View on the recent Gaza/Israel stikes

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I consume news as a hobby. Being unemployed, I watch approximately 8 hours per day of daytime cable news alternating between CNN, Fox, and MSNBC; listen to Dennis Miller's 3-hour radio talk show almost every day; and read scores of stories on the net via news aggregators. My opinion is that al Qaeda recruited easily in Iraq because they became the umbrella organization for terrorism there, as our presence infuriated a radical minority in Iraq and attracted 40-50% foreign fighters from other countries. We then kicked their ass nine ways from Sunday, with the assistance of the Iraqi people and especially trbal leaders and clerics. And now they are unable to recruit. al Qaeda is a toothless monster outside and does not seem as able to recruit as they were ten years ago, at least judging from their ability to carry out attacks worldwide.

So when I ask for a cite, I'm not being argumentative; I just believe that you're talking out of your ass, but I'm giving you the opportunity to back up your words and prove me wrong. This is how I for one would like it to work in the Current Events/Politics side of the Cellar.

I'm not talking out of my ass. There has been a lot of debate whether our going into Iraq increased al qaeda's ability to recruit. I am of the opinion that it has. And according to National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2006, it has.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092301130.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat..._effect_1.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/iraq_war_in...st_attacks_600
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...642825,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005...8/iraq.alqaida

I respect you for getting the numbers right. Here's a "60 Minutes" exchange in 1996:
Quote: Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

What does that have to do with the war we're fighting now?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

How many Iraqis have been displaced... 4 million
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...am-report.html

Bold mine. Sanctions preferable? You could make a good case. The world preferred them. Hussein didn't mind; he built palaces with the corrupt oil-for-food money, and when there were people dying, he just dug mass graves for them. Containment was easier and sure was cheaper.

So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?

Unless all of Saudi Arabia is sacred, our bases were just on "ground". And BTW we left in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...m_Saudi_Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64th_Ai...itionary_Group

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I'm not talking out of my ass. There has been a lot of debate whether our going into Iraq increased al qaeda's ability to recruit. I am of the opinion that it has. And according to National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2006, it has.

Thank you; I believe it now, well cited.

So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?

We should act in our interests, as does every nation on the planet.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?

And are not these all unconscionable offenses? Are these not the great sources of mankind's misery? Do they not stink in the nostrils of God and man? I say they are and they do. It's because I'm a human being. It's because I appreciate governance that is moral, rather than Orwellian.

You?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And are not these all unconscionable offenses? Are these not the great sources of mankind's misery? Do they not stink in the nostrils of God and man? I say they are and they do. It's because I'm a human being. It's because I appreciate governance that is moral, rather than Orwellian.

You?

Yes, they do, and we should act on behalf of those people. But not with war, and not under US military control. There are other ways. If there needs to be military action, it should be done by NATO, with cooperation of the world and the UN.