KrustyKidd

Jihadists operating independently in over seventy countries and half of Saudi Arabia sypathetic to Al Queda and their goals and you find this far fetched? I would have thought that Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban would be an example for you but, they were from Mars as well right? Now there is something a bit smaller that maybe you can relate to; Jihadists just operating around the world is a threat period. That is not from Mars and is real in every sense of the word. It did not work. Oh, provide a link for that would you please. Krusty River's response No, that was 10% of the insurgency. Not 10% of the entire population of Iraq. And, they are not Islamic separatists fighting a localized battle, they are systematicly attacking governments for a greater goal than not having food and clean water. Caliphate. Try to keep that in mind as they certainly put it on the forefront of their agenda, so much so they kill themselves to work towards it.

Local? Remember the Caliphate? Not a local problem when all of them are working towards that, it's a worldwide problem on a thousand fronts. They did ask nicely right about the time the Kobar towers were blown up. The Saudis did nothing. Iraq is relevent because it sits adjacent to Saudi Arabia and had a dictator that was in violation of five conditions of a ceasefire and could not be allowed to continue that violation. The third which you didn't mention was the one that got the desired action. IF they had threatened to invade, we would be fighting a worldwide war with every Muslim right now. How is it a Jihadist recruiting ground? 65% participation in electorial process with Jihadists composing less than 10% of the insurgency I fail to see what you see. Besides, it is only a local problem right?

As I said, if the next government reflects the wishes of the people and asks the United States to leave, will they or will they make an excuse and stay anyway. US more than likely has a contract to keep so many troops in country on the superbases anyhow but, if asked would certainly scale down. However, as the mission of the US there is to keep the goverment in power until it can do it themselves, I highly doubt they would ever be told to leave unless they were not needed (in which case they would be so happy to leave that you would have to run to keep up with them) so your question is moot.

Figured you had nothing new. Like they did and we took over from them. And the rest is what they did but you never addressed what to do about Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Phillipines and every other country that Al Queda and other Jihadist groups operate within. Wrong. Invading Saudi Arabia or even threatening to was the worst possible thing imaginable. Being in a position to take action against Al Queda within the kingdom was completely realistic and, rather than suffering incursions by the US, took action themselves. And you figure having Saddam without sanctions sitting in the middle of this picture with Al Queda toppling the Saudi government would have added to security of the region? I didn't bringing up Iran. Want to start a new thread for that?

Not imposing, creating the conditions then nurturing it. And yes, they may elect an anti western government but still, that is a government that allows people to have their say and control in their lives. A condition that is not conductive to a Jihadists ability to recruit. Excellent! What are your tactics of conducting the War on Terror then? Looking forward to hearing them. So in your mind, the US would have been better off invading Islams holiest property? You figure that would have had less of an impact on Jihadists than taking out an Aposphate corrupt dictator?

I saw another poll that said Iraqis wanted the US to increase the troop levels. Hmm.

If we can empower coutries with democracy then Jihadists don't stand a chance. Attacks like 911 are designed not to hurt us but to enrage us into taking action so the Jihadists can rally the people under their cause. They continued to appease the Jihadists allowing them to grow, train and buck up right in Saudi Arabia. That was their self preservation method. I can see the similarities between their way of doing things and yours.

Better to let them take over the societies right? That will stop them for sure. And finance arms for their next takeover. Yes, that will be great. So how would you have gotten Saudi Arabia to take on Al Queda?

You actually believe that Jihadists don't employ terrorism? Of course they do and they don't stop using that Iraq or no Iraq. So not doing anything and letting Jihadists do whatever they please is better. That's the 'new' approach you are refering to? So you think Afganistan under the Taliban is a good thing and believe that a better thing would be a Taliban style empire from Morocco to Indonesia including over half of Africa? Half of Saudi Arabia supports this phiplosophy as does a good protion of Pakistan not to mention other countries such as Somalia, Ethiopia and others. That's hardly a narrow segment of Islamic society.

Won't need protection as the US has conducted an effective War on Terror. Taliban Iran is a reppressive society by out standards certainly but is a modern society considered quite liberal by Jihadists. It also does not have an expansionist policy so they are not a threat at this time. This Caliphate thingy as you put it is still a threat even if you do not believe it simply because Jihadists do and they will continue to work against regimes and weak governments the world over attempting to topple them and create mayhem. As for expanding beyond it's initial borders, what borders are you talikng about? It has none as it is an entire idealology that encompasses religion, social life, politics, economics leaving no individual choice.

Who is? I ceratinly am not but believe that it is necessay to counter this threat. The voter turnouts prove they have taken democracy quite well. Of course they do. Even the US does not want to be there but, we all know what will happen if they leave. If you look at other questions, you will note that even when they want the US to leave, they don't wish them to leave right away.

No. Jihadists believe this is a religious war but I know we certainly don't look at it as a way to further the Christian religion.

Of course they would sell as much as they could. They would also use the money to arm themselves. And why would Iran having nukes be a good thing? Huh? They got into power because they took it by force. Nobody had a choice in the matter. Of course it would be stable. All reppressive societies are.

Then he should come out and say that this is a Crusade. Why? It's not a crusade but a battle against an insidiuous reppressive iealology.

Of course they wouldn't be isolated. France would probably buy oil to them as would China and Russia. All in exchange for whatever weapons and things they needed. Taliban Afganistan was run quite differently than Iran is. That is the type of control they would have over their poulations if they came to power.

I don't either as it is not a crusade. It is a batle against an idealology that believes it can do it though. Bush has.

Ah affairs like taking over other countries and all. Being in violation of UN resolutions, attacking and invading our trading parnters and attempting to corner the oil resources of the region. Yes, just let them do whatever So you are saying that a single social, political, cultural and economic force that controls the oil in the Middle East and has one mission - to spread the word of Islam throughout the world by whatever means possible and was being given whatever weapons they desired would have no impact on your life? How many annexations of coutries would it take to affect you? Indonesia, Phillipines, Somalia, the rest of Africa? At what point would they become a force that controlled something that affected you?

They wouldn't stop selling oil but rather use it as an economic tool using it for reward and punishment to grow their empire. Buying weapons from countries that need the oil in order to move against weaker countries and add them to the Caliphate. As to why Iran is shippiong oil it's simple - they have people to feed and they don't want a revoltion. And Shiites are not expected to become part of this Caliphate as they are considered Aposphates. Afaganistan was entrenched in it and Saudi Arabia was in danager of becomming a Jihadist controled country so I really wouldn't say it was a phantom fear. Now the threat is diminishing however, it can still remerge if action is not continued.

No point starting ten threads on more or less the same subject. Don't know that people were hiding in a hole about Iraq. I don't think they had an insurgency before the invasion. OK. Then I suggest we go back to this one as I have addressed all those points ad nausium with Black Dog. Hence, I will just be requoting my relevent posts to counter you arguments here. So, although we were not hiding in a hole, we were in danger well before 911. It just was not as apparent. Also, the Recreation of the Caliphate is not a new idea, nor is making a worldwide Caliphate a modern one. The abuility to take action to fulfill it is though, hence, action needs to be taken to stop this idealology. And yes, they did have an insurgency in Iraq. Saddam had problems keeing oil moving and sabatuers from taking action there. Russia had terrorists as did China and many other countries.

Keeping the relevence in the quote is all. Adding "Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues." changes squat. The cooperation was not immediate and unconditional thus giving the green light for action. And yes, he was recommending inspections to be continued however, it is not up to him to decide on the action to be taken.

Sorry. So you will start a new thread of should we discuss this report here? If here, I would say that we could all be much safer if we simply hide in a hole somewhere and wait for the Conservative Wahabiists to take over everything. Then convert to Islam. Zero risk.

Not sure what you refering to as I didn't ever say safer. I explained in depth why the action was necessary. As an analogy, taking on Hitler didn't make things safer in the short run but it was something that had to be done.

Yes. As the origional goal of the Jihadists was to overthrow the Saudi Regime. By placing troops in Iraq it acomplished a few things. If you wish to know what they were and how that tied into the War on Terror I explained it for the umpteenth time here and here. Yes, that would make sense if we lived in a non global economy with no such thing as WMDs and if that was their only goal. However, the idea is to first recreate the Claiphate and then expand to make it worldwide. I adressed this as well for the umpteenth time here.

It is. Here is the reports and the actual resolution. As well, remember that Iraq is on the verge of being at war and yet, still does not adhere to the resolution's demands. UNSC Res 1441 Iraq's final opportunity Well here to jog your memory is Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

Jihadists seek to recreate the Caliphate. A bit more than localized violent groups or, the one hit wonder of Timothy McVeigh. Behind them is religion, politics, history and a movement. Big difference. And, to save postings, Jihadists are Muslim, all Muslims are not Jihadists. Jihadism is a strong force within Sunni and, particularly Wahabbist regions. While not all connected directly they share the same goal - disrupt the local government and keep on disrupting it until they can provide an alternative via political means.