What else did Koch say: (he seems to contradict himself)

Our government has similarly acceded to the refusal of the Shiite majority in the Iraqi government to share power and oil revenue with the Sunni population. It is regrettably time to leave. It makes no sense to lose any more American soldiers or spill any more American blood. This is particularly true when, according to The New York Times, not long ago the King of Saudi Arabia referred to our occupation as "an illegal foreign occupation." The Iraqi government has not passed a resolution denouncing the King's comment and welcoming the presence of our troops. Even more indicative of a lack of Iraqi support for our troops is the T...

What else did Koch say: (he seems to contradict himself)

Our government has similarly acceded to the refusal of the Shiite majority in the Iraqi government to share power and oil revenue with the Sunni population. It is regrettably time to leave. It makes no sense to lose any more American soldiers or spill any more American blood. This is particularly true when, according to The New York Times, not long ago the King of Saudi Arabia referred to our occupation as "an illegal foreign occupation." The Iraqi government has not passed a resolution denouncing the King's comment and welcoming the presence of our troops. Even more indicative of a lack of Iraqi support for our troops is the Times report dated May 12, 2007 that "A majority of Iraq's Parliament members have signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops, several legislators said Friday."

"Some impact," sure. But what? The CIA now says that the Iraq conflict is generating funding, training, and recruitment for terrorist efforts around the globe, which suggests that the war is making us less safe here in the U.S., not more.

I find it really unsettling that otherwise intelligent people are willing to fall so easily for the "we'll fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here" line. It's not as if "terrorism" were a basketball team, and we can keep "the terrorists" (as if there were a discrete, finite number of them) busy in one part of the world so they don't come bother us here. What happens in Iraq has ramifications for what happens here, but those ramifications...

"Some impact," sure. But what? The CIA now says that the Iraq conflict is generating funding, training, and recruitment for terrorist efforts around the globe, which suggests that the war is making us less safe here in the U.S., not more.

I find it really unsettling that otherwise intelligent people are willing to fall so easily for the "we'll fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here" line. It's not as if "terrorism" were a basketball team, and we can keep "the terrorists" (as if there were a discrete, finite number of them) busy in one part of the world so they don't come bother us here. What happens in Iraq has ramifications for what happens here, but those ramifications are poorly understood (though we can confidently say they are complex). Evidence gathered by our intelligence services seems to suggest pretty consistently that the Iraq conflict is strengthening terrorist groups, not weakening them.

It seems to me, and this article suggests, that the infrastructure for global terrorism has been in place for quite some time. It also suggests to me that the individual cell stage is the plan and ultimate goal of the jihadists, not the result of our actions in Iraq.
I can understand the argument that our actions are a recruiting tool, but I do not understand how that should be an argument for not acting. I think you put too much weight on unknown ramifications. I believe the US has many more friends in the region than the we usually hear about tin the US. For example, the Iranian people love America and from what I understand one ...

It seems to me, and this article suggests, that the infrastructure for global terrorism has been in place for quite some time. It also suggests to me that the individual cell stage is the plan and ultimate goal of the jihadists, not the result of our actions in Iraq.
I can understand the argument that our actions are a recruiting tool, but I do not understand how that should be an argument for not acting. I think you put too much weight on unknown ramifications. I believe the US has many more friends in the region than the we usually hear about tin the US. For example, the Iranian people love America and from what I understand one of the things the love about is is that we do not have a friendly relationship with their dictatorial regime.

This idea gets trumpeted around a lot. Has anyone got any evidence that there's a connection.....

The CIA now says that the Iraq conflict is generating funding, training, and recruitment for terrorist efforts around the globe.....

First the CIA is inept in its assessment of our reception by the Iraqi people and of Saddam's possession of WMD, then it is spot on in this assessment? You cannot have it both ways. Your former statement fits the latter one quite well.
Commonsense suggests that they are indeed benefiting from training opportunities in Iraq. As to funding, how much can it be up? They've always had access to vast petrodollars. Funding has never been ...

This idea gets trumpeted around a lot. Has anyone got any evidence that there's a connection.....

The CIA now says that the Iraq conflict is generating funding, training, and recruitment for terrorist efforts around the globe.....

First the CIA is inept in its assessment of our reception by the Iraqi people and of Saddam's possession of WMD, then it is spot on in this assessment? You cannot have it both ways. Your former statement fits the latter one quite well.
Commonsense suggests that they are indeed benefiting from training opportunities in Iraq. As to funding, how much can it be up? They've always had access to vast petrodollars. Funding has never been a problem. They've practically had more than they could spend.
Recruiting? Again, they've had ample recruits for decades. If not for Iraq, there would be plenty of other "causes" to prod would be terrorists. These aren't exactly rational decisions we're discussing.

As it stands now, however, all resources and manpower are dedicated against our trained military in Iraq. Innocents in the US are not being targeted in good part because the one thing AQ is short on is time, not funding or recruits. Time they spend planning in Iraq is time they cannot spend planning to attack on US soil.

cniq_cniq said:

the one thing AQ is short on is time, not funding or recruits.

Do you have any evidence for this (or any of your other claims)? On its face, this notion strikes me as laughable. You're basically arguing that they have the resources, the means and the ability to attack us in the U.S., but they're not doing it because they're just too busy. In other words, our war in Iraq is a kind of diversion, intended to keep them too tied up to notice there's a whole other country to attack on the other side of the world (i.e., us). I can just imagine a bunch of mullahs sitting around drinking coffee with their AK47s by their side, saying, "Boy, I'd really like to pop over t...

cniq_cniq said:

the one thing AQ is short on is time, not funding or recruits.

Do you have any evidence for this (or any of your other claims)? On its face, this notion strikes me as laughable. You're basically arguing that they have the resources, the means and the ability to attack us in the U.S., but they're not doing it because they're just too busy. In other words, our war in Iraq is a kind of diversion, intended to keep them too tied up to notice there's a whole other country to attack on the other side of the world (i.e., us). I can just imagine a bunch of mullahs sitting around drinking coffee with their AK47s by their side, saying, "Boy, I'd really like to pop over to the U.S. to do a few terrorist acts, but with all this Iraq stuff, who has the time! I just never get around to half the terrorist targets on my list!" You can't possibly mean something that simpleminded, though, so I'll await your clarification.