Comments about ‘Iraq conflict far from over’

"It [the Iraq invasion] was, from the beginning, to give people what Americans generally believe all people want – freedom." This is far from clear. Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911" was never given credit for the probing nature of its analysis. It's worth another look at this juncture.

It may be far from "Over", but at least it's closer to "over" than it was before. So let's try to see this as a cup half-full instead of a glass-half empty situation if possible.

But as we all know... topics like this generally degenerate into partisan squabling right away. Before that happens... can we give thanks that MANY of our troops are now out of harms way, and we are at least seeing progress on the plan to get out?

That's all I ask.

2 bits: you're right, but are we making the same mistake in Afghanistan? The circumstances of our entry into Iraq are relevant to today's circumstances.

I, for one, never believed "we" entered Iraq to liberate Iraqis. It's not entirely about oil, either, but it is to a large extent. What the U.S. is about in foreign affairs is global hegemony. We got what we're after. We have a huge "embassy" there in Iraq that goes far beyond any defintion of the concept of an embassy. Our permanent presence tells them not to mess with us or we'll be back. We're not quite so benign and benevolent as advertised.

Wouldn't it be grand if our public schools would start teaching the truth about modern warfare to our children?
Ie., the Vietnam mess was supposed to "Rid the world of the Red Menace." After countless deaths the U.S. is now trading partners with the same "Red Menace (communists).
Fast-forward to today and you have the "Liberation of Iraq" BS. But our kids are probably not aware that Dick and Lynne Cheney are former CEOs of defense contractors Halliburton and Lockheed Martin and were the only people to gain from the travesty.

Ron Paul lays it out:

"It is deceitful to imply we will avoid hostilities with this new policy. We still have to contend with:
—the 50,000 troops carrying weapons remain in Iraq
—the 100,000 contractors that remain, with more expected to go to Iraq
—the 9,000 special ops personnel trained in assassinations that remain in Iraq
—a huge embassy, bigger than the Vatican, that will remain
—dozens of military bases that will stay
—the al Qaeda organizations that did not exist in Iraq before the war
—Muqtada al Sadr, a strong nationalist, has gained much political power
—the fact that Iran benefits tremendously with the Shiites now in power in Iraq and is a close ally of al Sadr"

There's still plenty of action ahead. Stay tuned.

ljeppson | 11:13 a.m.

Wars are a fluid situation by nature. The conditions or events that started the war are rarely the same sticking points that make it hard to END the war. Every war I can think of has been that way (not just these 2).

You may go in with one motivation... but then by the time you try to get out, you have to think about and be concerned with many other factors. We can't just say, "the reason we came is no longer here so regarless of what happens next... we're gone"...


We tried that in Iraq after the short Kuwait war. And the people who aided America or sided with America were massacred.

We learned you can't just do that, or you will just be back with your enemy stronger and your allies dead in the streets a few years later.

We will get out as soon as we can. I assure you President Obama doesn't want us there any longer than we NEED to be there.

I happend to believe President Bush felt the same way. Obama and Bush are not that different on this topic.

Earl | 2:37 p.m.

You really believe that al Qaeda didn't have any people in Iraq before 9/11???

We now KNOW they had organized sleeper cells in the United States, Britian, Spain, Italy, Germany, you name it... KNOWN al Qaeda cells (they carried out attacks in most of these countries), but you think they had NONE in Iraq?

You really are being gulible and naive.

@Question: let's have your evidence.

I didn't see anyone in front of a 'mission accomplished' banner declaring things over. Turning the page, moving forward, this is what we're doing.

@Question: Yes, evidence, please. According to a 2004 staff report from the September 11 Commission, convened in order to investigate the attacks, there was "no credible evidence" that the Iraq gov't collaborated with al Qaeda terrorist network.

Osama bin Laden was hostile to Iraq's secular gov't, although he did explore the possibility of forging ties with Iraq. However, according to intelligence reports, Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons. Both the CIA and the FBI corroborated these findings.

Seems very unlikely there was an al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to 9/11.

Just wait until Iraq revalues their dinar. Then you will see and understand the real reason that the U.S. waged war with Iraq. The U.S. and British governments own more dinar than Iraq or anyone else. It will be a significant influx of cash that will then be used to pay for the war and future oil from the region. Stay tuned.

Our soldiers will be fighting there again before 2013.

CLM and Earl,

My evidence is...

- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda... was in Iraq leading the "Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn" ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").... BEFORE 9/11.

They later started calling themselvs "al-Qaeda in Irag" after 9/11, but it was the same group, same leader, same alegences, same goals, same organization.


- But most of all there's common sense

They obviously had a sleeper cell in the United States (they trained to fly and carried out the 9/11 attacks).

We KNOW they had cells in Frankfurt_Germany years before 9/11 who helped plan and carrying out 9/11.

We know there were alQaeda sleeper cells in Britian. They claimed responsibility for the subway bombings. And they were there BEFORE 9/11.

The alQaeda cell in Spain that carried out the subway bombings were organized and existing in Spain BEFORE 9/11.


So... they were in all these places and CLAIMED they had cells everywhere... but you geniuses assume they had NO_PRESENCE in terrorist_friendly Iraq?????

Do you have a brain?

@2 bits: I'll ignore the insult. But just to bring you up to speed, the question was about whether al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq, not all the other places. There was no argument about them. Just Iraq. And there's no question that even though al-Zarqawi was creating havoc in Iraq before 9/11, it was not in coordination with bin Laden's organization. While al-Zarqawi pledged alligiance to bin Laden, it wasn't much of a two-way street. al-Zarqawi was operating pretty much on his own. The al-Qaeda organization as understood by our intelligence agencies was not functioning in Iraq prior to 9/11. If you have an argument with that, take it to them. And lay off the insults if you want to be taken seriously.

Earl | 2:01 p.m.

What insult???

Oh ya... the brain thing at the end. My wife would kill me if she knew I posted that.


What I was trying to say is... USE your own brain! Don't just parrot what you read/heard in the published_version of an intelegence report. Those or notoriously doctored and selective of what info they expose and what they will ignore.

Rely on what people with common sense KNOW, then use your own cognative ability and then ask yourself... is it really possible that there was absolutely NO al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq, no al-Qaeda sympathisers in Iraq, no al-Qaeda WHATSOEVER in Iraq... when we KNOW for a FACT they had hidden cells in the USA, Britain, Spain, Germany, Morroco, Italy, etc... and obviously in Jordan, Seria, Iran, etc???? But it's plausible that they had absolutely NO presence, no hidden cells, no al-Qaeda loyalists or even sypathisers, In Iraq... NONE?



That's what I mean when I say "Use your brain". In light of the facts we KNOW, and a little logic... and you STILL believe that there were absolutely NO al-Qaeda cells in Iraq???

It's_illogical_at_best.

Thank you, Earl.

I would only add that quibbling about a minor presence of terrorists in Iraq previous to 9/11 widely misses the point. The point being, our presence in Iraq was (and is) the flash point for bringing a very large terrorist presence into being that would not have arisen in Iraq otherwise.

@2 bits: apology accepted. It's not illogical to think that al-Qaeda might have been in Iraq, but it doesn't therefore follow that they MUST have been in Iraq. There was no state sponsorship of al-Qaeda by Saddam Hussein because he and bin Laden were at odds with each other. There is no evidence that either bin Laden or Saddam aided al-Zarqawi in any way. Again, everything says he was a lone operator, almost like a renegade. Your logic notwithstanding, the evidence just isn't there.

Let me just put a finer point on this argument: this is the quote we're discussing: "We still have to contend with...the al Qaeda organizations that did not exist in Iraq before the war"

Notice it does not either say or imply there were NO al Qaeda people there. It only says there ARE NOW organizations (plural) that weren't there before the war. Can we agree on that? The niggling about whether there were any at all is really irrelevant to this discussion.