The Iraq War is making America LESS Secure!

It is a well known fact that people feel the war has made the world a less secure place. That by stirring up the hornet's nest we have released the angry hornets.

So instead of documenting proof that we are not safer, you choose instead to parrot those other blinkard non-thinkers whose links you have conveniently provided. These links "attest" to nothing other than that your wild-eyed anti-Bush theories have other adherents.

But I put it to you that had we not stirred that hornet's nest, it would continue to grow and strengthen. The enemy is real, COL, and we have to fight it. Whether it is on the streets of Baghdad or in the skies over New York. Michael Moore famously asked people if they would send their children off to fight in Iraq. He should have asked the mothers of Islam if they would send their children to fight America.

They will not stop, they will not falter. They may be slowed down, but they will not sleep. They want to kill you and me and everyone who lives in our fair nation. They want to impose an Islamic state and rule us with an iron fist. They want to destroy everything we hold dear.

Why can't you understand that?

I agree the enemy is real. The current state of terrorism in the world shows the problem is getting worse. My links help document why the policy is not working. The article by Professor Record is especially insightful. The story is always the same. When ever ANYONE points to arguments that show what we are doing is not achieving the desired results, we are "Bush bashing". No we are mealy showing the results of the policies we are following. You are the one that is critical of Bush. You are saying is that the results you believe are negative toward King George!

http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20030209-020607-8252r

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060103/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_iraq

Can you post any more left wing sources. I don't think that was enough.

hen ever ANYONE points to arguments that show what we are doing is not achieving the desired results, we are "Bush bashing".

As we have to constantly remind you. You are "Bush bashing" because you blame Bush for everything. I bet you can somehow blame the invasion of Iraq on Sept. 11. You fail to understand that islamic terrorism has been around for many years, and not fighting them is just as much a "recruiting" tool as fighting them.

I see col that you needed some attention today, so it was time for another useless post. Why don't you go over to the DU and post with people who think like you. You know, people who agree with terrorists.

It is the Terrorists that LOVE the Bush policies. They are using it to recruit more people that will blow them selves up to kill Americans. It is remarkable that people can look at what is taking place and believe we are better off with regard to world wide terrorism. This is not a left wing issue. No one wants terrorism to come to America. However to believe what we are doing in Iraq is solving that problem is dead wrong.

We hear the argument that the Iraq War is a major effort in our war on terrorism.

Um, we are killing terrorist on a daily basis, I don't know about you but that sounds like a good thing to me.

We are told better to fight in Iraq then New York.

Duh, that's a given. I'm sure most Americans would agree that if we are to fight terrorist better there than here.

Supporters of this war say we have not been attacked since 9/11 as proof we are winning the war on terrorism.

In a sense yes, only ignorant people will believe that the war on terrorism is something that can be won like a video game, with an ending. The war on terrorism is a fight to prevent, key word prevent, future attacks and deaths of innocent people at the hands of terrorist. You fail to see this cause you think we are fighting to stop it, but we are not. We are fighting to prevent future attacks. Preventions makes people safer but not completely safe. There will always be someone who will make terrorist attacks, but at least it can be prevented.

Definition of prevent:

To keep from happening: took steps to prevent the strike.
To keep (someone) from doing something; impede
To anticipate or counter in advance.
To come before; precede
To present an obstacle

from www.dictionary.com

This argument is not only incorrect but dangerous.

This is your opinion and not a fact.

The very fact we are occupying a Moslem country has given our enemies a campaign to recruit more terrorists. Terrorist activities are at an all time high thought out the world.

I can give you that much, but in a sense this is a good thing. The one thing terrorist had as a weapon against us was their ability to blend in with the crowd. Now they are forced to show their faces in order to face the enemy who decided to take action rather than sit around and wait for another attack.

We have scene women become terrorists within the past year.

Can you please at least make an atempt to spell correctly since you claim to have such a high rank and business experience. It is seen not scene. BTW there is always a first for everything and how do we know these women were not forced to become terrorist themselves since the terrorist are desperately looking for new ways to hurt us? I bet you didn't think of that.

WE are NOT safer because we invaded Iraq and many intelligence and military leaders have admitted that our very presence in Iraq is adding to the unrest.

Once again just another of you opinions and that statement does not say that the military say we are not safer, only that things are still hot over there. You don't even know how to not contradict yourself.

Below are some links that attest to the fact that we are NOT safer from terrorists because we have invaded Iraq.

You have dropped so low as to using other peoples opinions as fact. You are one sad Bush hater. Not to mention that you continue to use you own opinion as fact as well.

Col, you ignore the fact that not "stirring up the hornets' nest" resulted in 9/11.

Get a grip. Do you really believe if we were not in Afghanistan & Iraq that Osama would have issued orders to stand down? That Zarqawi wouldn't exist? That the terrorists would have just taken a little extended victory vacation to Ibiza? All this BS about "we've" created the problem (or even the allegation that we've made it worse) is just that, BS.

Cheers,
Daiwa

It is remarkable that people can look at what is taking place and believe we are better off with regard to world wide terrorism

It's remarkable that you only see the opposite.

No one wants terrorism to come to America.

You seem to want to since no matter what is done to prevent terrorism in the US you are somehow against it simply because Bush is President. Sometimes the fight has to be taken to them. It seems that your idea of fighting the war on terror should be done diplomatically without anyone dying. Keep dreaming.

However to believe what we are doing in Iraq is solving that problem is dead wrong.

Once again nothing but an opinion. You have the right to believe what you wish, it does not make it a fact. The problem can not be solved, only prevented.

Col, you ignore the fact that not "stirring up the hornets' nest" resulted in 9/11. Get a grip. Do you really believe if we were not in Afghanistan & Iraq that Osama would have issued orders to stand down? That Zarqawi wouldn't exist? That the terrorists would have just taken a little extended victory vacation to Ibiza? All this BS about "we've" created the problem (or even the allegation that we've made it worse) is just that, BS. Cheers, Daiwa

Get ready cause his answer will be our policies made them hate us for being inside muslim countries even before Bush, but in the end somehow it's still his fault.

He will never realize that killing innocent people is not the answer to changing something you don't like, which is exactly what terrorist do. I'm sure he believes terrorist are freddom fighters and that they are only fighting us because we are on their land. He will not use the term cause he knows the onslaught that will follow.

Iraq has done nothing to stop the treat. It has created more enemies then we have killed. There was no terrorism activity in Iraq that endangered us until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

There was no terrorism activity in Iraq that endangered us until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

We weren't in Iraq until after we invaded Iraq. Duh.
Therefore we were not in danger of internal Iraqi terrorism. That would have been Iraqi-on-Iraqi crime.

Iraq has done nothing to stop the treat.

That's true. Iraq can't stop the treat! I can drive to Safeway any time I want to and buy a box of Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls, and Iraq can't stop me!

Anyone that doubts that we should fight Islamic heresy head on should read the Reuters story I post a link too.

today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-11T175141Z_01_HO147186_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BRITAIN-HAMZA.xml

Iraq has done nothing to stop the treat.

I guess those Iraqi military and police are just plain useless and those civilians who have taken soldiers to weapons caches are worthless as well.

It has created more enemies then we have killed.

I thought Bush did that? Make up your mind.

There was no terrorism activity in Iraq that endangered us until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

But you said in another article that there were terrorist in Iraq.

#26 by COL Gene Saturday, January 07, 2006

Bush allowed the terrorists both within and from other countries to establish terrorist operations where they did not exist in Iraq prior the our invasion.

From Bush Tries to Cover Up Incompetence in Iraq article

Keep trying.

singrdave

We need to fight Islamic Terrorists. The problem is the Islamic terrorists that attacked us and that were conducting the terrorism thought the world were not coming from Iraq. The terrorists began operating in Iraq AFTER we deposed Saddam and dismantled the Iraqi military. The war in Iraq has not reduced terrorism. It is worse then ever. The only reason why we have not been attacked again is that we are doing more to prevent another attack. It is not that the danger of another attack is less because we invaded Iraq.

The CIA and our military leaders have stated that Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as the major source of Islamic terrorism!

The terrorists began operating in Iraq AFTER we deposed Saddam and dismantled the Iraqi military.

There were no terrorist incidents in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, either.

The war in Iraq has not reduced terrorism. It is worse then ever. The only reason why we have not been attacked again is that we are doing more to prevent another attack. It is not that the danger of another attack is less because we invaded Iraq.

Islamic would-be terrorists who get all fired up about killing Americans are going to Iraq, not Des Moines. They're not sneaking across the US border from Mexico; they're sneaking across the Saudi border into Iraq. They are detonating IEDs along freeways in Ninawa province, not in Chicago during rush hour. Terrorists are bombing police stations in Mosul, not New York City. Would you rather have Wal-Marts chain-bombed?

I will answer your question with your own words:

The only reason why we have not been attacked again is that we are doing more to prevent another attack.

Part of that prevention is because we have taken the fight to the enemy's land. The war is not fought here in the US because of our efforts to stamp out Islamic terrorism in Iraq.

Do you not understand English? The terrorists that are responsible for attacking us on 9/11 and with the other attacks thought the world were NOT operating in or out of Iraq prior to our deposing Saddam. WE HAVE ALLOWED the Islamic Terrorists to operate in Iraq!

Do you not understand English?

Someone doesn't.

Cheers,
Daiwa

"Do you not understand English?"

Very few Americans understand English.

Sir Peter,

Anyone that doubts that we should fight Islamic heresy head on should read the Reuters story I post a link too.

Thanks for that article. I like it very much. Mind if I quote it?

An Islamic cleric on trial for preaching murder and hatred of non-Muslims wanted a world dominated by an Islamic ruler in the White House, a London court heard on Wednesday.

Abu Hamza al-Masri, 47, possessed a manual which explained how to make explosives and gave detailed instructions on assassination methods, prosecutor David Perry said.

Hamza is the most high-profile figure to go on trial in Britain on charges of incitement to murder and stirring up racial hatred since the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York.

Interest in the case has increased since suicide bombings on London's transport system last July killed 52 people.

Perry said the Egyptian-born cleric used public meetings at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London and private meetings to incite his followers to kill non-Muslims.

"The prosecution case is, in one sentence, that Sheik Abu Hamza was preaching murder and hatred in these talks," Perry told the Old Bailey court.

"He makes calls for a world dominated by a caliph (Muslim ruler), sitting, as he puts it, in the White House," Perry said.

Hmmm... so the Iraq War is making America (and Britain) less secure... for Islamic hate-spouters.

And, incidentally, Sir Peter, I indeed speak English. I lived in London for two years.
I know the difference between my boot and my bonnet, as it were.


COL Gene:

WE HAVE ALLOWED the Islamic Terrorists to operate in Iraq!

As I said before with startling clarity, better there than here.

Nobody should listen to the Colonel with his Kentucky Fried Communism.

My dear boy, the link won't work if you put www. in front of it. Just put http://

My dear boy, the link won't work if you put www. in front of it. Just put http://

Cheers, geezah. Fixed, innit?

singdave

I agree anywhere but here. The problem is that Iraq does not lessen the possibility of having an attack “Here". WE have HELPED those who hate us recruit more NUTS that would be willing to come "Here" We have used valuable resources that could have been used to defend ourselves including our Borders which Bush is NOT protecting. We have diverted our resources from fighting the terrorists responsible for the attacks to remove an Evil Dictator that was not part of the problem!

I don't buy it. If 9/11 happened when America was more secure than it is today, shouldn't we be seeing more terrorist attacks, insted of none at all?

The fact is, terrorist types may be getting more angry and disgruntled, but as the number of states which support them dwindles, and as they run out of safe havens from which to plan and launch devastating terror attacks, their ability to act in any significant way on their disgruntlement diminishes to the level of an L.A. street gang. When was the last time the Bloods or the Crips made a move on a global scale, or even a national scale?

Excellent points stutefish!

The CIA and our military leaders have stated that Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as the major source of Islamic terrorism!

Is this the same CIA that said there were WMDs in Iraq to begin with? Seems like you cherry pick what to quote and who to quote according to how it serves your Bush bashing agenda.

I'm with stutefish and the others that say better there than here.

Maybe Americans "feel" less safe now because we are vividly aware of how many bad guys there are and how much they hate us. We felt a lot safer when we were blissfully ignorant...well, right up until they flew our planes into our buildings.

Bottom line - We have converted a Evil Dictator that posed no real danger to the United States into a country were terrorism takes place EVERY day despite our 150,000 troops and 200,000 Iraqi security forces. We moved the problem from one country to another. How has that made us safer?