"Long Before the United States Sent Troops to Iraq"

1993? Try Tehran in 1979. Carter screwed up by executing a half-ass rescue operation in which the brass from every service wanted a part (Army Delta carried by Marine helo's launched from Navy carriers to be extracted by Air Force C-130's). Reagan screwed up and tried to negotiate with terrorists by selling weapons to them to get our hostages released from Beirut. George H.W. Bush didn't do so bad, but really didn't have to deal with terrorism. However, I think the isolating of Saddam following Desert Storm was a mistake. Clinton... well, really, where do I begin with him... Somalia was a disaster... our ignorance of the slaughtering of Bosnian muslims only angered the muslim world more... a paltry response to the 1993 WTC bombing... again a paltry response to the USS Cole attack.

I'd like to slightly disagree about when this war began. My take is that the war began as soon as they began to imagine that they had beaten the Soviets out of Afghanistan. That's when they started thinking that they could take us on and win the world.

I've heard the 1979 theory floated occasionally, I'm not really sure if I buy it or not. Joel you're probably right, the hostage crisis fit the criteria for an 'opening shot.'

But the first battle, methinks, was WTC '93. And Rick is most definitely correct about Afghanistan. That's when the sniper scope shifted from the USSR to the US of A.

Still, regardless of every pathetic attempt
made - there is, and never was, any sort of
a tie between Saddam Hussein and those al-
Quada attacks.
9/11, War On Terror, Iraq.......
It doesn't work! The lies have been put out
in front of the world to see. There were no
ties whatever to the war in Iraq and what
happened that September morning...

GW Bush had one focus going into office - to
get Saddam. What about Osama Bin-Laden?

Bin-who?

I believe the war began in the early 1800's with the Barbary Pirates kidnapping American merchant sailors for ransom.

I think I would go with the American Embassy bombings in 1998 as the start of the combat phase of this war. Up until that point, you can't really point to a specific unifying force amongst the various muslim terrorist groups. Those were orchestrated by bin Laden and al queda. While the 1993 bombing had a lot of connections, I don't believe it was as well-planned, financed, or controlled as the USS COLE bombing or the 9/11 attacks.

"The. War. Did. Not. Begin. With. The. Invasion. Of. Iraq."

Yes, it began with the invasion of Iraq. And that's all. Not mind what you say, truth is only one.

I think the war started with the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beruit.

Part of the problem with saying when the war started is defining who we are at war with. On the one hand, it could be argued that the war began with 1979 taking of the hostages in Iran. However, that to me has some problems. That incident, it would seem, was more the start of Iran trying to separate itself as an independent regional power, as opposed to a junior partner under U.S. domination (at least from their perspective).

The Marine Barracks bombing in 1983 is also another good starting point. However, it may also be misleading since really what was going on there was an extension of the Arab-Israeli Wars that have been going on since 1948. Historically, it would seem to be analogous to the sinking of the USS REUBEN JAMES just prior to the U.S. entry into WWII, even though we chose to run in this case.

My personal belief is that this current war against Islamic fundamentalism started in 1990-1991 as a result of U.S. action and inactions in the Balkans and Somalia. Both were situations where the West ostensibly wanted to help the victims of war (Somalia in general and anyone but the Serbs). However, we made such a hash of both that any goodwill we had was spent since it appeared that we were unwilling to back up our words with deeds. Combined this with Muslim perception over the "rightesouness" of their cause in and against Israel and the West's insistence that Israel negotiate with the terrorists. This period, begining with George H.W. Bush's reluctance to commit to either a policy of engagmenet or non-engagement in "small wars" or "nation building" and Bill Clinton's mishandling of the inherited situations from his predecessor, emboldened Islamic groups. They took the lessons learned from Lebanon and Afghanistan in the 1980s and began to wage a series of campaigns that built on each other, finally culminating in the 2001 WTC attcks.

Iraq did not start the situation we are in now. While I do believe that Iraq should have been dealt with, I am not sure that the timing was right, or that the team assembled to oversee conduct of the war and ensuing occupation was the one tailored for the task.

The American response to the 1979 hostage crisis (to include the dealings of the Reagan administration to "buy off" the Iranians) and the pathetic response to our Marine barracks bombing planted the notion that terrorism worked.

As a response to the 1979 embassy takeover, I would have had a major city (other than Tehran) FLATTENED... conventionally, mind you. Then I would have asked for my hostages back. If the response were negative, I would have followed with another bombing. Etc, etc. The lesson would have been learned very quickly that terror does not work.

However, the Iranians showed that it did... and it worked well throughout the 80's and 90's... up until 9-11 when we responded by invading Afghanistan.

The timing for Iraq was not right. And, I think recent history has shown that the team handling it did a poor job (at best). Rumsfeld will be the MacNamara of the Bush legacy.

Yes, it began with the invasion of Iraq. And that's all. Not mind what you say, truth is only one.

Never trust a man who sells the truth, he's almost always full of shit.

1979??? That's the extent of historical context we're going to talk about? C'mon guys, I know you're better than that, I've seen it.

What about Mossadegh and the Shah, 1953? Think maybe 1979 had anything to do with that? Nah, like your former Commander-In_Chief Carter said at the time - ancient history - irrelevent!