the deep end... you clearly have no concept of morality or justice. |
|
|
| patcracker |
| Reagan cut and ran from Bierut and that place cooled down. Maybe you should explore some history. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
You forgot the part about "mushroom clouds" and unmanned aerial vehicles that will fly from Iraq to the US and spray the red staters with biological weapons.
Saudi Arabia has been the launchpad for terrorism for decades and that didn't stop the Bush gang from becoming best buds with that group of scumbags, did it?
Once the oil revenue stealing is all set up and the pipeline of cash starts flowing to Bush's buddies, I have a feeling the Bush cunts will stop caring about Iraq as anything except a dangerous oil field.
Bush's corporate owners will convince him fighting "terrorism" is getting in the way of their moneymaking. |
|
|
| AcquiringSignal |
They tried this same crap in Vietnam. This is all fear 101 if we left.
:rolleyes:
No One is buying it anymore. I think they are going to have to find another way to make money.
As soon as these impodent men are out of power, we can go around the world and ask for help. Say were sorry for the last fools who were to cocky to think they knew more then everyone.... and then TRY to repair wht these sick fucks destroyed.
TRY. |
|
|
| otherone4life |
| as opposed to the peaceful nation it is today? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Wow, VaCunt just got stomped on by six posters in a row...
....he'll be cumming in his panties anytime now...the sick fuck. |
|
|
| otherone4life |
| We created the fucking terror threat there moron! |
|
|
| dj applebag |
| let us not forget again that it was ronald reagan who funded the taliban and bin laden, traded arms in iran and iraq, sold the chemicals neccesary to make the wmds, armed terroist groups in central america. yes the same saint of the republican party who basically created these states and all of a sudden when we want their oil and they don't readily give it over they are a problem. they were not such a problem when we selling them all this shit. thank reagan for the mess that is the middle east and thank the current dope for making this the grand poobah of all fuckups. there was no terrorism in iraq prior to us going there. no amount of experts can refute that no matter how many times hannity or the junkie repeat the same bullshit lines over and over again. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
First: Your president has already said that we cannot defeat all the terrorists... we can only hope to achieve an 'acceptable level of violence'.... so you lose there
Second: Saddam gassed and killed his own people, but terrorism didn't run rampant, nor did the Kurds or other Iraqi citizens send a PLEA to us for help and to install a democracy. I don't remember that being asked of us by them... so you're a little twit with the mentality of a 3rd grade retard who thinks we should FORCE our way of life on another country.
YOU are off the deep end... you clearly have no concept of morality or justice. |
First: President Bush never said that we cannot defeat the terrorists. He was being interviewed on PBS and the interviewer (Charlie Rose) asked him what the barometer of success is for the surge, which led to asking the President if he thought the surge was able to bring the violence down anywhere. The President responded that it wasn't reasonable to expect "zero violence" anywhere in the country because every nation on Earth has violence. In other words, "zero violence" was not a realistic expectation. That being said, he went on to say that the Al Qaeda attacks were not acceptable under any conditions.
Second: So terrorism didn't "run rampant" under Saddam. Know why? Because he did the terrorizing.
Third: You can call me all the names you want, but in the end YOU are the one who said that you wanted Saddam back in power. See, here is the crux of the issue - I think we have had just, noble intentions in regards to Iraq and, to this day, we seek to create a better life for the Iraqi people. You, on the other hand, think differently. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Second: So terrorism didn't "run rampant" under Saddam. Know why? Because he did the terrorizing.
|
so you are saying that terrorism is an effective way to keep people in line correct? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by patcracker
Reagan cut and ran from Bierut and that place cooled down. Maybe you should explore some history. |
:lol:
After the bombing of the marine barracks Lebanon was mired in a bloody war for 8 more years. Haha, "cooled down."
I've explored history - just haven't picked up whatever the Liberal Bible is called. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
so you are saying that terrorism is an effective way to keep people in line correct? |
If you want to look at it that way, but is it the desireable way? |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
If you want to look at it that way, but is it the desireable way? |
You're the one that said it and now you're backing it up with your own words. Are you going to stand by it? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
You're the one that said it and now you're backing it up with your own words. Are you going to stand by it? |
It's a bogus question because you are asking if being threatened by death if one speaks or acts out against a leader is an effective way to "keep people in line." Well, sure.
Is that what we want in the world? No. Well, is that what you want - install another Saddam Hussein??
Also, what country in the world has done more in the past 50 years to advance freedom and democracy? |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
First: President Bush never said that we cannot defeat the terrorists. He was being interviewed on PBS and the interviewer (Charlie Rose) asked him what the barometer of success is for the surge, which led to asking the President if he thought the surge was able to bring the violence down anywhere. The President responded that it wasn't reasonable to expect "zero violence" anywhere in the country because every nation on Earth has violence. In other words, "zero violence" was not a realistic expectation. That being said, he went on to say that the Al Qaeda attacks were not acceptable under any conditions.
Second: So terrorism didn't "run rampant" under Saddam. Know why? Because he did the terrorizing.
Third: You can call me all the names you want, but in the end YOU are the one who said that you wanted Saddam back in power. See, here is the crux of the issue - I think we have had just, noble intentions in regards to Iraq and, to this day, we seek to create a better life for the Iraqi people. You, on the other hand, think differently. |
FIRST: You want to defeat all the terrorists... but an acceptable level of car bombings (ie terrorism) is acceptable? You're a fucking warped mother fucker... I don't see how you can't question this logic.... it's clear to me, that terrorism = terrorists.... you're a fucking idiot
SECOND: Saddam ALSO didn't blow up the WTC, have WMD, and the Iraqis never asked us to come and save them. So your little "Saddam was a threat" bullshit excuse really holds no fucking water... again, you're a delusional sperm-receptacle
THIRD: I will call you all the names I want, because your a fucking twat, with zero logic. And you blindly follow Bush into the flames because that's what a good cum-guzzling little sheep does. Never asks questions, just slurps down that goo, and asks where to go next.
The crux of the issue is, Saddam kept that country IN CHECK and ON LOCK DOWN. Were his methods cruel and unusual? Yes... Did he torture, gas, and kill his own people? Yes...
But last I checked, the Iraqis didn't ask for us to go there and overthrow AND KILL their leader, the iraqis never asked us to come in and instill a democracy (which most didn't want in the first place), and last I checked, sectarian violence and terrorism didn't run rampant throughout the country
You're a hack, a liar, and a fucking zero. Your arguments hold no logic, and they are empty. They are factless, baseless, and absolutely absurd!
You've been exposed as a fucking douchebag who hates America, and wants American soldiers to die for the profit of Bush's no-bid contract friends.
And you're not even apologetic about it. I've broken your mentality down so thoroughly, that I won't doubt you'll read all this and cry. I've hit way too close to home for you and I've exposed your thought process as childish and immature to everyone on this forum.
Now... VacateTheThread and hope you still have some semblance of dignity somewhere on this forum. |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
A U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launchpad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said on Tuesday.
|
"Interventionism is not a stable policy. It creates imbalances that cry out for correction, either by abandoning the policy or pursuing it further to the point of collapse. For this reason, the War on Terror is impossible, not in the sense that it cannot cause immense amounts of bloodshed and destruction and loss of liberty, but in the sense that it cannot finally achieve what it is supposed to achieve, and will only end in creating more of the same conditions that led to its declaration in the first place." Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
"Interventionism is not a stable policy. It creates imbalances that cry out for correction, either by abandoning the policy or pursuing it further to the point of collapse. For this reason, the War on Terror is impossible, not in the sense that it cannot cause immense amounts of bloodshed and destruction and loss of liberty, but in the sense that it cannot finally achieve what it is supposed to achieve, and will only end in creating more of the same conditions that led to its declaration in the first place." Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr |
Failure at conception: Fdub 101 |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
It's a bogus question because you are asking if being threatened by death if one speaks or acts out against a leader is an effective way to "keep people in line." Well, sure.
Is that what we want in the world? No. Well, is that what you want - install another Saddam Hussein??
|
Its a legit question posed by your statement. Are you saying your statement was bullshit or are you standing by it? Are you not willing to stand by what you state?
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Also, what country in the world has done more in the past 50 years to advance freedom and democracy? |
Don't forget Poland. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Iraq is now the biggest incubator of terrorism IN WORLD HISTORY. The insurgents in Iraq are committing acts of terrorism so despicable that they would make the Mongols cringe.
Mission accomplished, motherfuckers. |
|
|
| FUPA |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
No, we should stay until the terror threat in Iraq is wiped out - then we leave. If we leave before that, as the article clearly states, we will leave a safe haven for Al Qaeda and other terror groups to train and plan for future attacks against the United States. |
you're like a walking fox news talking point. |
|
|
| deadissue |
OK - I'm scared again...consider me pro-war now.
The thought of chaos and murderers walking the Middle East streets of Iraq is something I can't abide. It's only a matter of time before they figure out how to dig a tunnel from there to my back yard. |
|
|
| dj applebag |
| this terrorism issue would not even be an issue if we were not so dependant on the oil they sit on. but since republicans are too busy sucking big oils dick for money we will not see an improvment until we change the way we consume power. the terroists do not hate us for or freedoms or or way of life, they just want us out of their lives and off their shitty holy land. they would be another backward ass 3rd world country like most of africa and we would never have to deal with it. remember, repubs are not standing up for what most americans believe, they stand up for the people who fully finace and grease their pockets. |
|
|
|
|
|
