[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Ed O

I'd rather have 5 weak enemies than one strong one.

Is it possible that this talk of martyrdom is something more than talk? Sure.

Is it more likely that, given time, the Iraqi government will be able to consolidate its power, provide more basic services to its people, and create a more stable environment where terrorists like Zarqawi will be rejected by the population? I definitely think so.

Bravo, Ed. Battles like the one in Iraq are won through perseverence and keeping your eye on the prize. As democracy and capitalism take hold in Iraq, I believe it will become a showcase of opportunity and freedom throughout the Middle East. Of course, this is exactly what the terrorists are afraid of, which is why they are fighting so hard to defeat us.

I salute our brave troops. They are the best in the world, and they are paving the way for a bright future for all Iraqis.

[Minstrel]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

I'm just glad that a few people on this board have the good sense to root for us in Iraq

Root, root, root for the home team. With such a nuanced view, I can see why you despair of all the lesser minds.

I personally don't celebrate anyone's death, but the death doesn't sadden me either. I don't think it will matter much in terms of international terror, as all of these people are eminently replaceable...none of them bring rare skills, they only bring fervor and flawed values. And with the US' continued dominant presence in a part of the world that's pretty fierce about its sovereignity, the terror organizations won't lack for new recruits with plenty of fervor and flawed values.

I don't hope for it or root for it, that's simply how I see it.

[Blazer Ringbearer]

Originally Posted by Minstrel

I don't hope for it or root for it, that's simply how I see it.

I understand not rooting for someone's death, I feel the same way.

But at some level you have to be hoping for peace and stability for the Iraqi people. It's probably going to take a long time, but after all that they've been through and all that we as a nation have put on the line, you have to hope that it's going to work out.

Whether or not you believe we SHOULD have done this or have done everything right, you have to hope that we can see it through and give the Iraqi people what they deserve.

I think that is a few steps above rooting for a sports team or a political party on the importance scale.

[mook]

Originally Posted by Ed O

I'd rather have 5 weak enemies than one strong one.

Ed O.

certainly, during the Cold War. now though, I'm not so sure.

even when Hussein had the fifth most powerful army in the world prior to the Persian Gulf war, he was hardly a threat to do any real harm to the United States, other than adding a few bucks to a gallon of gas.

yet 20 guys with box cutters brought the US to its knees. one guy with some cow manure blew up a building in Oklahoma.

right now a small group of zealots crafty enough to get their hands on a dirty bomb are probably a much bigger threat to you or me than either of our largest stated enemy states (North Korea, Iran). if North Korea tried to detonate a nuclear weapon on american soil, they know the entire country would be quickly incinerated. there is no such deterent for a jihadist looking to cash in on his 72 virgins and martyrdom.

I certainly hope that we are successful in Iraq, and that this success can eventually help change the mindset of Islamic extremists. however, so far it seems we've made a lot more weak enemies who fiercely hate us than weak friends who would fiercely defend us.

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by theWanker

certainly, during the Cold War. now though, I'm not so sure.

even when Hussein had the fifth most powerful army in the world prior to the Persian Gulf war, he was hardly a threat to do any real harm to the United States, other than adding a few bucks to a gallon of gas.

yet 20 guys with box cutters brought the US to its knees. one guy with some cow manure blew up a building in Oklahoma.

right now a small group of zealots crafty enough to get their hands on a dirty bomb are probably a much bigger threat to you or me than either of our largest stated enemies (North Korea, Iran). if North Korea tried to detonate a nuclear weapon on american soil, they know the entire country would be quickly incinerated. there is no such deterent for a jihadist looking to cash in on his 72 virgins and martyrdom.

I certainly hope that we are successful in Iraq, and that this success can eventually help change the mindset of Islamic extremists. so far it seems we've made a lot more weak enemies who fiercely hate us than weak friends who would fiercely defend us.

(Our friends are often our friends because they don't have to defend us. It's easy for Western European powers, for example, to be allied to us because they know we'll spend what it takes to do what is in our shared interests.)

Your point about the post Cold War shift is of course interesting to think about, but I think that only large, organized entities are capable of making the types of weapons that would do truly terrible damage to our country.

As terrible as 9/11 was, it was (a) small-scale relative to things that terrorists could potentially do with unconventional weapons, and (b) a wake-up call.

We've been fighting, killing, and imprisoning Islamists for almost five years and there hasn't been a follow-up to 9/11 in the form of another attack on American soil. Why not? I'd say it's because we're taking internal security more seriously and because we're drawing all the zealots to foreign battlefields...

There's also, perhaps, that five years just isn't that long. I don't know how long a terrorist plan can take to come to fruition, and I'm not so naive as to think someone won't strike at us again (it's inevitable, IMO).

I just think that the country can live with the danger of creating lots of new enemies as we make systematic changes in regimes that are capable of providing our enemies with weapons that are capable of really hurting us.

Ed O.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Ed O

I'd rather have 5 weak enemies than one strong one.

Is it possible that this talk of martyrdom is something more than talk? Sure.

Is it more likely that, given time, the Iraqi government will be able to consolidate its power, provide more basic services to its people, and create a more stable environment where terrorists like Zarqawi will be rejected by the population? I definitely think so.

Ed O.

OBL was weaker than Zarwhatshisface.

OBL was just a piss-ant that basically spear-headed a small group of people, whereas going to Iraq caused that group to get a LOT bigger (as a whole..and I mean 'terrorists') and for us to lose our "steam" of support.

if you went for the small guy first, there wouldn't BE a zarnnsobwohsosiw.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by theWanker

certainly, during the Cold War. now though, I'm not so sure.

even when Hussein had the fifth most powerful army in the world prior to the Persian Gulf war, he was hardly a threat to do any real harm to the United States, other than adding a few bucks to a gallon of gas.

yet 20 guys with box cutters brought the US to its knees. one guy with some cow manure blew up a building in Oklahoma.

right now a small group of zealots crafty enough to get their hands on a dirty bomb are probably a much bigger threat to you or me than either of our largest stated enemy states (North Korea, Iran). if North Korea tried to detonate a nuclear weapon on american soil, they know the entire country would be quickly incinerated. there is no such deterent for a jihadist looking to cash in on his 72 virgins and martyrdom.

I certainly hope that we are successful in Iraq, and that this success can eventually help change the mindset of Islamic extremists. however, so far it seems we've made a lot more weak enemies who fiercely hate us than weak friends who would fiercely defend us.

Somewhat true yet you must realize that the polarity of the cold war created stability in many ways. Two powerful nations basically holding each other in check for fear of sparking WWIII which would then lead to the ever feared and entirely real theory of Mutual Assured Destruction. Essentially the entire world was allied with one side or the other and although there was obvious tension at times both sides were doing their best to hold their allies in check for fear of sparking controversy with the other. So although we faced a much more pontentially powerful enemy during the cold war era it can argued that the world was actually a much more stable place.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Bravo, Ed. Battles like the one in Iraq are won through perseverence and keeping your eye on the prize. As democracy and capitalism take hold in Iraq, I believe it will become a showcase of opportunity and freedom throughout the Middle East. Of course, this is exactly what the terrorists are afraid of, which is why they are fighting so hard to defeat us.

I salute our brave troops. They are the best in the world, and they are paving the way for a bright future for all Iraqis.

Perseverence is certainly important and giving up early can certainly be labeled a potential mistake, but where does one draw the line. Where do we cut our losses and realize that we do not have the werewithal or tools to fix the problem. At some point the costs become to high for our own nation.
IMO we cannot allow ourselves to make the same mistakes we made in Vietnam and assume that our military might will eventually prevail, it simply may not be the correct "tool" to fix the problem.

[yakbladder]

Originally Posted by Ed O

Your point about the post Cold War shift is of course interesting to think about, but I think that only large, organized entities are capable of making the types of weapons that would do truly terrible damage to our country.

Crop duster. Bucket of radioactive material (waste or anything else). Wall Street.

One person could literally wreak financial havoc on the country. Now whether anyone could potentially secure radioactive material, I don't know. But I think with crazy Sam in N. Korea, that he'd ALMOST be willing to do anything to stick it to America. Not nearly as much as the new dictator in Iran, though. The question is whether we could ever prove who sponsored what.

We've been fighting, killing, and imprisoning Islamists for almost five years and there hasn't been a follow-up to 9/11 in the form of another attack on American soil. Why not? I'd say it's because we're taking internal security more seriously and because we're drawing all the zealots to foreign battlefields...

There's also, perhaps, that five years just isn't that long. I don't know how long a terrorist plan can take to come to fruition, and I'm not so naive as to think someone won't strike at us again (it's inevitable, IMO).

I'd say we've improved security about 2% overall (on a scale of 1-100). Sure, there's a lot more government oversight. In fact, my mere mention of radioactive material, Iran, and Wall Street will probably get this message and all of your identities under some spotlight for the NSA ("Hey guys! It's a discussion board! Feel free to post under the pseudonym 'We_Are_Not_The_NSA_Nothing_To_See_Here'") . But have we really improved security that much? I doubt it. I think it's part of the reason that terrorists haven't struck again but I think another reason is that for their type of grandeoise schemes to work it takes A) time, B) patience, C) a large percentage of their resources. I can't imagine it's that easy to find 8-10 willing suicide bombers who are smart enough and patient enough to get into the country and then very slowly assemble their plans.

[yakbladder]

Originally Posted by sa1177

Perseverence is certainly important and giving up early can certainly be labeled a potential mistake, but where does one draw the line. Where do we cut our losses and realize that we do not have the werewithal or tools to fix the problem. At some point the costs become to high for our own nation.
IMO we cannot allow ourselves to make the same mistakes we made in Vietnam and assume that our military might will eventually prevail, it simply may not be the correct "tool" to fix the problem.

Herein lies one of the biggest problems.

Sure, we could sit in Iraq forever and play babysitter. The problem is right now we are running on a razor thin line away from another great depression (I'll save the specifics for another thread). Our continued debt accumulation to pay for this war will not only stranglehold us in the long run, it may put a chink in our armor in the short run, and make us China's biatch in the medium run.

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by yakbladder

I'd say we've improved security about 2% overall (on a scale of 1-100).

You can say it, but you have no idea.

And while it's easy to say that someone could just (a) acquire radioactive waste, (b) load it onto a cropduster, and (c) fly into NYC, I have to call bull**** there. Those things aren't that easy to do on their own, and to do all three successfully? The odds have never been good for that, and I don't believe that it's at all likely it'll happen now.

Something will happen, for sure, but something would have happened after 9/11 irrespective of what we did.

Ed O.

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by yakbladder

Sure, we could sit in Iraq forever and play babysitter. The problem is right now we are running on a razor thin line away from another great depression (I'll save the specifics for another thread). Our continued debt accumulation to pay for this war will not only stranglehold us in the long run, it may put a chink in our armor in the short run, and make us China's biatch in the medium run.

Chicken little, is that you?

It's easy to proclaim doom and gloom, and to say that the debt we've incurred as the result of the action in Iraq will somehow push us over the edge (even though the US has maintained a debt for decades that dwarfs our expenses there). It's hard to take that kind of talk seriously, though, when doom-and-gloomers have been predicting the crash and burn of the US/free market economy/West for a long, long time.

Ed O.