Iraq - Al Qa'ida and USA

sasquatch672 -

I'm not interested in going to that other thread at this time. Would you like to cut and paste the relevant claims and arguments here?

We are fighting to give Iraqis the right to self-govern.

We went in to protect ourselves from Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMDs I thought. We're fighting now because we're already there, for the most part. In addition we want to stabilize the country and establish a government we approve of. There's no reason to believe if they set up a different kind of government than the kind we want or elect someone we don't like - like Saddam Hussein - we will allow this to take place.

I am poorly informed on the topic, so please educate me if I am wrong.

We will fight in many other places in the coming decades to extend this same right to others. We are not looking to occupy these places; we are looking to free them.

What basis will we use to decide if they want to be 'freed'?

Al Qaida fights because they think they're going to get seventy virgins when they become martyrs.

Do you think that they feel Israel stole the land it is now upon and that part of their motivation to fight is because of this belief about the Israelis? This perspective makes us their enemies because we give the Israelis power and support, especially militarily.

If you don't believe that the west should be fighting to rid the world of the Saddam Husseins, the Kim Jong Ils, the Charles Taylors, then ask yourself this: would you want to live there, under their rule?

That doesn't really matter. What matters is if the people want us to come in and take these people out. What I want isn't necessarily what others want; that's a very arrogant assumption. In addition there are many other factors involved then whether the people like those governments, such as their not trusting us; whether they really want the government we want to give them; whether they are willing to have people die; etc.

And no - we're not going to respect cultural differences when those cultural differences preach hatred of us and demand that those who embody those cultural differences kill us.

I respect that. I totally support taking out those who we feel are dangerous to us, as long as we really believe this, can support that belief with solid evidence and are open about why we're doing it.

For the record, I supported attacking Iraq when we went in, and I am not necessarily opposed to being there now. I want to be educated so I can make better decisions about the issue.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The Governer of Baghdad was just assassinated and within 3 hours Al Qa'ida declared responseability. I saw it on Channel 4 News (Los Angeles Channel 4). I can't find a link yet on Google. I didn't spend much time looking though.

It seems to me that from the perspective of Iraq there are two outside agencies - the USA and Al Qa'ida - who both ...[text shortened]... disapprove of. I'd like to discuss what the difference between the two is. What do you think?

Originally posted by papagrif
The difference is as old as the school yard. One started it and the other is attempting to finish it. You figure out which is which.

Jihad simply means personal struggle for fulfillment, whereas manifest destiny was purely rooted in territorial acquisition.

Sorry about the lack of response. I've been kind of busy and then the storms in L.A. cut off my internet access.

I had read your other thread and I think I responded there. I didn't realize that was the one you were referring to. I'm glad you posted it here; having people jumping all over the internet to find stuff makes these threads a pain in the butt. That which is relevant to a thread should at the very least be clearly summarized in the thread, if not cut and pasted in its entirety.

Your first statement. "We went in to protect ourselves from Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMD." No. I don't believe this anymore. I think we were looking for a pretext to invade Iraq.

I meant officially. We actually went in because George Bush decided to send us in. He was indeed looking for a pretext to invade Iraq. He told us and the rest of the world his reasoning was that they had WMDs and were therefore dangerous.

I think that the Bush administration espoused the neoconservative view that the Middle East should be transformed...I don't believe we will view anything less than the installation of...as a success.

Here you start discussing what you think the Bush administration was thinking, and I agree that you're probably right. Then you start talking about what the US has in mind. Are you making the Bush administration synonymous with the US? Not that this would be entirely unreasonable; I just want to be clear about it. Then you switch to what "we will view as a success." Are "we" the Bush administration?

We're not going to decide if they want to be freed.

OK. Al Qa'ida similarly wishes to impose it's will on the people of Iraq.

The criteria for going to war will be these and others:

I feel that the only one of our conditions that may give us the right to invade a country without clear permission from it's people is "f) Does the government harbor, financially aid, or otherwise assist terrorists?"

The Declaration of Independence talks about rights, and I agree that we should as a country enforce those rights when someone has a grievance about them. I am not convinced that we should go around telling people that they will have these rights whether they like them or not however.