I love how the left never tires of being wrong, over and over again.

Wonder how this will be rewritten years from now.

I am honored!

This from the BBC?

I feel the earth move under my feet, I feel the sky tumbling down.

For pete's sake... can you be any more dishonest? The BBC has acknowledged nothing of the sort.

The correct headline for your post should be:

Jeremy Binnie of Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre Acknowledges The War In Iraq Has Made Europe Safer

Wow, how impressive that sounds.

You are such a tool. Why don't you post something about Karl Rove being on fucking fire or slicing like a fucking hammer?

AOSHQ is the flypaper for moonbats in the blogosphere!

Izzadem - Wrong

"On June 15, 2005, BBC World broadcast a remarkable story (carried in the U.S. by PBS outlets) illustrating how fighting the terrorists in Iraq is making both America and Europe safer. They reported, “Police in Spain say they've arrested sixteen suspected Islamic militants in raids across the country. Eleven of them are said to be linked to Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

What part of that did you not understand?

The analyst's erroneous assumption is that there are finite numbers of terrorists.

Al Qaeda's ability to recruit is critical to its ongoing success and, as the Jane's analyst inadvertently emphasizes, Iraq has given Qaeda recruiting a massive boost.

Secondly, the Jane's report and the comments on it here leave out that, prior to the Iraq war, Al Qaeda had no haven and was forced underground worldwide. Now, because the U.S. invaded Iraq and had no plan for securing the peace or getting out, Al Qaeda operates openly in some areas and has built a vast, sustainable network of training and support inside Iraq and Syria.

Bunkbuster:

Yes there is a finite number of terrorists. There are only so many terrorist that will give their lives for rich Democrats with no hope of success.

And their families only reward is 4 Howard Dean T-Shirts.

"On June 15, 2005, BBC World broadcast a remarkable story (carried in the U.S. by PBS outlets) illustrating how fighting the terrorists in Iraq is making both America and Europe safer. They reported, “Police in Spain say they've arrested sixteen suspected Islamic militants in raids across the country. Eleven of them are said to be linked to Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

What part of that did you not understand?

Curt,

What part of "that is an unsubstantiated quote from some anonymous blogger relating his interpretation of a BBC broadcast" don't you understand?

You know, I suddenly realized how moot this whole 'recruitment' issue is.

The US did nothing after the Cole and recruitment went on, the US did nothing after Bali Bombing and recruitment went on, the US went into Afghanistan and recruitment went on, the US went into Iraq and recruitment went on.

I think it's safe to say that regardless of what the US does, there will be recruiting going on among the muslim world. Lets just drop the pathetic claims that US action increases recruitment unless of course you actually have the recruitment figures for Al Quaeda?

Don't make me quote Bin Laden saying that people should join AQ because there is no danger since the US is a paper tiger and they are safe from retribution.

As the Stratfor guy put it,

Bush chose the best of a bad lot. He hoped for a change in Arab perception of the United States, from hatred and contempt to hatred and fear.

bunkerbuster uttered: "prior to the Iraq war, Al Qaeda had no haven and was forced underground worldwide."

AQ was alive and well in Iran, Syria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Libiya, Pakistan, Iraq, etc.. They were no more 'underground' in these locations prior to Iraq then they were prior to 9/11.

"Al Qaeda operates openly in some areas and has built a vast, sustainable network of training and support inside Iraq and Syria"

I'll assume this expresses your desire to expand the GWOT to Syia. We agree on this point.

bunkerbuster wrote:
The analyst's erroneous assumption is that there are finite numbers of terrorists.

People on Earth = finite.

Maximum number of terrorists = People on Earth

therefore

Maximum number of terrorists = finite.

Math and logic are your friends.

Al Qaeda's ability to recruit is critical to its ongoing success and, as the Jane's analyst inadvertently emphasizes, Iraq has given Qaeda recruiting a massive boost.

I hope so. That means Darwinism will triumph. The stupid and weakminded fools will think it's great to blow themselves up or eat lead for Allah, thus leaving behind only the members of their societies who may be amenable to change.

Much like the "Roe Effect" in liberal circles.

"prior to the Iraq war, Al Qaeda had no haven and was forced underground worldwide."

I wouldn't call Iraq a haven since we are killing those guys over there. Albiet our men and women are being killed, but not near the magnitude that the terrorists are dying. It makes us safer because AQ and other terrorist organizations are drawn to Iraq and preoccupied with fighting our solidiers over there instead of crashing planes into building and killing our people over here.

There were a whole lot of Nazis in WWII that were just as radical. But we kept killing them until they quite fighting.

"You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting." General Curtis Lemay

Bunkerbuster and izzadem. Truly pick a side or get out of the f'ng way.

I believe in the "flypaper" theory, but it's kind of cold to say to the Iraqis:

"You're welcome for deposing Saddam. Just so you know, a big part of our plan is to fight all the world's terrorists in your country . . ."

Well, more like, 'You're welcome for deposing Saddam, building infrastructure you never had before, self-rule (we hope), schools, clean water, women's rights....'

Bush should remind people that we are still in Germany after 60 years, and that it'll take a long time to stabilize Iraq. I believe we must have a presence that can be ramped up rapidly for at least the next 20 years. One may argue over the number of soldiers we'll need to keep in Iraq, but without us it is likely that Iraq will quickly devolve into chaos and civil war that may draw its neighbors into a great conflagration.

Another lesson from Germany is that if we do leave, we'll never, ever get back in. We're there only because we paid a high price in blood and treasue to do so; it was hard enough the first time around to get into the first place we wouldn't or couldn't pay the same price again. The same lesson applies to Iraq.

We're also still in Japan and many other countries and will be for the foreseeable future. We are not there just to do them all a favor but because it is still very much in our interest to do so. We need the bases in the event of trouble and we benefit greatly from the realtive stability that our presence ensures. The notion that we can just pack up and leave is simple minded. If we do, somone else will fill the vacuum, and it'll be impossible for us to get back in without paying a high price again for it.

72 Anonymous Alchoholics -

I think you mischaracterize bases in Germany as some treasured spoil of war. That we will "lose" if we ever leave and not ever regain the privilege of defending Germany with our guys.

We are there for mutual benefit. If that goes away, we leave. Just as we left Spain, Greece, the Philippines. And Saudi Arabia. And just as talks are underway to allow the US back into Vietnam at Cam Ranh Naval Base.

In Iraq - excuse me if I'm wrong - but the original strategy was to go in, take Saddam and any WMD threat out, end any Saddam-Al Qaeda nexus - and turn the country over to the "Noble Iraqi people", who were "hungry for Democracy" - with the costs of the "cakewalk" paid for by lower oil prices that would boost the American and global economy.

It hasn't worked that way.

And we don't have years and years of patience in tying most of our volunteer military down in dangerous, unpleasant occupation duty and blowing 80-90 billion a year. While watching China Rise and oil at 60 a barrel and also rising. And we don't have the patience to tolerate the "Noble Iraqi People with Purple Thumbs" silently and passively standing by as more and more foreign fighters come in with evidently endless sources of explosives and financing....Iraq insurgents and foreigners still operate in half the country committing mayhem without fear of being ratted out by the "Noble Iraqi People". There are, according to US Generals, more foreign fighters pouring into the country than 6 months ago.

To paraphase Patton, the goal cannot be for us supplying endless American cannon fodder to create a better Iraq. The goal is for Iraqis to serve up their own cannon fodder and fight for their own country. Thus the goal is to set deadlines to get the lazy Iraqis off their asses and deal with THEIR insurgent problems and national reconstruction - or the tattered Coalition of the Willing is gone..

.Not set deadlines for American troops withdrawal...but deadlines for the Iraqis to do certain things - or we will conclude it is pointless for the US to continue to tie down it's military in one country while massive security challenges face the USA elsewhere. We have less ships and warplanes than we did in 2000. Less allies. We have a volunteer military under significant challenge from an Administration that is burning sections of the military out, having great difficulties recruiting, the pressures of base closures and "transformation".

Cedarford

When, exactly, will our presence in Iraq cease to be in our interest? We are still in Japan and Germany because it is still in out interest to there. If maintaining a presence in the middle of most of the oil on earth is not in our self interest, what is?

If you really wish for a plan for the withdrawl of troops from Iraq, you must at least consider the possiblity that the road out may take us through Syria, Iran or SA. These regimes have a great stake in ensuring that democracy not take hold in an arab country. I do not believe they will ever stop their fight to retain the power they currently have. For them, this is a life and death struggle.

Whether we like it or not, we have committed ourselves to stabilizing Iraq and have spent much blood (mostly theirs) and much treasure (mostly ours) in doing so. We cannot allow the terrorists to prove they are right: that just as in Vietnam, if they kill enough of us for long enough we will tire and ultimately give up and leave. To prove to the terrorists and to the whole world that we are an uncertain ally with no stomach for a long term fight will ensure that they will never, ever, ever, give up.

If, on the other hand, we stabalize Iraq and are able to turn over the bulk of the fighting over to the Iraqis thereby gaining more support from the people, we will have acheived an example so powerful in that region that it will be cause a seismic shift in the Moslem world.

We are in a contest of will, and the whole world is watching.

All right, but apart from deposing Saddam, building infrastructure we never had before, self-rule, schools, clean water, and women's rights, what have the Americans ever done for us?

I was thinking the same thing about NickS the other day.

He does find some good shit, all the time.

Nick, are you gainfully employed? LOL

All right, but apart from deposing Saddam, building infrastructure we never had before, self-rule, schools, clean water, and women's rights, what have the Americans ever done for us?

Big fucking deal. All that Iraqi-lovin' social work and American blood shed at a cost of 200 billion so far hasn't stopped a good portion of the Iraqi population from wishing us dead, most from making no effort to tell us where the bad guys or IEDs are, and a country so unsafe we still can't even secure the airport road in Bahgdad.

Convoys have reported they know they are in trouble when the "noble
purple finger stained" Iraqis pour out of their houses - they all watched the bad guys bury a IED - did nothing - and all want to watch it go off and trash the infidel occupiers.

We need to start putting security and reconstruction deadlines on Iraqis - do this - or we're gone - and, BTW, enjoy your Civil War!!

We need to start putting security and reconstruction deadlines on Iraqis - do this - or we're gone - and, BTW, enjoy your Civil War!!

I really wish we could pull out. The Iraqis have been a terrible disappointment to the whole world. They certainly do need to be more cooperative and show more guts than they have so far. But to insist on deadlines or we're out sends the wrong signal to the terrorists, i.e., cow the people through increased violence and let them know who'll be the real boss when the US leaves, hold out until that date, spill as much blood as Saddam ever did, establish an Islamic Terrorist State and build nuclear weapons to attack the US and Isreal with.

No one likes riding the Tiger, but we are on his back right now, and the first one to tire loses.

Furthermore, the world will not be fooled by any excuses we make about leaving. It will prove again we are an unreliable ally and have no stomach for the long haul, and that a few savages armed only with rifles and crude bombs can defeat the world's only "superpower." The lesson for terrorists would be clear. Hang in there, kill as many as you can, and eventually they will tire and give up. And no force on earth can defeat Islam! ALLAH AKBUR!!!

As Lincoln once said: The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Indeed.

72 Lincolns (that sounds like a dealership doesn't it?),

That speech always brings a tear to my eye.

So cut it out.

Modern liberalism (secular socialism) is nothing more than people who are great at stating problems (real and imagined) but run for the tall grass when it comes to realistic solutions to anything ... they live for the handwringing crybaby thing ...
Angry unhappy people who live and die that way ... and since morality never matters for libs, they say anything at any time ... whine on cue ... mess up? ... the lib media will change you diapers.
Big govt, hi taxes and secular values are just getting so hard to sell ... breaks my heart ... boo hoo ... its all stale now ... find a new scam.