Author Topic: Al Qaeda is not in Iraq, silly Americans (Read 642 times)

FUNKED1 · « **on:** August 30, 2003, 01:06:03 PM »

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030830/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2003, 01:11:19 PM »

Are you the good twin or the evil twin?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2003, 01:12:20 PM »

Sandman · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2003, 02:33:43 PM »

They're obviosly supported by the Hussein government. We should invade Iraq.

SaburoS · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2003, 02:47:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
They're obviosly supported by the Hussein government. We should invade Iraq.

LOL!!!

MJHerman · « **Reply #5 on:** September 03, 2003, 04:17:41 PM »

Just out of curiousity, but has anyone considered that maybe Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to Gulf War II but came to Iraq after the start in order to make taking shots at the "Great Satan" all that much easier? I know its a whole chicken/egg thing, but I don't know how much any secular dictator would tolerate an armed Islamic fundamentalist group within its borders, so this may be (emphasis on MAY BE) another example of "blowback".

Martlet · « **Reply #6 on:** September 03, 2003, 05:30:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MJHerman
Just out of curiousity, but has anyone considered that maybe Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to Gulf War II but came to Iraq after the start in order to make taking shots at the "Great Satan" all that much easier? I know its a whole chicken/egg thing, but I don't know how much any secular dictator would tolerate an armed Islamic fundamentalist group within its borders, so this may be (emphasis on MAY BE) another example of "blowback".

It's a possibility that has been voiced. While I doubt that pre-invasion Iraq was Al Qaeda free, there really wasn't a reason for them to be there. They had Afghanistan as a home base. Now that the Americans are there, and much easier to get to than in the US, they probably are there in force.

Steve · « **Reply #7 on:** September 03, 2003, 07:19:53 PM »

Sooo...we have a bunch of troops in Iraq on high alert and Al Queda is heading right for them?

Yeah, baby!!!

MJHerman · « **Reply #8 on:** September 04, 2003, 07:37:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Sooo...we have a bunch of troops in Iraq on high alert and Al Queda is heading right for them?

Yeah, baby!!!

Not entirely sure that it is something to necessarily get excited about, particularly if you happen to be the individual soldier or Marine on the ground in Iraq. I for one would not be thrilled to know that I was walking a patrol amongst a population that, at best, is lukewarm to my presence, which population could also contain fanatical killers just waiting to take a shot at me.

Without comparing all of this to Vietnam, there are some interesting parallels developing, such as an enemy who can hide itself amongst the local population. I also heard on ABC News (or maybe CNN) that a proposed strategy is to have US forces pull back from some of the northen towns, but to maintain "quick reaction forces" to deal with any trouble. Such a strategy is very similar to the 1960s approach in Vietnam of maintaining secure fire bases and setting out on search and destroy missions from time to time. If implemented, it will be interesting to see if the 2003 version of that approach is more successful than the 1968 version.

Duedel · « **Reply #9 on:** September 04, 2003, 08:55:36 AM »

Hell ... even Germany and the USA were not "free" from Al Qaida.

muckmaw · « **Reply #10 on:** September 04, 2003, 10:35:05 AM »

Herman-

Not to sound callous, but I'd rather have Al Quaida going into Iraq to face armed and ready Soldiers and Marines, instead of coming to the US face unarmed and ill-prepared women and children.

Martlet · « **Reply #11 on:** September 04, 2003, 10:39:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MJHerman
Not entirely sure that it is something to necessarily get excited about, particularly if you happen to be the individual soldier or Marine on the ground in Iraq. I for one would not be thrilled to know that I was walking a patrol amongst a population that, at best, is lukewarm to my presence, which population could also contain fanatical killers just waiting to take a shot at me.

Without comparing all of this to Vietnam, there are some interesting parallels developing, such as an enemy who can hide itself amongst the local population. I also heard on ABC News (or maybe CNN) that a proposed strategy is to have US forces pull back from some of the northen towns, but to maintain "quick reaction forces" to deal with any trouble. Such a strategy is very similar to the 1960s approach in Vietnam of maintaining secure fire bases and setting out on search and destroy missions from time to time. If implemented, it will be interesting to see if the 2003 version of that approach is more successful than the 1968 version.

You're missing the point. The northern towns are under kurdish control. They'd pull the troops out of their because they aren't really needed. A "quick reaction force" would be in case we learned "oops, we're needed after all". That aspect is hardly comparable to Vietnam.

MJHerman · « **Reply #12 on:** September 04, 2003, 10:44:11 AM »

Maybe I did miss the point, but the "spin" that the US news agencies put on the story suggested that the troops were being pulled back in order to conserve resources, i.e., let the Kurds patrol the countryside and assume the daily risk, and keep the heavy firepower flexible and mobile to be used where needed. The reports also suggested that the plan was intended to minimize casualties.

Anyway, your media sources not mine

Martlet · « **Reply #13 on:** September 04, 2003, 10:52:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MJHerman
Maybe I did miss the point, but the "spin" that the US news agencies put on the story suggested that the troops were being pulled back in order to conserve resources, i.e., let the Kurds patrol the countryside and assume the daily risk, and keep the heavy firepower flexible and mobile to be used where needed. The reports also suggested that the plan was intended to minimize casualties.

Anyway, your media sources not mine

The plan all along has been to turn over policing and governing to the Iraqis. That's why they've installed a rotating government. That's why they've put Iraqi police back on the payroll. What's wrong with that?

muckmaw · « **Reply #14 on:** September 04, 2003, 11:20:01 AM »

Sounds alot like Vietnamization, really.

But it makes sense. That was the plan from the start. Get the dictator out, remove the powerbase, and turn the country over to the Iraqi's.

Sooner or later, hopefully sooner, the only US troops in Iraq will be reaction forces.

It did not work in Vietnam because of the politicians of the era, namesly LBJ and McNamara.

I am sure GWB and co. can do better.