If invading Iraq was about halting the spread of terrorism, then it has been a failure

It’s interesting how National Intelligence Estimates seem to become some sort of indiputable Holy Writ when they agree with one’s politics.

“The paper has not seen the report, but spoke to people familiar with it”

“According to the New York Times, which has spoken to officials who have either read it, or been involved in drafting it, the report says the invasion and occupation of Iraq has spawned a new generation of Islamic radicalism that has spread across the globe”

Let me rephrase that. It’s interesting how third hand rumors from partisan sources about National Intelligence Estimates seem to become some sort of indiputable Holy Writ when they agree with one’s politics.

Actually, I don’t see a finding like this as controversial, but I’m a little concerned about the BBC’s reporting standards.

So as you can see it isn’t obvious “duh” as Kim thinks in light of the biased interpretation from NY Times.

Ivan I don’t believe the report. I know many civilians who havegone to Iraq and Afghanistan who came away from a different conclusion. I believe terrorism has diminished andthat this report is propaganda and a misrepresentation by NY Times of the report. So I’m not surprised because I don’t believe those things. 10 million kids are able to go to school in Iraq, Pres. Karazai is in government (enough said), 90% of the population in Afghanistan have had no terrorist activity take place on them, hospitals, schools, and jobs are being created as we speak. This has been confirmed by multiple civilian sources who have personally been to Iraq and Afghanistan. Isthis ever reported by the press? no because theyhave their own biases.

Also, we are not imposing our form of democracy but are allowing the Iraqi’s and Afghans to determine the type of constitution and government by way of free elections.

Kim, to go with your type of analogy, we prevented a nuclear bomb of terrorism. Using gasloline to prevent terrorism like a nuclear bomb seems reasonable. I personally believe that no water on terrorism can be done in light of the type of people terrorists are.

Are people going to die for their freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan? yes but it is better to have freedom and die than to not have freedom at all. Man I love Patrick Henry.

Here is another biased perspective from the lack of resolve type UN. When the 1992 UN resolutions were violated and the UN wanted nothing to be done what more do you need.

Also, Kofi Annan’s son was making money off of the oil for food program. Do you think they wanted Saddam out of power when he was making money off of Saddam? You just lost your credibility by referencing Kofi Annan. Not the most balanced of sources.

P.S. I don’t think of Kofi as the anti-christ but I would say he is not a reputible source on issues like this.

P.S.S. Freedom is never free. It always requires paying a cost. I just don’t buy Mr. Yoder at all.

“Jeez, J and DH, you’d have to be Rip Van Winkle not to have noticed that Bush has doused terrorism not with water but with petrol (i.e. gasoline) - you know, the stuff for which he’s invaded the Middle East”

I can’t speak for DH, but as I said in my last comment, I wouldn’t be surprised that AQ supporters are upset about the Iraq invasion, and Afghanistan before it - though given the quantity of terrorist attacks supposedly prevented, and the lead times in evidence in those that have succeeded, any answer to the question of whether we’re safer than before is speculation. As has been pointed out so many other places on the web, the citizens of Germany weren’t particularly pleased with our invasion of that country (they didn’t even attack us!). Should we have done nothing then?

In any case, my point was that the BBC’s sourcing was a little loose here. I’m mildly surprised that the Times trumpeted this so - keeping these issues in the news is not good for the politicians they support.

“with some of the religious right, you believe that Mr. Annan is the Antichrist ”

I wouldn’t restrict that to the religious right. There might be an institution with less credibility, in the eyes of the US public, than the UN, but I’m not sure what it would be. Maybe the legal industry.

I’m interested in the remark about petrol. What do you think Bush’s objective was with respect to that?

J your right on. For me this response seems the best:

“Also, Kofi Annan’s son was making money off of the oil for food program. Do you think they wanted Saddam out of power when he was making money off of Saddam? You just lost your credibility by referencing Kofi Annan. Not the most balanced of sources.”

This doesn’t even get into France and Germany making money off of Saddam after UN resolutions stated sanctions restricting nations from doing business with the Saddam regime. Does France, Germany and Kofi Annan’s son ever get rebuked by the left? no It shows a clear bias in the extreme way.

I’m not saying money made is the prime motivator in the conflict. I was pointing out that money made in violation of UN sanctions was the prime motivator in not wanting the War in Iraq for the UN, France and Germany. Those who are against the war never mention this and ignore these facts. That is why I brought them up. Hense my question “Does France, Germany and Kofi Annan’s son ever get rebuked by the left? no It shows a clear bias in the extreme way.”

However, I totally agree the only reason we are in Iraq was to free the region of Saddam regime anda second to destroy terrorist cells. So we are in agreement.