World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count

They don't oppose Turkey because public instability would cause regional problems instead of global. There aren't oil rich ME states that have that leeway. Even with the occupation in Iraq, there's still none.

 

Other than reducing Saddam's support of Palestinian suicide bombers, it didn't.

It took place because (a) the administration thought [mistakenly] there were WMDs, (b) Saddam was a bad guy who needed to be removed, (c) containment of Saddam was fueling terrorism against the US, (d) the administration overestimated the ease with which Iraq would transition into a democratic state - serving as a bulkward against fundamentalism in the ME.

Not sure that is the case. If, for example, you take Glynch's claim that 100,000 Iraqis died a year from sanctions and add the number of Iraqis tortured and killed by Saddam per year - you get a net beneficial increase in safety to Iraqis (ie less death) WITH the intervention.

Where do you show Zarqawi didn't have freedom to operate before the intervention? You don't. Certainly intervention into Zarqawis base of operation gave him a sense of urgency and a theatre of operation, but your assertion that we wouldn't have seen him organizing acts of terror absent the intervention has NO basis in fact. In addition, your argument essentially is that Saddam's totalitarian control of Iraq was good because that control enabled him to deny Zarqawi support - Saddam would have no problem snuffing out anyone he thought was a threat to his regime be it an individual or a whole village.

The accounts coming out of Iraq about attacks from Iraqis centers around actions against coalition forces. Suicide and car bombings center around AQ. Why is it, do you think, that Zarqawi has in his most recent tape threatened other 'insurgent' groups from negotiating with the government and coalition? Its because their goals are NOT the same, their motives are NOT the same, their actions are NOT the same.

Honestly I'm not even sure what your argument is. You asserted that if Iraq were to become a progressive (I assume you mean democratic) state, that the US would oppose Iraq. I don't have any idea why that is true, even if the population of Iraq was generally anti-American and anti-Israel. Being anti-Israel or anti-US generally is not going to keep them from exporting oil, which seems to be your argument.

 

Yet Sunnis have attacked other Iraqis with suicide bombings. Sunni groups have taken credit for bombing Shiite mosques. They weren't AQ groups but Iraqi Shiite groups. The attacks aren't by just AQ or just Sunni groups, but a combination of both.

As far as Zarquawi not working under Saddam, I can't prove what would happen in a hypothetical. But I can look at history of Zarquawi's terrorist activities under Saddam, and see that he was prevented from being active inside Saddam's Iraq.

 

i guarentee there will be a civil war between the Shiite and Sunni's after the U.S leaves. i feel bad for everyone involved. just a bad situation that is going to get worse.

 

Well then qualify that with a source, cause its pretty widely reported that the attacks on the mosques are AQ et al trying to spark a civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis.

Exactly. Your argument is, whether you like to admit it or not, that Saddam was good because he prevented Zarqawi from acting out in Iraq. Nice. I can, on the other hand, speculate with a reasonable certainty that Zarqawi would have been active REGARDLESS of our intervention in IRaq.

 

Sunni Militants Attack Baghdad Mosque
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — Masked Sunni militants attacked a mosque in central Iraq and threatened to kill dozens of Shiite hostages unless all Shiites left town, potentially enflaming sectarian divides, while at least 17 people were killed Saturday in separate attacks nationwide after a week of increased violence in Iraq.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/041605_nwAP_iraq_sunnis.html

Because Saddam prevented Zarqawi from operating in Iraq doesn't mean he was good. It just means that a byproduct of the way Saddam ruled prevented Zarqawi from being active inside Saddam controled territory. That part is good. No matter how bad Saddam was he didn't allow folks like Zarqawi to run huge operations from within Iraq. I'm sure Saddam was opposed to the common cold as well. There are two things I might agree with him on. That doesn't mean that Saddam was good. It also doesn't mean that Zarqawi wouldn't have found a way to base his operations in the part of Iraq not under Saddam's control and still been active. He definitely was.

 

Singers of mass destruction = SMD

Do those hornets have SMDs? OR do they have thousands of stingers? If the former, you better show me the conclusive evidence before we eradicate. Because if no SMDs are found be prepared to lose the political war.

In reality, you just didn't want those little stingers buzzing around, right? Ok, fine. You should have said that in the first place. Too late now. You just created a world wide swarm. Should have been truthful from the start. Deception will always bite you in the ass sooner or later.

 

I agree we are fighting AQ in Iraq but we don't really know to what extent. From the same article. It says that Sunni's are believed to be the backbone of the resistence in Iraq.

Sunnis are believed to comprise as much as 20 percent of Iraq's estimated 26 million people, but the minority was the country's dominant group under Saddam Hussein. Since coalition forces drove him out of power in 2003, the Sunnis are believed to be the backbone of the ongoing insurgency.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/041605_nwAP_iraq_sunnis.html

 

While the Sunnis are moving from favored status under Saddam they didn't exactly run the government before this, Saddam did. While there is concern from the Sunnis about being payback from the Shiites, the Sunnis as a whole are not involved in the insurgency, and many of those that are involved are not those attacking other Iraqis. The article goes on the say that its Zarqawis men that operate in the area of the attack making it probable that it was an AQ led or directed attack! This report shows the distinctions I am writing about: AQ is working within the 'insurgency' which is mainly composed of people who are Sunnis (but that is not why they are in the insurgency - its because they were Saddam loyalists). Their (AQs) objective is to get Sunnis and Shiites fighting against each other.

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- "Saudi security officers have been determined to play a major role in Al Qaida's network in Iraq.

U.S. officials said Saudi nationals, including members of the kingdom's security forces, have played a major role in Sunni insurgency attacks in Iraq. They said hundreds of Saudi nationals accused of participating in Al Qaida-aligned attacks have been arrested in Iraq over the last year.

In all, about 2,000 Saudi nationals have been recruited into the Sunni insurgency, many of them in the network led by Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi. They were said to have included hundreds of members of the Saudi National Guard, commanded by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, who met President George Bush in Crawford, Texas in April.

Officials said Saudi nationals comprise a leading element in the foreign insurgency presence in Iraq. They said the majority of the foreign fighters come from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria and their numbers are growing."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8375754

"Since then, Zarqawi's group has claimed responsibility for a series of deadly car bombings and assassinations, including many of the 20 or more car bomb blasts in the past week."

 

As I said before I know we are engaged with AQ. But that doesn't stop the fact that Sunni Iraqis are also fighting there, and carrying out attacks on other Iraqis.

I never contested the fact that some of the stuff going on is a result of AQ. I only objected to the notion that other Iraqis weren't also bombing their fellow countrymen.