Harvard Study: The media's Anti-War stories "embolden" Iraqi insurgents

That isn't the case if you ask them. But enjoy your cartoonish view of the world if you like.

The Spanish people were fully 92% in opposition to their governments decision to provide support for the American invasion. The attacks in Madrid did not change that, and the government was ousted because they tried to lie about the attacks, not because of anyone caving in.

The point is: Spain quit. And AQ need no longer attack them.

Well, sure, that's not what they'd say if you asked them. But al Qaeda is fairly low on the list of groups I'd trust to be truthful about its own motivations...

Because "they hate us for our freedom," apparently.

"We should continue to attack people who are not our enemy, because if we waver, they might think we will stop."

Don't you realize how utterly crazy that sounds?

Is it? One could argue that the war was a folly, but now that we're engaged in it, a victory is preferable to defeat.

AQ's stated goal is a fundamentalist hegemony over the Islamic region; possible conversion/conquest is a secondary, long-term goal that is inherent in Islamic Fundamentalism at large. Furthermore, what he said is more or less correct: they reject and vilify all of our ideas and institutions, Democracy and religious freedom chiefly among them.

Now, since their resources are limited, they've adopted a global guerrilla strategy. They attack members of the Iraq expedition to sow unrest, and they cause chaos in various Middle Eastern nations to destabilize the governments and assume power, or in the case of Iraq, to also destroy the will of the people to continue this fight.

It's a legitimate and winning strategy. We've used it: the only reason the British signed the Treaty of Paris was because the public withdrew their support of the war.

And they do. But AQ only makes their fight that much harder if they involve those countries that aren't willing to stand up to them.

No, the point you made was that Spain quit because they caved in after an AQ attack. That is a falsehood. You can't just rewrite history to suit your slogans.

You're not just drawing AQ members out of the woodwork. You're doing their recruiting for them. And of course, most fo the groups you're fighting in Iraq aren't AQ and have no interest whatsoever outside of the ME, often none outside of Iraq itself.

To the extent that that is true and indeed your goal, you should be able to leave now. To the extent that you need to stay, that is obviously either not yet achieved or not your whole goal.

And we've had this discussion several hundred times now, I think. No point in going over it again. The point here is that there is an absolutely logical, coherent and patriotic position that continues to openly criticize the war in Iraq, and that recognizes your support of current US policy as detrimental to the US, and as an active support of its enemies.

While I am not opposed to the war in Iraq (since I fought in it, and still directly support the effort every day at work) I'm really starting to get uneasy about the financial cost.......it works out to about 4,000 dollars a second (saw this in a newspaper).

We really need to find a way to lower the cost, or wrap it up somehow.
I mean, the money has to come from somewhere, or we're just "running up a tab" that somebody has to eventually pay.

Another thing - we can't just switch the focus to finding Bin Laden because if Pakistan won't let us go after him in Pakistan, what's the point?
Would you be hiding in Afghanistan if you were him and America couldn't go into Pakistan (which is probably chock-full of his supporters?)

There's no logical, coherent, and patriotic position that can come to any other conclusion.

It's actually quite competitive. Non-crazy-person estimates of the long term financial cost to the U.S. for this war are in the 2-5 trillion dollar range, with that being about half the total financial cost to the world once you count things like lost Iraqi productivity and Syria and Jordan footing the bill for 4,000,000+ refugees--i.e. the strictly financial costs of those ruined and lost lives. $6,000,000,000,000 could save a lot more than the 1,000,000 or so lives lost in Iraq with more than enough left over to provide full lifetime medical coverage to hundreds of thousands of serious trauma victims and to house 4,000,000+ people in comfort and find them work.

But here's your problem: You're laboring under the assumption that there is an infinite supply of crazy suicide bombers and criminal masterminds who raise funds, make bombs, and plan operations. By forcing the issue in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've crippled their financial network and killed or captured a lot of their financial, planning, and operations guys. And in Iraq they're getting down to using women and children to conduct bombings. Islamic terror is starting to "bleed out". (As an added bonus, this draws away from people who would be attacking Israel too.)

True, they're rebuilding in Africa, and politically there isn't a lot we can do there, but we are standing up AFRICOM to advise and assist in stabilizing Africa and try to help these nations to help themselves.

If true, that wouldn't be a problem, but a solution. But I don't think so; as I said, most of the people you're fighting aren't AQ, they needn't be criminals nor crazy. If you're hoping to empty Iraq of all capable minds, you're not going to be left with a stable country either way.

The CIA disagrees.

Yeah.

Fighting always forces fencesitters to pick a side. You can just as easily make the case that we've turned large portions of the Sunni population in Iraq against Al-Qaida. And let's not forget that we're destroying AQ's resources, killing their leaders, and eliminating their hiding places. There's NO WAY that Iraq is a net benefit to Al-Qaida. No way.

No, but these groups are opposed to democratic government, the rule of law, free flows of people, information, etc., so they are as much as anyone a part of the problem. It's the backward tribal mentality that is the breeding ground for vermin like AQ.

I was merely pointing out that your assessment of the situation--indeed, all of the most pessimistic assessments of Iraq--have not come to pass. Remember the "civil war" talk from a year or two ago? Did the "civil war" not actually exist (meaning those who promoted the idea were dishonest or sorely mistaken)? Or did it exist (meaning we should be credited with stopping it)?

In any event, much of what we set out to do in Iraq has been accomplished; but leaving prematurely will prevent those gains from taking root. (Vietnam, anyone?)

I think the side that makes the situation in the field more difficult for the troops has less claim to patriotism. Once disagreement with a war becomes an exercise in undermining the troops, claims of respectable, patriotic dissent are simply not believable. It isn't patriotic to want your country to lose a war, even if you didn't agree with the reasons for it.

Not if the fight is on a different continent, no.

Hardly, given they didn't support AQ before.

You can repeat that as often as you like, but if you hadn't invaded Iraq and concentrated on eliminating AQ in Afghanistan, AQ would very likely have ceased to exist at all by now.

So now you're going to enforce democracy by killing everyone who disagrees? Wow.

The most pessimistic assessment I ever saw before the invasion is that the invasion would fail to secure WMDs, and lead to instability in the region. Those two have come true beyond our worst nightmares.

It did and does exist. Why you should think that the current situation isn't civil war is beyond me.

You've failed to point out 1 planned accomplishment so far. So dont "in any event" me.

Well, I think that's the kind of oversimplification that loses wars, but if you insist: That's definitely the side that wants to continue fighting rather than the side that wants the US troops out.

Once that happens, the situation changes massively. Right now, support for the war is undermining US troops, and the safety of America itself.

I disagree. While your dissent is disastrous to your country, I am prepared to believe that you are motivated at least in part by a kind of patriotism, albeit the blinded, suicidal kind.

I don't know what other continent Arab men would come from to fight in Iraq.

Not by a long shot. AQ isn't confined to Afghanistan, for one. Throwing more troops at the problem doesn't solve it; it isn't an issue of our manpower being overwhelmed. It's an issue of the leadership hiding in areas of Pakistan that we cannot invade. That doesn't change whether we have 50,000 troops in Afghanistan or 5,000,000.

If they won't allow others to choose democracy, why should they be spared? I thought we fought a few big wars in the 20th Century in order to abolish some particularly non-democratic forms of government. Should these have been spared?

A democratic government can contain tribalism or religious fundamentalism. Neither of the latter can contain the former.

The failure to secure WMDs, while something of an embarrassment, is a product of Saddam's own obfuscation. And I don't see nightmarish instability in the region. Yes, Pakistan is under threat of fundamentalist revolution (when hasn't it been?), Iran continues to be a bad actor, and the Arab-Israeli conflict continues as it will till the end of time, but will we see Iraq invade Kuwait or threaten Saudi Arabia again? No. Will we see Afghanistan give safe harbor to the most destabilizing agents of all--Al-Qaida--again? No.

If so, it has to be one of the least involving civil wars of all times. The government is not divided, the military is not divided, and civilian casualties are steadily decreasing.

Defeated the Iraqi army, overthrown Saddam, and overseen the institution of a democratic government. The new Iraqi army is getting close to taking over the security tasks of the country and that will be another accomplishment.

Well, losing certainly spares the troops...I suppose one could pull one's team out of a football match before the end and proclaim victory on account of the effort it saved the players...but few would agree.

Really? What security threat that the military should be dealing with is going unchallenged?

Whether you were for the war or not, the war is a fact. Losing it is the most disastrous outcome because it will give our allies doubt and give our enemies certainty.

Depending on whether you consider Iraq to be in Africa, Asia or in its own Arabian subcontinent, either 1 or 2 other continents, not counting small trickles of support from Europe, North and South America.

And it's less confined now than it ever was.

Ain't that the truth.

Both of which wasn't the case when we went into Afghanistan.

If you have to kill the majority of a population in order to create a democracy, it won't be a democracy when you've finished.

Helped by American obfusctaion. And neither changes the fact that this was one of the two the main pessimistic predictions, and both have come true. So rather than say, "None of the pessimistic predictions have come true...", your argument should start with "Although all the pessimistic predictions have come true..." and then somehow arrive at: "...the pessimists were still wrong, because..."

To this extent? About 3 years ago.

...and now has a weak enemy to the West and an active ally in Russia...

Yeah.

Hello? Iraq is already at war. It doesn't have to invade a neighbour to create instability, because it isn't stable!

It's more of a harbour to AQ than it was 2 years ago, but you're right: The most dangerous agents have moved on to the nuclear power that used to be your ally next door.

There are currently at least 3 bodies that claim government of Iraq, and control parts of it; 4 if you count the Kurdish separatists. That the US only recognizes 1 of them means that it has taken sides in the civil war, not that the war doesn't exist.

Each of those groups and several further militias have armed trops fighting. That you only consider one such group to be the country's military does not chnage the facts, it again only means you've taken sides.

Which is fine, but doesn't change the fact that there are civilian casualties, and that the vast majority of them are brought about by Iraqis killing Iraqis, the very definition of civil war.

It's not instituted until it can govern. And if the first two were indeed the plan when you went into Iraq, an assessment that seems to be changing by the hour, then it's time to leave.

I'll believe that when I see it; the exact same claim has been made for years.

No, losing costs troops. Realizing you've lost spares troops.

Or you could keep your team in long after the game's over and deny you've lost.

Your continued presence in Iraq funds and recruits AQ. Your absence from Afghanistan has allowed AQ to escape; and your policy in Iraq has given them a safe harbour in Pakistan.

That is what has already happened. Continuing the current policy will continue to create more enemies, and turn the former allies' doubts into a certainty that the US cannot be counted on.

The environmental cost of using DDT in malaria infested countries is small compared to the human cost of not allowing it.

I realize that has nothing to do with this discussion, it's just an example of how people tend to value many other things above human life.

^^ That would work better if it was actually true, which it isn't considering DDT's long-term effects on the human population.

It is true even taking into account long term effects. The cost in lives numbers millions every year.

Yeah, it's not like our allies don't doubt us now or anything after all the WMD we discovered and kick-banning the terrorists out of Iraq now.

...oh, wait.

Honestly, I doubt anyone on the street has a clue why why we're fighting over there any more. This seems to be the key difference between us fighting and the terrorists. Most of them truly believe their cause is worth fighting for no matter which side of the Islamic fence they lie. Many kids my age assume this fight's about oil and don't do anything aside from bitch about the price goign up at the pump.

I don't agree with a the all or nothing stance of patriotism. But at this point wining isn't important so much as getting the fuck out of there before we lose even more people on OUR side.

Canada is "standing up to them" in Afghanistan as we speak. So is France. I know Germany was, but I'm not sure if they still are. The German army website I found mentioned Afghanistan, but it was in some weird foreign language.

They are, though they have finally started refusing the US' calls for yet increased troop levels. Most here feel that the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause as long as it's being undermined in Iraq; that and doubts about the US' own actions have greatly reduced support for the mission in Afghanistan, which was supported by an overwhelming majority when it started.

Which goes to prove the point made by you and many, many others that U.S. Iraq policy clearly undermines U.S. security. Disputing this point is like disputing the existence of evolution or claiming that there are 63 states in the United States. I'd be genuinely surprised by people's inability to grasp this monumentally easy point to grasp if I weren't such a damned cynic.