Let's see: Iraq...

Murdered hundreds of thousands of kurds with poison gas.

Murdered hundreds of thousands more in an illegal war against Iran.

Murdered thousands more in an illegal war against Kuwait. (That one we can verify included rape, torture, killing of kids in front of their moms, and other unspeakable acts.)

Murdered thousands of Iraqis a year for trying to practice their religion.

Paid scholarships to the families of suicide bombers in Israel

Hatched a plan to assassinate Bush senior.

Constantly moved his troops to menace the Kuwaiti border after the war, ignored no-fly zones, and did everything he could to beat the oil embargo....and in the meantime, didn't bother to use any of the oil money on food or medicine.

What the hell does it take for a country to become a terror-state to you, Unregistered?

 

I believe that in most parts of the world, it will never compare. Why? Because very few people felt threatened (outside of Iraq-Iran-Isreal) by Saddam in comparison to those who feared the soviet union. Even here, I believe that if you polled people very few people before the war would have said that they feared (or even thought of) Saddam Husain. I know I sure as hell didn't, and when I did I thought of a crazy middle eastern dictator who we fought in the Gulf war. Go to Europe, and this is even less.

Now take the soviet union. The fear that it enstilled into the people of Europe and America is unmatched by Iraq. Yes, we were/are scared of terrrorism but previous to the Iraq war we did not asocciate Iraq with terrorism. The soviet union however make people think of Nuclear weapons and the distruction of life as we know it. I know that I on many occasions thought and feared about the Soviet union and what they were to do next, and I know my parents who lived during the time which Stallen ruled feared even more.

The distruction of the Berlin wall meant a new begining for the western world: we were no longer separated by a barrier, and no longer had someone/thing to fear. No longer did we have to worry about Nuclear warfare on a global scale, and no longer did we have to worry about our freedoms being taken away (well, for the most part). The taking down of the statue means a lot to the Iraqi people, and much to the middle east. However, to the rest of the world I believe that it will never be remembered the same way as the Berlin wall. We in the western world did not feel the affects of Saddam's horible deeds, the way that we felt the Soviet pressure.

I think what would really answer this question is this: Which did you feel more relieved and happy for? Berlin wall falling or the statue falling? Personally, the Berlin wall felt much more powerful for me. I could not stop watching the TV, and actually felt great joy and happyness that Europe could be joined together again. However, when the statue fell I saw it on the nightly news and thought "thats good, we are doing OK in Iraq afterall" and went on with my normal routine. I did not feel like it was a great day for the world, but I felt it was a great day for the Iraqi people.
-Jeff

 

I wholeheartedly agree with HD.

The significance of the GWOT and the war in Iraq, however distinct from each other, are much more profound than even many well-placed folks imagine.

I obviously don't fully grasp the significance; I know that sounds stupid to say, but I became aware of how deeply-rooted this rift and depth of the Muslims' polar perspective is to us when I was in the Balkans.

Some may argue that this is unrelated, but do y'all realize that a major catalysts in the hatred between the Serbians and Albanians stems from a small battle that the Serbians lost in (I believe) the battle of Kosovo in 1389 (read here and here.)

 

Hahahah, IF ALL ELSE FAILS BLAME CLINTON. Please do research on this area before saying that Clinton dropped the ball. If anything where is BIN LADEN our NUMBER ONE TARGET?

Yes lets ignore the fact that terrorist acts increased in Iraq since our occupation. Lets also ignore the fact that we went in there under false pretenses. Lets also ignore the fact that we are seeing as a power hungry country trying to change their beliefs. Wait isn't that a tool they use to recruit more terrorist? Also it is WAY to early to tell how Iraq will fair.

Wrong. The fuel to the fire was the act of going in under false pretenses. The fuel to the fire was saying **** you to the rest of the world. Maybe you don't get it but WE are the source of hatred to them. If their leaders were the source of hatred they would be the ones being attacked NOT us. We made ourselves a BIGGER target by going into Iraq the way we did. And again this has only caused MORE hate towards us than solve the issues.

 

Re-read what I wrote. I said it was not a hot bed for TERRORSIM. I never said Saddamn didn't rule by fear. Terrorist DID not come from IRAQ to attack us. Had they COME from IRAQ then it would be a hot bed for TERRORISM. (Even then I don't know if you could actually argue that.) Get it yet?

 

100% agree with this. This is exactly what I have been trying to say from the start.

 

Where was Bin Laden during Clinton's years? I did plenty of research on this area. Name one area of relations Bill Clinton conducted well with the Islamic world, and tell me why you think it was good. That will suffice to demonstrate the point.

Terrorist acts have not increased in Iraq. The difference is that now terrorists in Iraq don't have the authority of the state behind them. Saddam's government killed many more Shia and Kurds than the Sunni terrorists have, and the terrorists that are there now are pretty much ALL members of the Sunni minority. Was it not terrorism when these people killed Shiites for teaching their religion under Saddam? Now they do the same thing, and it is terrorism?

Your problem is that you assume people weren't dying violently under Saddam. They were, and they did so daily.


Hahaha, alright, so are you claiming that the people who join terrorist movements care about the UN and international cooperation? That's why they beheaded Margarat Hassan on TV....only because it was the US that removed Saddam, and not the UN? This is ridiculous. The only people who care about the "international community" are other countries, mainly those in Europe. Terrorists hate the UN and the US and everybody except for the Taliban and the Iranian Mullahs. More or less international cooperation will do nothing to change that.

And, your statement about "them being attacked" proves my point...read the news sometime. Saddam's sons had assassination attempts on both their lives, and Saddam himself had to murder people every day and have doubles of himself all over the country to stay safe. And, what about the things I listed? Are those not acts of terrorism? What about the suicide bombers?

Your problem, Unregistered, is that you are narrow minded and short sighted. You think that because Europeans hate the US now, therefore, all Muslims must hate the US too...after all, the US didn't get Europe to cooperate in attacking Saddam. Every single government surrounding Iraq is hated by its people; government cooperation from other middle eastern countries would've meant nothing. What is going to mean something is Iraq's stability...you can't deny that. There was a large voter turnout, people are joining the Iraqi forces in record numbers, and the terrorists are getting so desperate that they're attacking religious festivals to try and incite holy civil war.

But that's not going to work, because the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the President, and the UIA all have an interest in seeing this democratic government succeed. The majority of the people in Iraq voted. Do you know what that means? That means they voted against terrorism. The reason the terrorists are still fighting in Iraq is that they realize what fools they will look like if a stable government takes shape there....they will be thoroughly discredited. As it stands now, THEY are the ones creating the problem in Iraq.

It's silly to say "Iraq is unstable, and that's why terrorists are being recruited" when the reason Iraq has attacks in the FIRST place is that the terrorists are fighting there. If the terrorists would stop fighting, this debate would be over and the Iraqi people would serve as a model for the rest of the middle east. (Did you miss the headlines about Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon?). As things stand, Iraq is set to become a model anyway...except they will do it by killing the terrorists instead of waiting for the terrorists to surrender.

 

I don't think in the eyes of Americans it's a HUGE accomplishment or a great moment in histroy. I knew, as well as anyone else with any idea of what our military is capable of, that we were going to walk all over Iraq. However, in the eyes of the Iraqi's, it was something that they never thought could really happen. Getting rid of Saddam and his iron fist way of ruling meant a new way of life for those people. So in the minds all Iraqi's, weather they were supporters of Saddam or not, it was a HUGE moment in history.

 

Very good point.....

 

Well said: To Iraqi's and some in the middle east it was a great moment in history, but the majority of the rest of the world (America included) will never think of the two on the same level.

 

Talks between Isreal and Palestine. I got more if you want them.


Err they haven't? What do you call those car bombings etc. If you believe terrorist acts did not increasing during the period of a lawless Iraq. And still continue today then what more can I say? This was a governemt acting through terror. That does not equal being terrorist, attacking people. Terrorist adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities. See this INDIVIDUALS not a leader of a nation killing his own people. Very different from what you are trying to portray.

Your problem is you don't know what a Terrorist really is. You are confusing it with a tyrant.


No, Im claiming we gave them a bigger target and a reason to hate us even more. We made true their words. Concerning the Taliban that is and other organizations. The US didn't just "remove" Saddam, we acted on this in a manner that has created MORE hate and distrust towards us in the middle east. Its not that hard to see. We said **** you to the rest of the world and essentially went in it alone. On top of that all the reasons that we stated we went in for were for the most part proved wrong. If that doesn't create distrust in the rest of the middle east towards us I don't know what will in your mind.



Compare that to what is going on now to the few assasination attempts, well you can't they just don't compare. You still don't get it those are the actions of a TYRANT not a terrorist. If you wanna say those actions are then we ourselves are being "terrorist" in the fact that we attacked Iraq. Stop using a term that just doesn't fit. And the sucide bombers? Im guessing your talking about him paying the Palestines? I actually do not see them as terrorist but people fighting with what nothing else they have. Their lives. So no they are not terrorist. I suggest again you re-read the definition of what a terrorist is.

First off Europeans do not hate the US. I don't see were or how you came to the conclusion that suddenly after Iraq Europeans hated the US. Moving on, I still don't understand how you don't see that how we attacked Iraq was VERY arrgorant of us. We ask that others follow the rules of the UN but we ourselves do not. How do you not see that caused a lot more hatred around the WORLD and distrust around the Middle East than anything else? I never denied that Iraq being stable after a war is not a good thing. What I can argue is that we ****ed up in HOW we did it. And you still can't admit that this caused a lot of friction. And you have the gall to call me short sighted and narrow minded.

You still don't get it. It means they voted for a government setup by a Army, our Army. Iraq is hardly stable yet and still has a long road to go. If you believe the war is won in Iraq then it is really hopeless talking to you anymore. Think for a second on what will happen when we pull out our army. Think about when we ask for oil what the public oppinion of the Iraqi people will be. As the saying goes do not start counting your eggs before they are hatched.

Umm, how is it silly? What do you think happens once a child is killed. How do you think that effects a family and their outlook towards the US? Its a part of war that they die and the outcome doesn't make us look good. Terrorist are now fighting there because WE are there. Iraq will only serve as a model if it suceeds after WE are gone. I do not see how it will other wise? Think about it we are the stabalizing force right now in that country. What we are going to setup camp in the rest of the other nations. About the "headlines" go read up on that process, and when it started. As things stand nothing is certain. And nothing will be certain if we leave ANYTIME soon. I have nothing against Iraq doing well but you need to realize that its far from over what they have to face. A nation doesn't rebuild overnight.

 

Holy mother of post... yeah Im going to stop answering every single damn point someone makes.

Oh and as a side point 11-4 I think you got your answer Salty.

 

I'm curious as to why you say this.