Hypothetical question for the Y!A anti-war crowd...?

Question

Work with me here: suppose we do have intelligence and diplomatic information that a radical Islamic government in Iraq would pose a serious threat for another 9-11 -like attack in the US in the next 5 years.

Would it be worth American lives now to deter that threat?

I'd like to just get well-reasoned, well thought out answers, please. Show me how intelligent you can get with your response - I've already seen plenty of comments here on the level of "Bush is a dork." Of course, if that's the most intelligent answer you can come up with...

First three answers (well, two answers and a comment) are better than I'd hoped. Thanks.

Good answers continue - it's refreshing to get these, thanks. As a senior military officer, I'd guess that most of you do NOT have access to the classified information that led up to the Iraq war or that exists now. Which is regrettable, because I see the country headed towards another 9-11 if opportunistic politicians continue to put political gain above national security.

But at least you're thinking, which puts you above too many of the folks on this site. And I apologize if I had to insult a few with my appeal for good answers.

Osbert - I'll watch your video if you'll watch mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8fa9yKQeTY&mode=related&search=

Osbert - you're the best answer. More then.
Raven, Count, Road - Look at facts. Saddam had WMD - he used them against his own people, and intelligence DID say Saddam had them. The dems in congress believed the same intel. There's a difference between being wrong (because WMDs were moved/hidden) and lying. Look at facts, or spout rhetoric.
Runner - good answer, thx
Exist- we just disagree on philosophy - that's okay, I respect your opinion. Thx.
YR -you forget that the 9-11 mission ideology and initial training came from a place that will be very like Iraq if we don't win there
Skews - you're a trip! A dorm award gives you GREAT credibility; everybody needs to check your website. Skews for conspiracy theorist of the century!
Sam - almost best answer; too bad you don't believe in helping establish peaceful moderage governments. Alternative is tacit support of oppression.
Peace - I agree; the military is spending billions in Iraq doing that.
Appreciate answers all - thx.

Answer 1

if we do, i need to see evidence of it before i can agree to commit resources to addressing it. i don't want to fight wars against invisible armies i can't see with superweapons no one has shown me.

maybe this isn't well reasoned enough... let's try again. if you had lived in nazi germany, how would you have decided if jews were a threat or not? if they really were ruining the country? i know that their propaganda seems ridiculous now, but isn't it weird that all the german people believed it enough that germany invaded poland and sent away millions of people? that is my worry. i saw 9-11, and those guys needed to steal our planes. the other terrorist attacks have been similarly opportunistic, which leads me to think that they aren't very powerful or well organized. i haven't seen anything to lead me to believe otherwise... if you've seen something, i'd really like to see it. i'm hard-pressed to be afraid of these countries when it seems like this is the same problem we've dealt with for decades without going to war. there will always be crazy people. i'm not sure trying to hunt them down and kill them is as productive as making sure they can't do anything really spectacular to us.

this is what frightens me:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517

ok... i've actually seen your video before. i'm not sure she's being entirely honest about what happened in lebanon, because most of what i read say that it really collapsed because the three religions pulled each other apart... not that the muslims infected it and bred out the christians. there seems to have been a mass exodus of wealthy christians from lebanon that also occured, similar to our country's white flight. also, her numbers about king hussein having killed more palestinians than israel can't be true. those estimates only vary between 3k and 5k so i don't know what she's smoking. she seems a little fast and loose with what she says, but i admire her courage. few people have experienced what she has.

here's my problem with using what she's said... we don't allow polygamy, so already you have cut out any ability for people to have 30-40 kids here. also, we don't have people declare their religions and then carry ids. part of why i can't see the parallels is that our country has already made it hard for a theocracy to take hold... unlike in lebanon which seemed to have really fixated on religion unto death. any thoughts on mine?

Answer 2

You must consider the facts first. You assumed that a radical Islamic government in Iraq posed as a threat for another 9-11 attack. While I would justify an American military action to deter this attack, however such conditions didn't exist during Saddam Hussein's rule. Saddam is a dictator who imposed a brutal rule on his country. In fact, Saddam always considered the Islamic clerics as a danger to his own power. He executed most Islamic fundamentalists including Muqtada al Sadr's own father, who was a very popular muslim cleric at the time. Even al Sadr himself was jailed and suffered throughout Saddam's rule. Therefore, to assume that Islamists in Iraq could plan another 9-11 attack is impossible. Saddam would not allow any Islamists to gain power, let alone to bear arms. This mistrust to Islamists was the same reason which dispels the widely publicized claim that there was a link between Bin Laden and Saddam to 9-11.

While to attack a country that sponsors terrorism is justified, the manipulation of intelligence information to justify such an attack is a crime.

Answer 3

If this were the case...first of all I'd be pissed that certain executive policies created the possibility of a radical Islamic government in Iraq. Three thousand American troops have died fighting in Iraq and now the chances of Iraq becoming terrorist sponsors is greater?! After this initial outrage, I would have to agree with what George Bush said....in 2000. I do not believe in nation-building. Unless we're looking to put a repressive regime (like Hussein's) back in power in Iraq, they will end up with a government representative of it's people i.e. Islamic. If we run around trying to overthrow and rebuild every government that poses a serious threat to us we won't survive.

Answer 4

A radical Islamic government in Iraq only poses a threat in America (in the near future) if those extremists willing to jihad make their way into America. The smart extremists already realize that Iraq is not the best place to train.

-- append:

Torture (http://www.skewsme.com/torture.html) imposed on enemy combatants should weigh on gravity of situation and not humor of sport.

Spying on America (http://www.skewsme.com/spying.html) is unfortunate fallout. I find it amazing that video evidence can be used to convict people when the time line of the images would otherwise prove innocence, but that was in London, spy cam central.

We've all been Brainwashed in the Mouse House (http://www.skewsme.com/mouse_house.html) to accept the Mind Control (http://www.skewsme.com/mind_control.html) that the CIA (http://www.skewsme.com/cia.html) and others have waged on the world.

And if this isn't a scary thought, my illustrated Brain Implants essay is credited as the basis for the Wikipedia article on the subject (http://www.skewsme.com/implants.html).
.

Answer 5

No. I believe that pre-emptive war in every instance is wrong. I think that if we had the knowledge and the capabilities to know for a fact, we'd be able to get countries to unite to help us diplomatically settle the issue, either with boycotts, cutting funds, or other means.

I realize that no American pres. will be against war on every level, so what would I recommend a president to do? I would hope that he'd go to another country or group of countries to apply pressure and send a joint force to stop the country.

Answer 6

The tragedy here is that because of Bush's lies about wmds and Iraq, most people now won't believe anything he says. The 9/11 attack was carried out by Saudis and Afghanistan and there were no terrorists in Iraq until we attacked it.

Answer 7

yeah america has what they say is one of the best intell in the whole world then u wouldnt need to go to iraq because 9/11 was done using american equipment which means it was executed from the beginning in america so then america would only need to capture the would be terrorists instead of killing them they will be good intell perhaps this will be usefull for the yankee army in iraq so that they get more intell instead of killing others and being killed

Answer 8

Possibly, however, in that event, I would like to recommend another plan of action before we committed to war.

People who have access to clean and plentiful water, plentiful food, more than adaquate shelter, healthy communities, and meaningful work don't tend to be easy to recruit for terrorist missionsbecause they have too much to lose. Therefore, I would suggest that before we plunked down money and many lives on war, that we put money and resources towards ensuring that as many people as possible in Iraq had those things in great supply.

Answer 9

I think that if we did have intelligence that we knew for sure that it was going to happen, then yes, it would be worth it. But ONLY if we were positive, I don't think it is worth it to waste American lives on shifty evidence.

Answer 10

It would all hinge on how reliable the information is. Thanks to Bush, we now don't know who to believe.