Does America have the Stomach for a New War in Iraq?

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I think more damaging is the United States of America thinking it has some sort of special god given right to waltz into other people god damn countries and do as they please.

The question is, is America ready to go to war with THE REST OF US for turning out to be the terrorists?

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
O.k.

As the news will have filtered through to you all that militants islamic extreamists have captured two cities in iraq including Mosul which is just 80km away from Bagdad.... with more than 500'000 people feeing thier homes...

My question is...

Does America have the Stomach for another WAR in Iraq??

Well, everyone loves a trilogy!

a reply to: Ameilia

I'm fine with us helping…lets feed them intel from our network lend them munitions and advisors. We could also use our air superiority and cruise missile battery to bolster their strength. I just don't want us sending boots on the ground there again. We have already shown we do more harm than good in that respect.

Not manpower but I think we should help them somehow

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I have the stomach for it when I read articles like this from the NY Post:

Iraq Said to Seek US Strike on Militants

I wonder how US would react if Iraq were to ask Russia for help. I mean that would be the cherry at the top of the BS cake that has been served to the masses for over a decade.

In my line of work I've stumbled upon the so called islamic extremism and I kinda have a wide understanding of their mindset. But there is no force in the world to make me believe that a guy from a cave whith 3/4 of followers illiterate and 1/4 just good enough to make explosive with cans and nails, can mastermind such intricate attacks on one of the most power nations on Earth. I mean in this day and age where there are technologies that can count your fuzz in your but from the space, a guy or a bunch of extremists without even shoes and with their @ss up in the air five times a day is nothing else but a patsy, an excuse to further agendas that we either barely know or understand or maybe just are to afraid to believe.

My two modest cents...

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Not manpower but I think we should help them somehow

Supply weapons and reconnaissance and the odd targeting airstrike would be my view as to what should happen here.

I agree with what someone said earlier... Let Iraqi's fight for Iraq.

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

2600 attacks from 1970 to 2011, that is 41 years or roughly 63 attacks a year. Also from your source:

The data - which excludes 1993 - shows how there are actually fewer attacks now than in the 1970s. There were a total of 207 terrorist attacks in the US between 2001 and 2011. They went down from a high of 40 in 2001 to nine in 2011. The smallest number of attacks occurred in 2006 when the database recorded six. Between 2001 and 2011, it shows a total of 21 fatal terror attacks.

Here the average drops to about 20 attacks a year and of those attacks, 21 were fatal. That is inconsequential. I really fail to see how you can extrapolate out that terrorists would be able to get a nuclear device into our country and detonate it using this data. Here is car fatalities by year:

List of motor vehicle deaths by year

In 2012 alone there were 34.080 deaths by motor vehicle. I have a much greater chance of dying in a car crash than I do from terrorism. Seriously, terrorism is a fear that was blown WAY out of proportion from 2001-2008 and now you are trying to incite more fear for it again because you are watching 24 (a show that fed off of this paranoia and fear to drive its plot).

Also, you never answered this question, what terrorists? What group is going to carry this action out? Be sure to list a well funded one that has the resources to skirt international laws, the US military, and intelligence networks.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Korg Trinity

2600 attacks from 1970 to 2011, that is 41 years or roughly 63 attacks a year. Also from your source:

The data - which excludes 1993 - shows how there are actually fewer attacks now than in the 1970s. There were a total of 207 terrorist attacks in the US between 2001 and 2011. They went down from a high of 40 in 2001 to nine in 2011. The smallest number of attacks occurred in 2006 when the database recorded six. Between 2001 and 2011, it shows a total of 21 fatal terror attacks.

Here the average drops to about 20 attacks a year and of those attacks, 21 were fatal. That is inconsequential. I really fail to see how you can extrapolate out that terrorists would be able to get a nuclear device into our country and detonate it using this data. Here is car fatalities by year:

List of motor vehicle deaths by year

In 2012 alone there were 34.080 deaths by motor vehicle. I have a much greater chance of dying in a car crash than I do from terrorism. Seriously, terrorism is a fear that was blown WAY out of proportion from 2001-2008 and now you are trying to incite more fear for it again because you are watching 24 (a show that fed off of this paranoia and fear to drive its plot).

Also, you never answered this question, what terrorists? What group is going to carry this action out? Be sure to list a well funded one that has the resources to skirt international laws, the US military, and intelligence networks.

Fine... sit back and watch....

Let's see if you stand by your words when the scale of attacks goes up... with Biological and unconventional weapons on the table....

Korg.

This is so weird. This al quieda group came from the fight is Syria. They are armed with the weapons that came through bengazi. Come on. Where do you think they got funded? This is the group funded and controlled by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and USA. This is so weird to watch irl. Ok, al quieda in iraq 20 years ago....baaaaaaad
al quieda in Syria 2 years ago....gooooood. al quieda in iraq today...baaaaad. but this time its not iraqi aq, but its the recently trained and funded africans that are front liners. Trained by mossad. Dang, where do we get off this runaway train? And this new group of throw aways gets refunded and rearmed to hit Syria by the usa state dep.. so i guess the next big ?. Have they gone rogue or following orders still from their handlers? I see they hit the bank, picked up a bunch of dinars....will that stop the rv? Or speed it up? And right aftr the elections and just before they announce the results and seat a new parlaimant. Nahhhhhh, no manipulation going on here, move along people, nothing to see.........a reply to: Stormdancer777

"Does America have the stomach for another war in Iraq?"

Not just no but, HELL NO!

Some of us didn't want the first one. But....we had honorable warriors who fought and died after this country was duped into war...and for what!? Money, that's what.

*BUT*…if Iraqis ask us for help, I feel we have a moral obligation to help since we bombed their infrastructure into the stone age, destabilized their culture and politics and pillaged their natural resources. - all for profit.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Whether we "are over there" or home, the results are the same. There will always be a terrorist or dictator somewhere. How do you identify all these different groups that re-group into another group?

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
Fine... sit back and watch....

Let's see if you stand by your words when the scale of attacks goes up... with Biological and unconventional weapons on the table....

Korg.

Ok, I'll do just that. I have no fears of terrorism. Seeing as how we only get about 20 attacks a year currently, a rise by 50% wouldn't even get to the levels it was at pre-9/11.

I also was stationed in Iraq while in the Army in 2005. I know first hand how badly the media blew even the danger (most) soldiers were in out of proportion while over there, let alone in the United States, half the world away.

I will tell you this, you are doing EXACTLY what the terrorists want, fear it. What makes terrorism successful is the fear that comes from thinking that the threat is greater than it really is. If you don't let it hold any sway over you, then it eventually goes away, as is the case here with the data you supplied (a decreasing trend of terrorist attacks in the states).

Also I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me which terrorist organization supposedly has the resources to carry out terrorist attacks on American soil using wmds

By the way, your entire argument is an appeal to emotion fallacy. We don't have to fear a rise in terrorist attacks if we don't help Iraq. It just won't happen.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
Fine... sit back and watch....

Let's see if you stand by your words when the scale of attacks goes up... with Biological and unconventional weapons on the table....

Korg.

Ok, I'll do just that. I have no fears of terrorism. Seeing as how we only get about 20 attacks a year currently, a rise by 50% wouldn't even get to the levels it was at pre-9/11.

I also was stationed in Iraq while in the Army in 2005. I know first hand how badly the media blew even the danger (most) soldiers were in out of proportion while over there, let alone in the United States, half the world away.

I will tell you this, you are doing EXACTLY what the terrorists want, fear it. What makes terrorism successful is the fear that comes from thinking that the threat is greater than it really is. If you don't let it hold any sway over you, then it eventually goes away, as is the case here with the data you supplied (a decreasing trend of terrorist attacks in the states).

Also I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me which terrorist organization supposedly has the resources to carry out terrorist attacks on American soil using wmds

I'm not talking about fear... Fear is for the weak.

I'm talking about reducing the potential for loss of life...

Geeze you are not reading me very well at all are you.

And your insistence for me to tell you this group or that group is childish... it doesn't matter what they are called... only that there are groups of Islamic extremists that want you dead and will do anything to achieve it.

Korg.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
O.k.

As the news will have filtered through to you all that militants islamic extreamists have captured two cities in iraq including Mosul which is just 80km away from Bagdad.... with more than 500'000 people feeing thier homes...

My question is...

Does America have the Stomach for another WAR in Iraq??

Can the Global community financially support this action???

And what are the repercussions of not doing something about it???

This is very very dangerous times for us all.... Sometimes I wish a large meteor would wipe Iraq off the face of the planet and be done with it.

Korg.

There won't be another wart there and the meteor would be hitting the wrong country if it hit Iraq.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
O.k.

As the news will have filtered through to you all that militants islamic extreamists have captured two cities in iraq including Mosul which is just 80km away from Bagdad.... with more than 500'000 people feeing thier homes...

My question is...

Does America have the Stomach for another WAR in Iraq??

Can the Global community financially support this action???

And what are the repercussions of not doing something about it???

This is very very dangerous times for us all.... Sometimes I wish a large meteor would wipe Iraq off the face of the planet and be done with it.

Korg.

There won't be another wart there and the meteor would be hitting the wrong country if it hit Iraq.

The meteor comment was metaphoric but I would agree if there was one Iraq would not be the place that would be the origin of all these extremists... it is however the battle ground.

I was going to make a joke about cream and warts but then again I just did lol

Peace,

Korg.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
Fine... sit back and watch....

Let's see if you stand by your words when the scale of attacks goes up... with Biological and unconventional weapons on the table....

Korg.

Ok, I'll do just that. I have no fears of terrorism. Seeing as how we only get about 20 attacks a year currently, a rise by 50% wouldn't even get to the levels it was at pre-9/11.

I also was stationed in Iraq while in the Army in 2005. I know first hand how badly the media blew even the danger (most) soldiers were in out of proportion while over there, let alone in the United States, half the world away.

I will tell you this, you are doing EXACTLY what the terrorists want, fear it. What makes terrorism successful is the fear that comes from thinking that the threat is greater than it really is. If you don't let it hold any sway over you, then it eventually goes away, as is the case here with the data you supplied (a decreasing trend of terrorist attacks in the states).

Also I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me which terrorist organization supposedly has the resources to carry out terrorist attacks on American soil using wmds

By the way, your entire argument is an appeal to emotion fallacy. We don't have to fear a rise in terrorist attacks if we don't help Iraq. It just won't happen.

Well I say this, the "terrorists" are as well funded as TPTB want them to be. They also looted almost $400million from the banks in Iraq. So there's good reason to believe there will be a FF and it can be attributed to the stolen money.

Iraq can go ask a different country.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
I'm not talking about fear... Fear is for the weak.

Yes you are.

I'm talking about reducing the potential for loss of life...

Reducing any further than it already is? Your VERY source shows that terrorism just isn't that deadly in the United States, so keeping in mind that reducing it to 0 is impossible, how much further do you think it can be reduced? Do we really need heavy handed tactics to clamp down on the 20-some terrorist attacks every year?

I'm sure we need TONS of Jack Bauers out there running around barely averting the next anthrax scare. OH NO!!! /sarcasm

Geeze you are not reading me very well at all are you.

No I get you perfectly. You are using an appeal to emotion fallacy to try to get people to agree to help Iraq (again) by saying that otherwise we will be subjected to that SAME slew of terrorist attacks that never materialized a decade ago.

And your insistence for me to tell you this group or that group is childish... it doesn't matter what they are called... only that there are groups of Islamic extremists that want you dead and will do anything to achieve it.

Korg.

No it doesn't matter what they are called. But by producing a real world example of one with the resources it actually gives some credence behind your claims instead of just a bunch of faceless terrorists blowing bombs up everywhere. If you cannot produce a terrorist organization that has the resources to carry out such an attack, how am I supposed to believe that your claims are any more credible than the EXACT same claims that G. W. Bush made 11 years ago? At least Bush was the president then, so he get's some credibility for that, who are you? Speaking of Bush and his credibility, thanks to that credibility he was owed, we believed him, his claims didn't pan out and we didn't have as much to fear as was originally claimed. So you have a rather large uphill trek to go to get anyone with a rational mind who happened to pay attention the last 14 or so years to believe your fear mongering.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
I'm not talking about fear... Fear is for the weak.

Yes you are.

I'm talking about reducing the potential for loss of life...

Reducing any further than it already is? Your VERY source shows that terrorism just isn't that deadly in the United States, so keeping in mind that reducing it to 0 is impossible, how much further do you think it can be reduced? Do we really need heavy handed tactics to clamp down on the 20-some terrorist attacks every year?

Geeze you are not reading me very well at all are you.

No I get you perfectly. You are using an appeal to emotion fallacy to try to get people to agree to help Iraq (again) by saying that otherwise we will be subjected to that SAME slew of terrorist attacks that never materialized a decade ago.

And your insistence for me to tell you this group or that group is childish... it doesn't matter what they are called... only that there are groups of Islamic extremists that want you dead and will do anything to achieve it.

Korg.

No it doesn't matter what they are called. But by producing a real world example of one with the resources it actually gives some credence behind your claims instead of just a bunch of faceless terrorists blowing bombs up everywhere. If you cannot produce a terrorist organization that has the resources to carry out such an attack, how am I supposed to believe that your claims are any more credible than the EXACT same claims that G. W. Bush made 11 years ago? At least Bush was the president then, so he get's some credibility for that, who are you? Speaking of Bush and his credibility, thanks to that credibility he was owed, we believed him, his claims didn't pan out and we didn't have as much to fear as was originally claimed. So you have a rather large uphill trek to go to get anyone with a rational mind who happened to pay attention the last 14 or so years to believe your fear mongering.

I get it you oppose me and everything I say...

That's fine... I have no problem with that there is always one.

Accuse me of spreading fear all you want... I'm not scared and wasn't when I lived through the Bishopsgate bomb by the IRA, watched the twin towers fall and moved away from london a couple of weeks the train I used to get got blown up in the 7/7 bombings...

What I am however is a realist and if you think standing around stating you are not scared will save a single life of your countrymen you are sadly mistaken or simply delusional.

I also have worked for the Military as a contractor and some of the people I have spoken with have shown me photos of some of the things that happened in Iraq.... It certainly wasn't all quiet or a stroll in the park!

Korg.

originally posted by: Bilk22
Well I say this, the "terrorists" are as well funded as TPTB want them to be. They also looted almost $400million from the banks in Iraq. So there's good reason to believe there will be a FF and it can be attributed to the stolen money.

First off, resources means more than just money.

We aren't talking about false-flags now are we? We are talking about a supposedly well equipped, well funded, and well organized terrorist group that has the ability to buy the materials to assemble a working nuclear or biological device despite ALL the major materials needed to do so are HEAVILY regulated. So you would need to have the right contacts in place to keep these transactions off the records. You would have to have the right people in place to smuggle your weapon into the country (another impossibly hard task), then you'd have to get it in place to detonate it. Don't forget that the NSA is listening to every listening device in the world practically, so I hope you don't have a conversation about your plot anywhere near an electronic device for fear of a computer picking up a keyword. All this takes more than just money. It takes intelligence, planning, dedication, organization, discipline, and various other non-monetary things to pull off.

This is why 9/11 is widely considered a false-flag because the resources needed just to hijack 4 planes with box cutters is so high that it is unbelievable that al quieda had the ability to pull it off.