Why the war in Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror

Search

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
240
Tokens
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why the war in Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror[/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Ben Shapiro [/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]December 30, 2004[/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/font]



[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Since the invasion of Iraq, liberals have been arguing that the war in Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. John Kerry said that the war in Iraq was "a profound diversion" from the war on terror and "the battle against our greatest enemy: Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network." Paul Begala, the human echo chamber, agreed completely with Kerry: "John Kerry is right. Hasn't the president's war in Iraq made us weaker in the face of the terrorist threat?" Joe Klein of Time Magazine concurred on CNN, stating that the Bush administration "conflated the war on terror with the war in Iraq, which are two very separate things." President Bush, meanwhile, steadfastly refused to separate the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Calling the war in Iraq a "central commitment" in the war on terror, Bush cited terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence that the Iraq war and the war on terror were inextricably joined. "If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces, does Sen. Kerry think he would be leading a productive and useful life? Of course not. And that is why Iraq is no diversion."

This week, the evidence came pouring in for President Bush's position. Bin Laden sent in his latest audiotape to an Islamist Web site. On the tape, the al-Qaeda leader told fellow Muslims that they would be committing a "grave sin" if they did not wage jihad against U.S. forces and the government in Iraq. He labeled as "infidels" any Iraqis who participated in the upcoming Jan. 30 Iraqi election. He explained that al-Qaeda was spending at least $275,000 each week in Iraq. And he appointed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi his proxy in Iraq.

This puts liberals in a tight spot. It seems that the war in Iraq is indeed an integral part of the war on terror, since Bin Laden is now expending much of his energy fighting American troops there. The war in Iraq hasn't distracted us from the broader war on terror; it has distracted Bin Laden from his war on American cities. The war in Iraq wasn't a diversion for us; it was a diversion for him.

Diversion through offensive action has long been a part of military strategy. During the Civil War, Robert E. Lee used such strategy, invading Maryland in 1862 and Pennsylvania in 1863 in order to divert Union troops from marching on Richmond, Va. As Lee himself wrote to Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, "As long as the army of the enemy are employed on this frontier I have no fears for the safety of Richmond, yet I earnestly recommend that advantage be taken of this period of comparative safety to place its defence, both by land and water, in the most perfect condition." President Bush makes exactly the same point when he says that America must fight terrorists where they live, instead of fighting them on our own soil.

The war in Iraq has helped solve another problem as well. Islamist terrorism composes a network spanning the globe. The largest question in dealing with such a network is how to draw out the terrorists from the general population. Islamist terrorists are like iron filings in a sandbox; there is no sieve in the world capable of separating the malignant from the benign. The only way to draw the filings from the sandbox is by using a large magnet: You let the filings come to you.

That's the situation in Iraq. Terrorists from all over the Middle East and the world are seeping into Iraq, hot and heavy to do battle with coalition forces. For months, we've heard constant reports of terrorists from Iran and Syria crossing the Iraqi border. According to Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan, Iranian and Syrian intelligence agents, as well as former Saddam Hussein loyalists, are allying with al-Zarqawi in Iraq.

In this respect, the old pacifist 1960s adage "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" could have proved disastrous if true. If the situation were too simple in Iraq -- if we gave a war and no terrorists came -- the invasion would have failed to serve one of its chief purposes.

It is crystal clear that the war in Iraq isn't merely another battle in the war on terrorism; it is currently the first and foremost battle. Other battles loom on the horizon: Iran's development of nuclear weaponry must be stopped; Syria's consistent support for terrorism must be ended; Saudi backing for international sharia must be curbed. But wherever the war on terror takes us, we must remember that wars are not won in one battle -- and each battle (e.g. the war in Iraq) is not a separate war.

[/font]
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
2,211
Tokens
Why do you just cut and paste? We could care less about these articles.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
240
Tokens
Not surprised. You are not interested in anything that challenges your demented worldview. Which is why I refer to you as the arrogantly ignorant. you are ignorant as hell and are so ignorant that you will never learn. Regardless of how many times history and reality smack you in the face.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
kburiss001 said:
Not surprised. You are not interested in anything that challenges your demented worldview. Which is why I refer to you as the arrogantly ignorant. you are ignorant as hell and are so ignorant that you will never learn. Regardless of how many times history and reality smack you in the face.
This is what, your FIRST day posting here?
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
2,211
Tokens
What KBURIS will you do when you wake up and realize the insurgents are the favorite to win this thing? Same thing they were saying about VietNam until they kicked our ass.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
2,211
Tokens
Oh and that is why it is called Ho Chi Minn City and not Richard Nixon City.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
240
Tokens
With your statement about Vietnam it is obvious you read none of the posts. We won Vietnam militarily, but lost it politically at home because of cowards and enemy sympathizers like you. Thanks to the hard work of Kerry and others leftist at home we abandoned millions of South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Loatians for slaughter. And since you have learned nothing you are advocating the same for Iraqis and Afghanis. Who needs enemies with friends like you.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
2,211
Tokens
Saying we won anything in Viet Nam militarily or otherwise is a joke. It was their was they won period.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
1) Iraq had no ties to 9-11

2) Israel did not have Iraq in its Top 5 threats to their own safety when Bush launched

3) 15 of 19 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia

4) Wahhabism is the Violent form of Islam that originates from Saudi Arabia and now flows from Egypt ... the side of Islam that hates America

Our kids are dying in the wrong country ...
 

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
240
Tokens
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by doc mercer
1) Iraq had NO TIES to 9-11
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I never said they did and neither did Bush. They ahve extensive ties to terrorists beginning with the Slaman Pak facility.



Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by doc mercer
2) 15 of the 19 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

True but irrelevant. Using this logic we should have never gone to Afghanistan.



Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by doc mercer
3) Wahhabism originated from Saudi Arabia ... and today the main center of this violent teaching side of the Islamic religion comes forth from Egypt
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I agree with this as well, but once again irrelevant with regard to Iraq. We are exerting pressure on Saudi to crack down on the terrorist which is why they have been the target of terrorist attacks lately.



Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by doc mercer
Why are we fighting in Iraq .. please explain as Israel did not even have Iraq as a Top 5 Security risk to their own country

There is a right place and a wrong place .. our boys are dying in the wrong country and the Bushies just dont get it

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

If you had your way our, boys, elderly, women and children would be dying in America. We are there to depose a brutal tyrant who was supporting. Are there others? Absolutely, but Iraq was the next logical step after Afghanistan. As intended the moronic islamofascists are flocking to Iraq to meet their deaths. If it has nothing to do with terrorism, why is OBL calling for Iraqis to boycott the elections? I would think OBL would have nothing to say if it were such a distraction from the war on terrorists.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
2,211
Tokens
That is by no means showing us facts. To use your logic show us websites that support your logic.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
240
Tokens
I knoe you will not read them. You have already made that quite evident. Why should I post anything.

And I was not refuting doc's statements. I was merely demonstrating their irrelevance.

If the left would abandon these brainless mantras and think...well then the would cease to be leftists.
 

I can't dance
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
1,098
Tokens
Hilo Boy said:
Saying we won anything in Viet Nam militarily or otherwise is a joke. It was their was they won period.
From what I understand, saying that the US military won or beat the Veitcong is a fair assessment of the actual results on the battlefield.

The Tet offensive for instance, was a major military defeat for the North Veitnamese, but the shock effect of that bold attack turned US public opinion. Nixon's first reaction to the news of the Tet offensive was he immediately realized that war was unwinnable.

History just like real life, lots of twists & turns!
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Bush told the Taliban in August of 2001 he was going to bomb Afghanistan back to "the stoneages" over the Botched UNOCAL deal ...

Lets get real on why we are in Iraq ... Oswald was not the lone gunman and this military excursion was signed, sealed and delivered long before 9-11
 

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2000
Messages
4,257
Tokens
We should have never been in Vietnam in the first place.

It's not the job of the US to fight other countries civil wars, period.

We lost over 50,000 troops in that useless war and had it been up to the moronic flagwaving patriotic gung-ho people who live with the mindless, dangerous attitude that the government is always right, the same kind of attitude that allowed Hitler to seduce millions of Germans to fight and turn Europe into rubble, we'd still be over there taking casualties fighting jungle warfare and the dead US troops would create a number that had 2 commas in it....
 

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
240
Tokens
Sorry Marco, but if my side had been fighting that war ther would have been many fewer US casualties because there would have been much more napalm distributed to the North Vietnamese. A fate every communist is deserving of.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2000
Messages
4,257
Tokens
"A fate every communist is deserving of."

Why yes, just kill all the peasants because of thier form of government, kinda like the KKK would exterminate people because of the color of thier skin.

If my side had been fighting in Vietnam, there would have been NO US casualties, as our side fights wars in the interest of self-defense. The Vietnam war would have been written up in the French history books as a worthless cause. No need to worry about where the border between North and South Korea was at, either. That was another wasted wad of American troops and resources.

"Blackhawk Down" would have been a fictional movie instead of based on real life history.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
2,211
Tokens
KBURIS,

Are we not deserving of the fate for invading a country we have no business invading. Oh yeah I forgot we found so many wmd's.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
kburiss001 said:
Sorry Marco, but if my side had been fighting that war ther would have been many fewer US casualties because there would have been much more napalm distributed to the North Vietnamese. A fate every communist is deserving of.
To the non-fascists among us: is this kind of hate-filled, putrid stench of an attitude actually common in the US? Do you have a large movement of citizens who actually think like this? Between Game, JP, and now this dipshít, it seems that the uber-extreme right-wing nationalists are becoming more mainstream, at least around here. Or is this guy just hiding behind his monitor, playing tough guy?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,126,144
Messages
13,674,937
Members
102,248
Latest member
instphotos
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com