Now here's a different idea about why we went to war in Iraq

[MJDub]

Back in 2001 we all thought that we had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora in Afghanistan, but he got away. Seeing that mountain warfare was obviously pants, Bush, or one of the Pentagon "higher-ups", thought that we should entice the terrorists to bring the fight to us outside of the U.S., instead of us hunting them down, by attacking one of their "own kind" that we knew we could get (Saddam). Many naysayers of the war were saying that the war would just turn into an insurgency, but maybe it's exactly what Bush was hoping for.

Now, terrorists from all over the damn place are coming to Iraq, and it's been turned into the next battlefield of the war on terror. There haven't been many terrorist attacks any other place (except Madrid) besides Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which is right next door. Geographically speaking, it's better to be fighting there than in Western cities, no?

Maybe I'm giving Bush too much credit here, but surely someone else has thought of it like this?

[Civic_Zen]

This is a very good point MJ. I personally believe that Iraq may have been something like this after a month or two ago when Fallujah became the focal point for the entire situation.

However, I don't really think its working as good as it could have, or should have. But it is serving a purpose, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, and the more terrorists and attention placed in and on Iraq, the less time they have to plan more attacks like 9/11.

[gokada]

You have an interesting point MJ and I never really thought of it that way. But I don't believe that was intentional. Remember, just 5 or so days ago, Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin admitted that he gave the U.S. some intelligence that pointed to the fact that Hussein was planning terrorist attacks inside the U.S. According to Putin, the intelligence was gathered before 9/11 and confirmed shortly after 9/11. Now that being said, one has to question why Bush never stated this as a reason for going into Iraq in the first place...I'm a supporter of the war and I think it's a good thing that we're fighting terrorists over there instead of over here. But I dread the day when another, more serious attack hits us...say a dirty bomb or something like that. It's not a matter of if, but when...

Gokada

[Balanc3]

We've been sayin this all along mate! Thus why it was the best strategic move the U.S. has made in the war on terror.

[evangelion]

Excellent theory MJ.

Makes sense to me. Get them all in the same place and try to confront them all at one time. Wonder how I never thought of that. Maybe Bush has a plan after all.

But still...I gurantee they didn't think it would be this hard or costly.

[MJDub]

Excellent theory MJ.

Makes sense to me. Get them all in the same place and try to confront them all at one time. Wonder how I never thought of that. Maybe Bush has a plan after all.

But still...I gurantee they didn't think it would be this hard or costly.

Now I'm definitely not trying to take away from the significance of any of the deaths that have occured in this war, but compared to other wars, isn't 700 or so casualties in 15 months of fighting pretty low? Maybe I'm just a little fucked in the head.

[brakada]

However, I don't really think its working as good as it could have, or should have. But it is serving a purpose, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, and the more terrorists and attention placed in and on Iraq, the less time they have to plan more attacks like 9/11.

Well, I don't really think this will stop the terrorists from planning attacks like 9/11. IMO it's not like many terrorists came from western countries to Iraq, but they just continued their activities in the countries they are stationed in. After all, most of the terrorists fighting in Iraq come from the neighbouring countries and would have probably never reached the States or Europe.

Regarding this theory it's an interesting one, but IMO a bit too complex to be put into practice.

[delirious]

However, I don't really think its working as good as it could have, or should have. But it is serving a purpose, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, and the more terrorists and attention placed in and on Iraq, the less time they have to plan more attacks like 9/11.

So you think the US invading a sovereign country, against overwhelming world opinion is a success in the war against terror, even though it causes more moderate Muslims to become extremist?

You invade a country, the population rejects your presence and fight you. You then call them "terrorists' and insist that because of your action, there are going to be less terrorists. Interesting logic.

[evangelion]

Excellent theory MJ.

Makes sense to me. Get them all in the same place and try to confront them all at one time. Wonder how I never thought of that. Maybe Bush has a plan after all.

But still...I gurantee they didn't think it would be this hard or costly.

Now I'm definitely not trying to take away from the significance of any of the deaths that have occured in this war, but compared to other wars, isn't 700 or so casualties in 15 months of fighting pretty low? Maybe I'm just a little fucked in the head.

Your right, comparitively speaking the death toll in this war is low. But with all of the advancements in warfare technology, tactics, GPS, detection equipment and everything else, I feel that closing in on 1,000 deaths is extreme.

The reason all of these advancements have been made is so that there doesn't have to be another D-Day or another 50,000+ dead like Vietnam. Its working, just not as good as I might have thought.

[MJDub]

It's the sad reality of war.

[undrgrndwmn]

but, remember ... the "rationale" that ibn Laden gave for the first and second WTC attacks was based in part on the first gulf war ... he was pissed that Americans came over there to "the Holy Land"

[colonelwings]

Re:: Now here's a different idea about why we went to war in

mj
i think you might have given this man a little too much credit. there arent too many people throughout history in power who have had the nous or intelligence to concoct and idea of that sort. although i am sitting in this political minority of australia we still hear a lot of the stuff going on in the us and he and his cronnies dont seem that smart to me
maybe you should run..

[MJDub]

Re:: Now here's a different idea about why we went to war in

maybe you should run..

I probably will in about 30 years.


Maybe I could bring something to a campaign that the 2 shmucks running now lack: Likeability

[brakada]

Re:: Now here's a different idea about why we went to war in

maybe you should run..

I probably will in about 30 years.


Maybe I could bring something to a campaign that the 2 shmucks running now lack: Likeability

MJ for president... Then the next MM movie would almost certainly be:

85% of his time as a president, MJ was spamming the mercuryserver. :wink:

[devon]

Re: Now here's a different idea about why we went to war in

Maybe I'm giving Bush too much credit here, but surely someone else has thought of it like this?

If Bush is such a brilliant miltiary strategist how come he didn't have an exit plan in place before he went into Iraq?

These are not high ranking terrosists in Iraq (except for maybe one), they are small time foreign fighters.

So the answer to your question is yes you are giving bush way too much credit!