Where Kurdistan Meets the Red Zone Part II

[BT]

“If America pulls out of Iraq, they will fail in Afghanistan,” Mam Rostam said.

Hardly anyone in Congress seems to consider that the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan might become much more severe if similar tactics are proven effective in Iraq.

“And they will fail with Iran,” he continued. “They will fail everywhere with all Eastern countries. The war between America and the terrorists will move from Iraq and Afghanistan to America itself. Do you think America will do that? The terrorists gather their agents in Afghanistan and Iraq and fight the Americans here. If you pull back, the terrorists will follow you there. They will try, at least. Then Iran will be the power in the Middle East. Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism. They support Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Ansar Al Islam. You know what Iran will do with those elements if America goes away.”

read the whole thing

[fatman]

“And they will fail with Iran,” he continued. “They will fail everywhere with all Eastern countries. The war between America and the terrorists will move from Iraq and Afghanistan to America itself. Do you think America will do that? The terrorists gather their agents in Afghanistan and Iraq and fight the Americans here. If you pull back, the terrorists will follow you there. They will try, at least. Then Iran will be the power in the Middle East. Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism. They support Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Ansar Al Islam. You know what Iran will do with those elements if America goes away.”


Wasn't this also the line of thought for Viet Nam, the "domino" effect?  We've got to stop terrorism/communism before it metastasizes (probably spelled that incorrectly) and infects neighboring nations type of deal?  In my opinion, this war has been misunderstood and mismanaged (and to some, misused) much like Viet Nam, and while they are two different wars in two different times, there are some similarities, one of which that there is a very real strategic element involved.  It's just a case of whether or not the people support the cost for that war.

Also, if the Iraqi people demand that we stay, aren't we capitulating to their demands?  Funny how if a person believes that we should wrap this war up, they're accused of capitulating to the terrorists, but if we stay, then aren't we capitulating to the Iraqi's?   At what point do the interests of the American people (a slight majority of which want the war ended I believe) come into play?

[Plane]

The American people will demand that we should have done the right thing in spite of them insisting otherwise at the time.

[fatman]

The American people will demand that we should have done the right thing in spite of them insisting otherwise at the time.

At what point do the American people decide that our Iraq adventure is the "right thing"?  Do we now consider Viet Nam the "right thing"?  Further, what if we come to the conclusion that this was the "wrong thing"?

In the 1860's up until the 1960's, some segregationists also felt that they were doing the "right thing".  (And no, I am not saying that the people who support this war are segregationists, racists, or bigots.  It is just an example as to how something they felt sure was right was eventually believed to be wrong).  Although I agree with you somewhat about the dumbed down mob mentality that exists in this nation, I'm not sure if this is something that the American people are going to revisit as being "wrong".

[sirs]

Fatman, are you advocating that the Executive branch run policy by way of what the polls say?

[Plane]

The American people will demand that we should have done the right thing in spite of them insisting otherwise at the time.

At what point do the American people decide that our Iraq adventure is the "right thing"?  Do we now consider Viet Nam the "right thing"?  Further, what if we come to the conclusion that this was the "wrong thing"?

In the 1860's up until the 1960's, some segregationists also felt that they were doing the "right thing".  (And no, I am not saying that the people who support this war are segregationists, racists, or bigots.  It is just an example as to how something they felt sure was right was eventually believed to be wrong).  Although I agree with you somewhat about the dumbed down mob mentality that exists in this nation, I'm not sure if this is something that the American people are going to revisit as being "wrong".

The Viet Nam war was indeed the right thing , it delayed the falling of the dominos for another decade as the Soviet Union continued to weaken.

Haveing no success is not the same thing as proof that the choice was wrong , if you saw a little child being pulled away by the current of a river , you might attempt a rescue , but not succeeding would you drag yourself from the river saying that yuo shouldn't have even tried?

Millions of people have risked death or died trying to escape the winners of the Vietnam conflict , I take this as proof that the winners were not the common people of VietNam , certainly not the millions who died nor the millions who had to leave.

Communism ,by the way ,was not really good for Cambodia either, where we chose not to help.

The test to apply is whether the choice made was better in effect than the other availible choices , what could we suppose to be the result of not resisting Communism?

[fatman]

Fatman, are you advocating that the Executive branch run policy by way of what the polls say?

Of course not sirs!  Although I think that it is politically proper to at least take into account popular opinion.  Politics sometimes acts like a market force, where the inefficient or poor quality politician is rejected by the consumer (voter).

The Viet Nam war was indeed the right thing , it delayed the falling of the dominos for another decade as the Soviet Union continued to weaken.

I happen to be in agreement with you on Viet Nam plane, though I think detente was a major force in the Soviet collapse also.  Viet Nam, as with this war, has not been adequately (and some would say truthfully) explained to the public.

Haveing no success is not the same thing as proof that the choice was wrong , if you saw a little child being pulled away by the current of a river , you might attempt a rescue , but not succeeding would you drag yourself from the river saying that yuo shouldn't have even tried?

Of course not plane, and this is where I feel that this war takes a major departure from the similarity with Viet Nam.  We went into Viet Nam originally when the French lost their hold, we went in so that Viet Nam would not go communist.  Iraq on the other hand, had a stable government for a number of years (though a cruel and corrupt one) and it was our actions that destabilized it.  In the case of Viet Nam, we were trying to keep a current form of government, with Iraq, we decided to go nation building.  Iraq was not the sponsor of terrorism after 9/11 that say, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan was.  To me, a better case could have been made for going into Saudi Arabia, but that opens a Pandora's Box of international problems.  Hindsight is always perfect though.

Communism ,by the way ,was not really good for Cambodia either, where we chose not to help.
True enough.

The test to apply is whether the choice made was better in effect than the other availible choices , what could we suppose to be the result of not resisting Communism?
This is an excellent point plane, and one that I think a lot of people would disagree on.  At the time, we didn't know that communism was already dying, just as we don't know 20 years from now what the terrorist situation will be.  Will the terrorists and their regime gain credibility in the eyes of a world disapproving of American actions and foreign policy?  Or are they already rotting from the inside?

[Plane]

 Will the terrorists and their regime gain credibility in the eyes of a world disapproving of American actions and foreign policy?  Or are they already rotting from the inside?

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


That would be nice to know.
What would be an indicator of such a thing?

Could there be too many spies or ever enough?

[fatman]

That would be nice to know.
What would be an indicator of such a thing?

We don't know.  That's the problem, and as you pointed out a few posts ago, we have to go on the info that we have.  To me, it is disturbing that we now have a pre-emptive doctrine and the erosion of some basic civil liberties.  That and the fact that we had a lazy, irresponsible that abdicated their duty by not even reading the Patriot Act before they voted for it (I'll never get over that.  What the hell do we elect these people for anyway?) is enough to push me toward believing that the cost of the liberty isn't worth the cost of the security.

But that's just my opinion.

[BT]

Questions:

Are terrorists activities something we are willing to tolerate post 9-11?

If not, should limits be placed on our response?

If so, why?

[fatman]

Are terrorists activities something we are willing to tolerate post 9-11?

What kind of terrorists are we talking about BT?  Ecoterrorists?  Radical Islamists?  Animal rights activists?  All of them?  So far, we haven't done a very good job of taking them out.  New hordes are spawning while the old ones are dying.  We get all the press about killing an Al Qaeda lieutenant, while Osama goes cave hopping.  The issue would have a lot more credibility for me if we had taken Osama and hadn't gotten misdirected into Iraq.  I don't like unilateral action.  Abolitionists could have been considered terrorists once upon a time.  I think that these terrorist groups are going to be a lot like the mob, they've always existed and always will exist.  Is it okay to fly airplanes into buildings and kill people?  No.  Is it okay to strap a bomb to yourself and blow up people?  No.  Is it okay to erode civil and constitutional rights in order to catch people that do these despicable things?  No.

If not, should limits be placed on our response?

If so, why?
Limits should be placed on our response, in order that it doesn't become an "ends justify the means" situation.  I worry about encroaching government power, not just from a Republican Administration but from ANY administration.  I worry about being conditioned like one of Pavlov's dogs, and I worry most that this is already happening.  In doing anything to get the terrorists, aren't we becoming as bad as they are?  Where does it stop?  Are we as a nation going to be like the man who tears his house down to find the mouse that is eating his cheese?
I don't have a problem with the war on terror so much as I have concerns that this is a backdoor to be exploited by the executive and legislative branches on our rights (I know I sound paranoid...sheesh).  If this war were conducted in a framework consistent with our way of life and the Constitution, I'd have no problem being behind it.  But it isn't conducted that way.  Secret courts, secret trials, secret warrants, these were exactly the things that the founding fathers were trying to do away with.  At what point did national security trump collective rights?
This thing in Iraq is more of the same.  We ousted a brutal dictator because we thought that our way of government is better.  With the way that Europe sees us now, that justification could be used (hypothetically mind you) for Sweden, The Netherlands, and Great Britain to band together and oust our government and install a constitutional monarchy.  It becomes more and more apparent that we had a plan to get rid of Saddam, but not much of one for afterwards.
Sorry for the rambling.
To answer your questions Bt, some terrorism will probably have to be endured.  Some will not.  There should be restrictions on our response in order to prevent our own government from grabbing power for itself from its citizens.

[BT]

I don't believe any type of terrorism should be tolerated. Period.

And if we aren't going to tolerate it, who will enforce that zero tolerance?

Perhaps we should concentrate more on payback than prevention, because prevention seems to get folks all wobbley.

How about the rule of ten. For every one hostage you kill, we kill 10 of your family.

That work?

No intrusive government prying into your private affairs.

Just punishment, swift and sure.

[sirs]

Fatman, are you advocating that the Executive branch run policy by way of what the polls say?

Of course not sirs!  Although I think that it is politically proper to at least take into account popular opinion.

I concede that politics is often based on polling data.  The Iraq war being a perfect example.  Nearly all Republicans and MOST Democrats were for it when it had overwhelming polling support.  Not surprisingly, with the help of the mainscream media, the polls have gone south and the #'s have nearly reversed.  Point being, that one of the things I admire Bush for (which are not many these days) is acknowledging the threat of miliant Islam, in not just the present, but long term future as well.  Yea, some would call it stubborn, I call it leadership myself.  And it's precisely that kind of leadership necessary in dealing with militant Islam

Are terrorists activities something we are willing to tolerate post 9-11?  If so, why?

Limits should be placed on our response, in order that it doesn't become an "ends justify the means" situation.

If you don't blink too fast, you'll see that tactic used & advocated not only by a majority of Dems in DC, but nearly unanimously by the fringe liberals right here in the saloon     

[fatman]

Point being, that one of the things I admire Bush for (which are not many these days) is acknowledging the threat of miliant Islam, in not just the present, but long term future as well.  Yea, some would call it stubborn, I call it leadership myself.  And it's precisely that kind of leadership necessary in dealing with militant Islam

To be honest sirs, I don't recall much of a problem with militant Islam in Iraq before Saddam was toppled (and topped).  It is in his absence and our bungling that it has established a major foothold in Iraq.  I'm not wild about Bush's leadership, I consider it to be very near myopic and incompetent, but there were worse options in '04.  It amazes me that Bush has repudiated a lot of the values conservatives hold dear, small government, fiscal management, non-interventionist foreign policy, and that so many line up behind him.  I guess the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

If you don't blink too fast, you'll see that tactic used & advocated not only by a majority of Dems in DC, but nearly unanimously by the fringe liberals right here in the saloon

I'm not sure what tactic you're referring to sirs, but if it's the "ends justify the means" situation, I see that going on in all three branches of government, and in both political parties.  To be fair, it is far more civil here in this forum than it is out on the street.

[sirs]

To be honest sirs, I don't recall much of a problem with militant Islam in Iraq before Saddam was toppled (and topped). 

I did.  It culminated with 911.  we're simply fighting them in Iraq currently

It is in his absence and our bungling that it has established a major foothold in Iraq. 

I disagree.  It has them completely wrapped up with trying to take us on there, vs focusing their resources for another 911, and being able to train with near impunity within its borders

I'm not wild about Bush's leadership, I consider it to be very near myopic and incompetent, but there were worse options in '04.

Well, that's 1 opinion, which you are absolutely entitled to.

It amazes me that Bush has repudiated a lot of the values conservatives hold dear, small government, fiscal management, non-interventionist foreign policy, and that so many line up behind him. 

Not at all, when you consider that most Conservatives KNEW he wasn't a true conservative.  But as you stated earlier, the other options were worse

If you don't blink too fast, you'll see that tactic used & advocated not only by a majority of Dems in DC, but nearly unanimously by the fringe liberals right here in the saloon

I'm not sure what tactic you're referring to sirs, but if it's the "ends justify the means" situation, I see that going on in all three branches of government, and in both political parties. 

As I said, it's readily seen, even here in the saloon, everytime you read how evil Bush's last action is supposed to have been, thus necessistating an ends justy the means tactic because, well.....he's evil, you have to do anything and everything to stop evil