DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on December 21, 2006, 01:03:37 AM
-
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10193
December 20, 2006
Broken Army, Broken Empire
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far cost fewer U.S. lives than the Filipino insurgency of 1899-1902. Yet Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker warned Congress last week the U.S. Army "will break" without more troops.
We started this war "flat-footed," with 500,000 fewer soldiers than we had before the Gulf War, says the general, who wants 7,000 soldiers added yearly to the 507,000 on active duty.
The Army is "about broken," agrees Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Powell believes we "are losing the war" in Iraq, but opposes any "surge" of 15,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops, as urged by Sen. John McCain.
"There are no additional troops," says Powell. "All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there, there longer, and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops."
CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid lately told an audience at Harvard, "This is not an Army that was built to sustain 'a long war.'"
Retired Gen. Kevin Ryan agrees: "Today, the 37 combat brigades of the active Army are almost totally consumed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With all units either deployed, returning from deployment, or preparing to deploy, there is none left to prepare for other contingencies."
Yet, adds Ryan, "Our published defense strategy requires a military that can defend our homeland, sustain two major wars, be present in key regions abroad, and fight a global war on terrorism. With Marine and Army ground forces barely able to fight the two major wars, the other security tasks are left to flyovers and ship visits from our Air Force and Navy."
What these generals are saying is ominous. Not only is the United States "losing" the war in Iraq, the Army is breaking and we do not have the troops to meet the commitments America has made all over the world. In short, U.S. foreign policy is bankrupt. We cannot meet all the IOUs we have outstanding if several are called at once.
What kind of superpower is it whose army can be "broken" by two insurgencies that have required only half the number of troops we sent to Korea, and a third of the number we sent to Vietnam?
If our Army is "about broken" now, how do we propose to defend the Baltic republics and, if Bush and the neocons get their way, Ukraine and Georgia from a revanchist Russia? How could we fight a second Korean war, the first of which required a third of a million men?
If our Army is "about broken," has our commander in chief lost his mind when he issues bellicose ultimatums to Tehran? And if our Army is not built to "sustain a long war," are not those people insane who talk wildly of fighting "World War IV"? In World War II, we had 12 million men under arms on V-E Day.
Our Army, says Abizaid, is not "built to sustain a long war." Yet we are committed by NATO to defend Central and Eastern Europe – including the Baltic republics and the eastern Balkans, against a resurgent Russia. We are committed to defend Israel, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states from Iran. We are committed to defend Afghanistan from the Taliban, South Korea from North Korea, and Japan and Taiwan from China.
Who do we think we are kidding? America today is like an auto insurance company with the cash on hand to handle one or two fender-benders, but anything beyond that means Chapter 11.
In the Reagan decade, writes national security analyst William Hawkins, the United States had 18 Army divisions. Clinton cut it to 10. Yet, since Reagan, we have not cut commitments, but added to them: in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Gulf, and the Taiwan Strait.
The American Imperium is hollow. We have nowhere near the troops to sustain the security commitments and war guarantees we have ladled out. Like the Brits in 1945, ours is an overstretched empire with a sinking currency, whose enemies are salivating at the prospect of being in on the kill.
America may need a larger Army. More imperative is the need for a radical reduction in treaty and war commitments.
While the U.S. Navy and Air Force remain supreme, the Army and Marines are, as Abizaid says, too small a force to fight a long war. We must adjust our commitments to reflect our capabilities and, beyond that, to defend only what is truly vital to the national security.
While our armed forces are more than adequate to defend us, they are insufficient to defend an empire. Rather than bleed and bankrupt the nation endlessly, we should let go of the empire.
Americans must learn how to mind our own business and cease to meddle in other nation's quarrels. Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Only our mindless intervention has made it so.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
-
Does this really mean that the Army is broken in Iraq , or does it mean that it was reduced too much since 1989?
-
Does this really mean that the Army is broken in Iraq , or does it mean that it was reduced too much since 1989?
It means it is broken! :P You dare doubt the Buchanaon ?
-
Does this really mean that the Army is broken in Iraq , or does it mean that it was reduced too much since 1989?
It means it is broken! :P You dare doubt the Buchanaon ?
If the Army were the size it was in 1989 there would be no brokenness , we don't need to do anything new or unusual.
-
I doubt the Buchanon and as much as i wish we could be isolationist, that won't happen nor should it in the world of today.
BTW the Army isn't broken, the american people are.
They are the ones not willing to be involved in long wars.
-
A long war like what? Vietnam or another Iraq? No, I'm not willing. I'm not broken, either.
-
A long war like what?
A war your representative government decides is necessary. a war you have been complaining about since day 1.
And of course you aren't willing.
You want your freedom and you want your security and you talk about shared sacrifice, but that's just your lips moving, because you certainly aren't willing to pay the price.
And if that isn't broken, what is?
-
I doubt the Buchanon and as much as i wish we could be isolationist, that won't happen nor should it in the world of today.
BTW the Army isn't broken, the american people are.
They are the ones not willing to be involved in long wars.
I truly hope you keep criticizing US. You will never gain power or future tax-cuts again.
-
As for the wisdom of the Iraq war, I will repeat what I said a few weeks ago: "With the benefit of retrospect, any politician who would still invade Iraq risks not so much losing votes but figuring when he'd be released from the mental institution." The unknowns unleashed by the invasion -- which our "planners" completely failed to account for -- totally overwhelmed each succeeding then discarded rationale the administration had to offer. The invasion was a mistake. The occupation is a disaster. The question is not whether we can "win" but whether we can create a "success" -- the best outcome possible and nothing more -- out of this mess. It is not so much a matter of the American people bucking up for a long war as it is the government's defining the problem we now face correctly and defining the "mission" going forward. I will add without elaboration that Iraq, in my estimation, is only a battle in the larger conflict with violent, radical Islam. As such it is not a "make or break" event according to the ideas President Bush puts forth, but rather a matter that has to be managed optimally in terms of the larger goal. Stupid prevailed once in this sorry saga; it should not be allowed to prevail again.
-
It is not so much a matter of the American people bucking up for a long war as it is the government's defining the problem we now face correctly and defining the "mission" going forward. I will add without elaboration that Iraq, in my estimation, is only a battle in the larger conflict with violent, radical Islam. As such it is not a "make or break" event according to the ideas President Bush puts forth, but rather a matter that has to be managed optimally in terms of the larger goal. Stupid prevailed once in this sorry saga; it should not be allowed to prevail again.
Sure it is. The American People had plenty of opportunity to question the war pre invasion. The American Peoples representatives had plenty of opportunity to vote no against authorization. The missing ingredient was courage. The same ingredient missing from the American people. They fail the gut check. And the "enemy" knows this. They have known it since Viet Nam.
The decision in front of the American people is simple.
Do we become a nation held hostage by terrorists or not.
The war in Iraq is a front in that war and if we run from there with our tail between our legs, who guarantees we will have the will to draw a line in the sand come the next front?
You have spent days faulting Bush for the selling of the war yet have spent little time examining the underlying principles of the war. Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. Sounds like political gamesmanship to me.
You have the congress. Do what you will. Consider your moves carefully. Our grandchildren depend on you making the right move.
-
I consider that reply to be an insult. Since when are you in a position to define "courage" for everybody else and to grandly sweep away the utter complexity and intractability of this problem. Like Bush, your mind can come up with nothing more profound than "bring it on." I disagree. And I've asked for a full explanation, which you've failed to give, not a strategy of relying on the false "courage" of an Iceland sailor.
-
What's more, the "resistance" in Iraq is only a small fraction al-Qaeda, somewhat negligible at this point, and instead is comprised of Sunni insurgents and Shi'ite militia, indigenous forces unleashed by the invasion itself and subject not so much to military defeat by the US but internal political settlement in Iraq itself, which isn't going very well.
-
You asked for a response in another thread, which i gave, your satisfaction with that response not my concern.
This thread concerns a broken army, and like so much of the rhetoric from people of your ilk it misses the mark. The army isn't broken, we are. And if that insults you, too bad.
I have never begrudged you your lack of service, i don't see why you should belittle mine.
-
I consider that reply to be an insult. Since when are you in a position to define "courage" for everybody else and to grandly sweep away the utter complexity and intractability of this problem. Like Bush, your mind can come up with nothing more profound than "bring it on." I disagree. And I've asked for a full explanation, which you've failed to give, not a strategy of relying on the false "courage" of an Iceland sailor.
Nice Huff you have there.
BT has all the right to define courage , same way that you have all the right to define wisdom.
Whether you are convinceing in your definition depends on your presentation and the receptiveness of the audience.
It is not required to be correct , accurate or factual to be beleived , I like to think it helps , but I am certain that it is not a requirement.
-
The preferred course is this: wisdom before courage.
-
The preferred course is this: wisdom before courage
Wisdom being defined as capitulating to car bombers?
-
That's gratuitous nonsense. From what you know of me, do I capitulate easily, or at all? What "wisdom before courage" means is that one must know what he's doing, which Bush does not.
-
I like to think of car bombing as foolish , that is why I don't encourage it as a tactic for my own favoriate causes.
I suppose that this foolishness might have an advantage over what I think of as wisdom though.
-
That's gratuitous nonsense. From what you know of me, do I capitulate easily, or at all? What "wisdom before courage" means is that one must know what he's doing, which Bush does not.
Apparently you are willing to capitulate to car bombers as the majority of the violence in Iraq comes from them. And you are eager to leave, are you not?
Whether or not that is wisdom before courage is questionable. But it seems to be what you are saying.
-
That's gratuitous nonsense. From what you know of me, do I capitulate easily, or at all? What "wisdom before courage" means is that one must know what he's doing, which Bush does not.
Apparently you are willing to capitulate to car bombers as the majority of the violence in Iraq comes from them. And you are eager to leave, are you not?
Whether or not that is wisdom before courage is questionable. But it seems to be what you are saying.
I wonder if the dicotomy is real?
Is strength incompatable with wisdom?
Would a wise person, or nation , given the choice prefer to be strong or weak?
Would this entity be wise to foster a perception of his own strength to opponents ?
-
BT, I really don't like to have my thinking contorted into the categories of your mind. I think I've been pretty clear. It is like saying: "BT wants more soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq" because that's the consequence of HIS policy. The point is to get beyond this horseshit. I'll say it again: IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO A LONG STAY IN IRAQ THAT WILL SERVE US JUST AS WELL OR BETTER IN THE OVERALL CONFLICT WITH VIOLENT, RADICAL ISLAM? DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE CHANCES ARE BETTER WITH A STAY-POLICY THAN WITH A WITHDRAW-POLICY FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS? WHICH IS LESS COSTLY, IF THE TWO ARE CLOSE? IS IT, IN THE END RESULT, JUST A FLIP OF THE DICE? POINT ME TO OBJECTIVE INDICIA SUPPORTING YOUR VIEW, AND DISCUSS CRITICALLY THE POSSIBLE GAINS FROM A WITHDRAW-POLICY IN A COMPARATIVE FASHION.
-
I don't see any advantage in leaving before our job is done as i see it defined. I see tremendous disadvantages in a premature withdrawal from Iraq as sooner or later we will be fighting the same foe somewhere else. Might as well do the job now and do it well.
You say we are paying too high a price in blood and treasure for this excursion. The carbombers expect casualties in their war, why are we so special that we should not expect the same in ours?
You ask for hard data to support my opinion, i don't have it. I just have my observations.
As i have stated already, i don't believe we will need to be there for decades. But we will need to stay for at least three more years.
-
See my post in the other thread, which largely can be seen as a response to these comments as well. Summarized: no one knows. Setting Iraq policy is more difficult than discovering the Theory of Relativity. If it is clearly predominant considering all relevant factors, the "stay for three years option" would be the one to choose.
-
A long war like what?
A war your representative government decides is necessary. a war you have been complaining about since day 1.
And of course you aren't willing.
You want your freedom and you want your security and you talk about shared sacrifice, but that's just your lips moving, because you certainly aren't willing to pay the price.
And if that isn't broken, what is?
You see the results of this war, and you call the American people broken rather than be willing to say that Bush was wrong?
He was wrong from the start, BT. You may call me broken but it doesn't hurt me and it doesn't help any of the people hurt over there.
Why haven't the people who have been loudly cheering this war gone to fight in it? The Fighting 101st Keyboarders are typing away in the USA. That's how you can tell that this war has not got broad popular support: Even its biggest supporters are not in it. That usually means they know something's up; they sense that it is not a necessary war.
Afghanistan was (in my opinion). Not Iraq.
-
You see the results of this war, and you call the American people broken rather than be willing to say that Bush was wrong?
Why should i say he was wrong when i don't believe he was wrong.
He was wrong from the start, BT. You may call me broken but it doesn't hurt me and it doesn't help any of the people hurt over there.
My assessment wasn't meant to hurt, it is the way i see it. There are and always have been casualties in war, i can accept that. You are naive to think war will result in anything else. The insurgents expect casualties, why are we exempt.
Why haven't the people who have been loudly cheering this war gone to fight in it? The Fighting 101st Keyboarders are typing away in the USA. That's how you can tell that this war has not got broad popular support: Even its biggest supporters are not in it. That usually means they know something's up; they sense that it is not a necessary war.
Afghanistan was (in my opinion). Not Iraq.
I served when it was my time, so did my brothers. My son is serving now. Save your 101st Keyboarders snark for someone else. Popular support does not determine the worthiness of a war. We heard the same mantras when we went into Afghanistan.
The dems converted Irag to political capital. You now have the congress. As i said previously, do what you will. Consider your moves carefully. Our grandchildren depend on you making the right move.
-
The Fighting 101st Keyboarders are typing away in the USA. That's how you can tell that this war has not got broad popular support: Even its biggest supporters are not in it. That usually means they know something's up; they sense that it is not a necessary war.
Afghanistan was (in my opinion). Not Iraq.
So, since you deem that only those who fight in the war can honestly support it, and you supported the war in Afghanistan, when did you serve your stint?
-
BT, I really don't like to have my thinking contorted into the categories of your mind. I think I've been pretty clear. It is like saying: "BT wants more soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq" because that's the consequence of HIS policy. The point is to get beyond this horseshit. I'll say it again: IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO A LONG STAY IN IRAQ THAT WILL SERVE US JUST AS WELL OR BETTER IN THE OVERALL CONFLICT WITH VIOLENT, RADICAL ISLAM? DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE CHANCES ARE BETTER WITH A STAY-POLICY THAN WITH A WITHDRAW-POLICY FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS? WHICH IS LESS COSTLY, IF THE TWO ARE CLOSE? IS IT, IN THE END RESULT, JUST A FLIP OF THE DICE? POINT ME TO OBJECTIVE INDICIA SUPPORTING YOUR VIEW, AND DISCUSS CRITICALLY THE POSSIBLE GAINS FROM A WITHDRAW-POLICY IN A COMPARATIVE FASHION.
To me the best thing to do is to imagine myself in the other shoes.
If I were a US soldier what would I want to hear , how would I want to be treated?
If I were an Iriqui , what end results would I really benefit from , who'se respect would I want?
If I were an Al Queda recruiter how could I twist every word and deed of the US and others to the advantage of my cause?
When I can't accomplish this , I have to think I don't know enough yet.
Of these the only shoes I have really worn were those of a sailor , and no I didn't want a Greek chorous stateside chanting "loose, loose ,loose "
-
So, since you deem that only those who fight in the war can honestly support it, and you supported the war in Afghanistan, when did you serve your stint?
First of all, I did not say that only those who fight can honestly support it. I am showing you that those who support it loudly and often are not there, helping out with the fighting. Seems very odd because this is a huge war to them, a war that will bring about a beacon of peace and democracy to the Middle East. Seems even odder because they surely know about the men who are called back having already gotten disability for PTSD.
I didn't serve. I was born in 1953, I have a minor son at home and other people needing my care besides.
-
So, since you deem that only those who fight in the war can honestly support it, and you supported the war in Afghanistan, when did you serve your stint?
First of all, I did not say that only those who fight can honestly support it. I am showing you that those who support it loudly and often are not there, helping out with the fighting. Seems very odd because this is a huge war to them, a war that will bring about a beacon of peace and democracy to the Middle East. Seems even odder because they surely know about the men who are called back having already gotten disability for PTSD.
I didn't serve. I was born in 1953, I have a minor son at home and other people needing my care besides.
Disabliity for PTSD is fraught with political polemics.
You will rarely find an alcoholic sufferer of PTSD from the Vietnam era in treatment for their alcoholism. They will stay away from AA meetings.
Reason?
If they are found to be alcoholic (many are), the disability checks stop coming. Being alcoholic, they are rendered unqualified for PTSD disability rights.
-
Sure it is. The American People had plenty of opportunity to question the war pre invasion. The American Peoples representatives had plenty of opportunity to vote no against authorization. The missing ingredient was courage. The same ingredient missing from the American people. They fail the gut check. And the "enemy" knows this. They have known it since Viet Nam.
I disagree. The American People DID question the war. I remember distinctly marching in two marches here in Memphis and I did write my representatives and they disregarded my pleas.
Now, I've been against invading Iraq from the beginning so for you to sit there and tell me that I had plenty of time to stop it is, frankly, moronic and insulting. I was not "for" invading Afghanistan but I didn't oppose it either. The lie they told about why they were doing it made sense to me and so I didn't mind it so much but even that has been an horrendous failure.
As for "gut checks", I was in here and on the streets telling people that invading Iraq was wrong when it was allegedly supported by nearly 90% of Americans. (that 90% had been lied to and led to believe that Saddam was involved in 9.11 so who can blame most of them?) Personally, I'm proud that I didn't keep quiet, that I did have the "guts" to tell you guys that your big rubber finger waving was going to get us into a quagmire (it has), and get a lot of Americans maimed and killed (it has) and get a lot of Iraqis killed (it has) AND it would make the world less safe for Americans (it most certainly has). So, buddy, don't be running off at the mouth John-Wayne-style.
Cowards follow and don't question the government no matter how much it lies to them. Any delusions some may have about this Iraq thing bringing forth the fruit of democracy and transforming the middle east into some kind of US-flavored region endanger more Humans every day.
We're in a time in history where, like LBJ and Nixon at the height of their lies and treachery, the time will come very soon where there will be talk of intervening and removing George W Bush from the presidency and anyone else who follows and wants to continue down the road of insane truculance he's chosen and his choice will be to either resign, be impeached or declare martial law. And I daresay, that Bush, being the egocentric moron he is, will choose the last of the three.
-
This is the question before you.
Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.
If not now, when.
Your representatives knew that was the core question and that is why they voted as they did.
Your polls reflect disatisfaction with Bush, the way he has prosecuted the war and a discomfort with the causualties that occur in any war. In fact the anti war movement was so splintered pushing so many different agendas, that there was no doubt it was doomed to fail. Simply because they didn't address the core issue. And yes you get kudos for participating in that failed effort. .
But they don't reflect opinion concerning the core question.
What is truly amusing is watching you guys flash the big rubber finger as if you have accomplished anything. The war continues. All you have won is first dibs at distributing pork, unless you and your representatives have the courage to act upon your campaign promises. I don't think they or you do.
Because the core question remains.
-
This is the question before you.
Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.
If that then is the question, I'll be glad to address it and let you know how it should be done. We have seen for the last few years how it should NOT be done and in fact, hasn't been done; because if the goal is to stop a violent radical islam in its tracks then, by god, first and foremost don't do anything that will give that group greater power in recruiting larger numbers of "warriors" into its ranks.
If we are trying to stop these guys in their tracks then let's not try to remember that John Wayne's real name was Francis and he had to be taught to ride and the way he handled problems in the movies (with his fists and his guns) is not a basis for foreign policy. While the men he faced in movies were the "bad guys" and that may be true of those who we now deem worthy of stopping in their tracks, simply killing them is not possible as it would be for John Wayne in a movie. For it is not just Wayne versus 10 cowpokes on horses who just want to rob the bank or take the sheep rancher's land.
If it is radical islam then that is an idea, ideology and the only way to combat with real effectiveness is with better ideas and more acceptable, inclusive ideology. Sure, any fool can run out and kill the leader of the radical islamists but there will be another right behind him to take his place. And that leader's death will be used as a rallying cry of martyrdom that will bring greater numbers of new believers. When that leader is killed, the rest of the cowpokes aren't going to slink off while we kiss the girl and pin the star on our collective chests denoting the just are now the bringers of justice.
Clinton has stated and I agree that we cannot kill or jail all of our enemies. Our presence in Iraq is indicative that Bush does not ascribe to this belief. It insinuates that in his head, we only need have a greater force or more resolve or bigger guns than our enemy and soon we will get those kisses from Susie and that star will be shined up. It ain't happenin', kid. It ain't about pride, image, winning, history or Bush's ego. It's about lives. It's about leading by example. Till he learns that, he endangers all of America.
And till stauch supporters and talkers of resolve realize that Bush may have thrown the party, invited all of you, entertained all of you, made you glad you came at the beginning, he is now stumbling drunk around the room and making a real boor of himself, insulting everyone.
-
You miss the point of the question.
Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.
I believe that would require a yes or no response.
-
You miss the point of the question.
Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.
I believe that would require a yes or no response.
I believe you would have to qualify to what extent. Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks with a phone call? Yes. With a few troops locating and capturing ObL? Yes. With an intense bloody guerilla ground war that kills troops daily, wounds more dailly, destroys a nation by creating endless, uncontrollable sectarian civil war and creates even more faceless followers of radical islam that hate America, creates a constitutional crisis leading to questions of impeachment of a petulant, egotistical madman of a president and can only be defending with bland, broad non-tangible solutions like "stay the course"? No, I don't think so.
And I made that very clear before the power was given to Bush to do all these things years ago. None of this is a surprise to those of us who predicted nearly all of this.
-
If Radical Islam is worth stopping it is worth stopping for a reason.
To me the reason is its history of murder and repression and its potential for more and worse.
A phone call will not stop them .
A few troops will not stop them .
Captureing OBL will not stop them .
So Do not Qualify your answer to you it is not worth doing what is necessacery , so your anser is an unqualified no.
-
Is it worth a war tax?
Is it worth eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy?
Is it worth reinstating the draft?
Is it worth gas rationing?
-
Is it worth a war tax?
Is it worth eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy?
Is it worth reinstating the draft?
Is it worth gas rationing?
Yes
Next
-
Is it worth sending your son over there in a combat role?
-
Is it worth sending your son over there in a combat role?
My son is in the Navy, currently stationed in Sicily. Three members of his unit have already been to Iraq. He could very well be next.
-
Let us count the times when a warlike faction of any religion was defeated permanently by a national army.
I suggest that soldiers can eliminate other soldiers, buy there is no government that can annihilate a religion that believe that martyrdom is a worthy cause.
Trying to defeat a religion with an army , especially a foreign army that does not speak the local language and does not understand the culture of the enemy, is like trying to assemble a cake with hammers and nails. No matter how good the hammer is or how sharp the nails are, this cannot be done.
No amount of courage will accomplish this.
-
Let us count the times when a warlike faction of any religion was defeated permanently by a national army.
I suggest that soldiers can eliminate other soldiers, buy there is no government that can annihilate a religion that believe that martyrdom is a worthy cause.
I don't believe anyone is trying to annihilate a religion.I believe they are trying to persuade those who think that blowing up civilians with carbombs will have repercussions.
-
Let us count the times when a warlike faction of any religion was defeated permanently by a national army.
I suggest that soldiers can eliminate other soldiers, buy there is no government that can annihilate a religion that believe that martyrdom is a worthy cause.
Trying to defeat a religion with an army , especially a foreign army that does not speak the local language and does not understand the culture of the enemy, is like trying to assemble a cake with hammers and nails. No matter how good the hammer is or how sharp the nails are, this cannot be done.
No amount of courage will accomplish this.
Why do you think the anilation of a religion is needed?
-
This is the question before you.
Is violent radical Islam worth stopping in its tracks.
==========================================
How do you "stop radical violent Islam" in its tracks without annihilating it?
These people have not risen up because "they hate our freedoms".
They have become suicidally dangerous because they feel that the West has trampled on their rights.
(1) The US has supported every corrupt dictatorship in the area. The US deposed an elected government in Iran and put the Shah in power. Then the US tried to arrange for a replacement dictatorship with Baktiari when the Shah was dying.
The US continues trying to overthrow the Iranian government.
The US supported Saddam, even after he gassed the Kurds. The US did all it could to prolong the Iran-Iraq War.
(2) The US has constantly supported Israeli colonization of Palestinian lands. There is an effective system of apartheid in Israel today, and the US supports it with money and diplomacy.
(3) The US sent US troops to Saudi Arabia in contradiction to the Koran. Some Americans smuggled Arabic Christian Bibles into Saudi Arabia and were actively evangelizing, in counter to the agreement with the Saudi government.
(4) Saddam was told by the US ambassador April Gilespie, who has never held one interview, that it was okay for him to invade Kuwait. Using US technology, the Kuwaitis were drilling diagonally across the Iraqi border and were draining Iraqi oil
(5) The US supported the bombing of civilians in Lebanon just this year, and deliberately kept the bombs falling for over a week.
NO one believes that the US wants a democracy in Iraq except you dittoheads. If there is an elected government after the US leaves, it will be an assortment of Arabic Tom DeLays with elections manipulated by Arabic Karl Roves.
Juniorbush has ineptly painted this country into a corner. It is a while lot easier to make fish soup than it is to restore the contents to an aquarium.
He will be lucky if even Afghanistan turns out halfway neutral to US interests.
-
I don't think the list of US sins is as uncomplicated and stark as you suggest. In fact, I'll say categorically that it's not. Further, the Muslim regions affected by our policies share a significant degree of the blame for any deleterious situations that have developed. They were not and are not passive. Most importantly, however, our enemies are not Muslims but violent, radical Islamists, a relatively small fraction of the overall number, if supportive to some degree by sympathies, tolerance and non-opposition. Our fight is like this, in an apt metaphor: we seek to eliminate the Bolsheviks, not the Russian people.
Approached from another standpoint, conceding wrongdoing by the US for the sake of argument, Japan and and Germany -- infinitely more damaging to the peace and health of the world some 60-70 years ago -- have followed a path of reconciliation that has brought them to the point where former enemies are friends. I suggest that the disaffected Muslims use the same approach we used on those two WWII foes, adjusted for context but not attitude.
-
" 1) The US has supported every corrupt dictatorship in the area. The US deposed an elected government in Iran and put the Shah in power. Then the US tried to arrange for a replacement dictatorship with Baktiari when the Shah was dying.
Should we have no freinds in the region?
Every government in the area is to some degree undemocratic or repressive by our standards , I don't think we can shun all of them.
I didn't know that the Carter administration was trying to preserve the Pavlavi dynasty , what in particular was done?
-
Should we have no freinds in the region?
Every government in the area is to some degree undemocratic or repressive by our standards , I don't think we can shun all of them.
I didn't know that the Carter administration was trying to preserve the Pavlavi dynasty , what in particular was done?
==============================================================
What?
When we impose unpopular and hated tyrants on a nation, we are not making friends, or having friends.
We not only do not shun most of the governments in the Middle East, we support them in a manner that can be called slavish. Have you not seen Juniorbush walking along holding hands with Prince Bandar?
Carter did not try to preserve the Pahavis, because the Shah was too far gone and his son was too young and some say stupid.
Kissinger did all he could to impose a man named Baktiar.
My point is that we are not loved in the Middle East because of exceedingly bad decisions by our rulers. As a rule, the worst decisions have been made, as in Latin America, by Republicans.
-
So when we foster a democratic government we are making freinds?
Not with the government s nearby that are not democratic I suppose.
In the past we have tried to make freinds with the governments as we found them , or fostered the replacement of an unfreindly government with a freindly one whether it was democratic or not.
Now for the first time we are trying to encourage the People to take the reigns in two governments in the region , no wonder they hate us.
-
Saudi Arabia is the LEAST democratic government in the Middle East.
JUniorbush likes to stroll about, holding hands with Prince Bandar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran has regular elections.
Juniorbush is spending millions to destablize Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel actively practices apartheid against Palestinians.
Palestinians have elections, Juniorbush does not like Hamas that won them fair and square.
Juniorbush refuses to talk to Hamas. Only when Jimmy Carter denounces this garbage for what it is, are any slight changes made.
Otherwise, the Palestinians can starve. Their children can starve, and Palestinians who just want to work can be held for six hours every day at checkpoints.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juniorbush would not recognize democracy if it bit him on his tallywhacker.
Which some should at least try.
I suggest an Italian mastiff.
-
Saudi Arabia is the LEAST democratic government in the Middle East.
JUniorbush likes to stroll about, holding hands with Prince Bandar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran has regular elections.
Juniorbush is spending millions to destablize Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel actively practices apartheid against Palestinians.
Palestinians have elections, Juniorbush does not like Hamas that won them fair and square.
Juniorbush refuses to talk to Hamas. Only when Jimmy Carter denounces this garbage for what it is, are any slight changes made.
Otherwise, the Palestinians can starve. Their children can starve, and Palestinians who just want to work can be held for six hours every day at checkpoints.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juniorbush would not recognize democracy if it bit him on his tallywhacker.
Which some should at least try.
I suggest an Italian mastiff.
The Saudis seem to be good sports , putting up with a new democracy on their border which we odviously intend to be the model for the future of the region.
But the Saudis are an example of our takeing a government as we find it and makeing it our freind.
Which mode do you like better?
-
This is the question before you.
Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.
If not now, when.
A ridiculous question because it implies that the war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein (a secular leader who drew the ire of many religious radicals) is the only accepted path to stop violent radical Islam "in its tracks." Clearly that is not the case. In fact, warfare in general is likely not a very intelligent path to stop terrorism. An historical lesson we could learn from Israel and Northern Ireland.
So yes, all terrorism is worth stopping. But no, this was not the proper path to stop it. In fact, this wasn't even in the same ballpark.
-
yes, all terrorism is worth stopping. But no, this was not the proper path to stop it. In fact, this wasn't even in the same ballpark.
:-\ Well, that's one opinion. One not shared by those who can grasp the concept of connections both direct & indirect that were present between terrorists and Saddam's regime, when we went into Iraq.
And "no" nothing will stop radical Islam "in it's tracks" outside of nuking a determined location that every Islamofascist radical happens to at. Since that is as unlikely as the Earth's rotation reversing, the best we can do is keep knocking it down, bit by bit, where & when we can.
Or does Js have a suggestion that will stop radical Islam "in its tracks"? Hint, "being nice" to them won't work
-
A ridiculous question because it implies that the war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein (a secular leader who drew the ire of many religious radicals) is the only accepted path to stop violent radical Islam "in its tracks."
I don't believe i ever made that claim, so i guess my "ridiculous" question was met by a "ridiculous" response.
However, if not there, where.
If not now, when?
-
It was kind of interesting to follow the thread and see how many of the warmongers' attitudes were based on raw emotion, usually of the most primitive and basic kinds: "capitulating to car bombers" (rage, fear); fight 'em over there instead of over here(pure fear); fostering a perception of strength (fear again); although occasionally the emotion appealed to was something a little softer and less primitive - - pity, or not wanting to hurt the feelings of the (U.S.) fighters, which domer (perhaps in another thread) and plane raised. There was even an appeal to herd instinct (the U.S. people supported it 90% once upon a time, so it's weak and dastardly not to maintain that 90% level till now.)
Not surprisingly, the logic and facts all seemed to be on the anti-war side, but were given short shrift by the war-lovers. XO's detailed list of just some of the numerous Israeli and American actions that would pretty well account for much of the hostility of "violent radical Islam" was dismissed out-of-hand by domer and never referred to again.
What you could see forming was a kind of nascent fascism, the reduction of complex geopolitical struggles into issues, not of right and wrong, but of weakness and strength. The American people (but NOT the American army) was "weak" because it did not support "its own" military in its mission. As if the army had its own separate existence and mission in which the role of the American people were to offer blind and unconditional support. The idea of the army as the agent and servant of the people themselves being something of a non-starter.
The idea that a clique of non-elected men of enormous wealth and influence somehow coalesce around certain candidates (of either party) for office, supply them with talent and money and instructions and prepare plans delineating specific roles to the Army, the politicians and the media is brushed aside for the more simplistic assumption that "the American people" have spoken, through their "elected representatives" and the resultant wars must be supported by all "strong" Americans, although unfortunately the once-"strong" nation seems to be infested by a lot of "weak" individuals who are somehow sapping its great strength. All very interesting from a Hitlerian perspective. What will happen when enough "strong" Americans realize that unless they "do something" about the "weak" in their midst, that the nation will never be able to "stand tall" and be "strong" again? Hopefully, saner minds will prevail and we'll never have to find out.
-
It was kind of interesting to follow the thread ....
You confuse resolve for a desire for perpetual war, the fact is resolve equates to wanting to end it once and for all.
Resolve is part of the equation. It goes with the stick, just as concessions go with the carrot.
-
"Resolve" is a value-free term. Hitler showed resolve in his determination to exterminate the Jews and Churchill showed resolve in his determination to destroy Hitler. Resolve is only as good or as bad as the goal upon which it is fixed. If for example, the war on Iraq is a very bad thing, then it is a very bad thing to be "resolute" in pursuing that warl
In effect, your show of disgust for the American people's lack of "resolution" is off the mark; what you are really disgusted about is their failure to see the pursuit of the war as a good and desirable end, which (like WWII) would probably have brought out that resolve that you now find to be so sorely lacking.
Incidentally, I don't believe I accused American militarists of wanting perpetual war, or if I did, that was sloppy thinking on my part. I think militarism is really born of fear - - with the exception of a few "happy warriors" who delight in slaughter and carnage and are eager to blow other human beings apart completely legally, I would say that most militarists are simple souls - - idiots, in fact - - who are easily scared and easily manipulated. They soon come to see the army as the only thing standing between them and a vast horde of bogeymen ("the Jews," the Red Menace, radical Islam) that their leaders constantly wail would eat them alive in minutes were it not for "our boys in uniform." The other factor in militarism of course is powerlessness - - some poor wage-slave whose life is not his own, who scrapes through life with barely enough to make ends meet, puts up with countless humiliations at work and in the home, sees "his" flag painted on the side of that Tomahawk that can incinerate some poor bugger's home and family in one pass, "his" flag on the shoulder patch of that 22-year-old kid with the 50-calibre machine gun who just lit up a wedding party in their old beat-up jalopy, and vicariously experiences the thrill of real power, exercised in his name. I'm an American, you fucker, yeah!! And now how do you like THAT?
-
It was kind of interesting to follow the thread and see how many of the warmongers' attitudes were based on raw emotion, usually of the most primitive and basic kinds.....Not surprisingly, the logic and facts all seemed to be on the anti-war side, but were given short shrift by the war-lovers.
Doncha just love to watch how easy some are at completely disconnecting themselves from current reality. The art of projection at it's finest. We could go point by point, yet again, with the facts and logic that took us into Iraq. We could address the NIE & Global intelligence conclusions on the disposition of Saddam's WMD prior to going into Iraq, & the throng of committees that concluded how none of the intel was abused, shaped, or distorted in taking us to war. We could hit all those facts that Tee & co give a short shrift to, while he and like minds connect non-existant dots, as to how Bush stole the election & lied us into war. We could even address the nonsensical hyperbole of "war lovers". We could, but it's all been done adnauseum already.
Some fine entertainment though, Tee
-
Michael, you're nothing if not consistent: consistently extreme, hyperbolic, morally outraged without a good sense of morals. No one in his right mind or right conscience would promote the horrors you list. They are to be avoided virtually at all costs. Yet, the realities of the world literally force people to endure this suffering, and participate in its creation, toward the end of averting much worse of the same kind.
Humans are flawed, and I would present George W. Bush as exhibit number one on that account. He made a tragically flawed, monumently poor decision to invade Iraq for reasons retrospect clearly dissolves. The invasion was a mistake. The horrors of war were unleashed for no good reason. I went along with the tide that trusted the administration with this terrible decision, for lack of understanding. One does the best he can with what he knows. The responsibility for this mess lies squarely with the president, who is notoriously in denial. In my opinion, oft-repeated, he was at least negligent in his duties, if not reckless. History will judge him harshly, as contemporary journalists have begun to do. Yet, you take criticism of the man and his administration to the point of lunacy in your unbridled condemnation and overt hatred. Though shrouded, your virulence stems from reasons far deeper than the trivial caricatures you present as argument. In a sense: physician, heal thyself.
Your cynical outrage, what you see (and revel in) as a clearcut chance to be grandly self-righteous, aggravates the situation. Your concern, to me, is not genuine as to those that suffer but instrumental to your chance to "moralize" with a vengeance, a vengeance I suspect (but of course can't know) that goes back to the nightmare your people suffered during the last great war. Thus, your cynicism, to me, is emotionally based and utilitarian in nature: you like to bitch as if you're God's saving (indeed, avenging) angel, when in fact you throw flames on the fire by your very acts of hate. You see matters in black and white, much like Bush. In doing so, you distort reality and impinge on the truth.
That truth is not as simple as you would like it to be. Granted that the invasion should never have occurred, we nonethless have to face, realistically, the situation now confronting us. Much lies on our future course. As an example, I have been on a one-man campaign tilting at windmills in this club to divine the right thing to do going forward. Regardless of prologue, the task we now have is to leave Iraq in the best position we can and extricate ourselves as quickly and deftly as possible, for among other reasons to fight the overall struggle with violent, radical Islam more intelligently and effectively. To that end, in my view, as I've stated ad nauseam, there are limited avenues of action. The two I deem rational are an embrace of the Iraq Study Group proposals, which is preferable to my mind, or a last chance to buy more time for the Iraqi government to take control and actually function as an effective government by a "surge" of troops. While I think this latter course is up against much greater odds, almost prohibitively so, I will "support" that decision until silence exacerbates the situation. We really don't know what will come about, and our speculation is idle until we have some hard facts to work with.
-
"...Regardless of prologue, the task we now have is to leave Iraq in the best position we can and extricate ourselves as quickly and deftly as possible, for among other reasons to fight the overall struggle with violent, radical Islam more intelligently and effectively."
Can't disagree with that, but what about the Iraq study group is helpfull to these ends?
-
Somewhere between the lines, notoriously unformed and unarticulated by Bush's opposition, there is a grand vision of a war fought religiously, culturally and politically -- that is, civilly if robustly -- in addition to the necessary military, intelligence and law enforcement actions needed to stanch gross excrescences of the violent, radical Islamic enemy.
-
. The two I deem rational are an embrace of the Iraq Study Group proposals, which is preferable to my mind, or a last chance to buy more time for the Iraqi government to take control and actually function as an effective government by a "surge" of troops. While I think this latter course is up against much greater odds, almost prohibitively so, I will "support" that decision until silence exacerbates the situation. We really don't know what will come about, and our speculation is idle until we have some hard facts to work with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "surge" will kill a lot of people, and some of them will be Americans. It does not seem likely to solve anything, because the tryth is that the soldiers of the Iraqi Army do not want to kill other Iraqis because they know (and probably agree with) the centuries-old tradition of tribal reprisals. If you happen to kill this guy, his family will take revenge, perhaps on you, perhaps on your family. So they let the Americans do the killing.
No amount of "surge" will change this and make the Iraqi soldiers brave, or even good soldiers.
On the other hand, the "surge" will serve the same pupose of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam or the Battle of the Bulge: it will either be the final conclusive thrust, or the last desperate futile attempt for 'victory'.
No matter that the eventual state of Iraq's government will be determined after the US no longer has a significant presence in Iraq. That day must come and will come.
It would be useful to simply have a plebiscite on whether the Americans stay or leave every six months. It's their country: let them decide. The understanding would be that if we leave, we stop repairing stuff and throwing money and Halliburton at every problem in the Iraqi infrastructure.
The Iraq Study Group did make a number of recommendations, and a of them seem to have some merit. Sitting on Israel to end its apartheid and holding discussions with Syria and Iran are among the most useful, but Juniorbush doesn't seem to be too keen on either one.
The mild reforms in Israel policies regarding the Palestinians I deem to be a result of Carter's trip,
I totally reject the spurious 'evidence' of WMD's and Saddam collaborating with Al Qaeda before the invasion. It sounded bogus before the invasion. The only difference is that I thought that Cheney, as smart as he is supposed to be, would not have turned out to be as ignorant and moronic as Juniorbush. After all, Cheney was supposed to be the Adult Supervision, in addition to the competent and totally ignored Colin Powell.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/world/middleeast/28sectarian.html?hp&ex=1167368400&en=ccc353334198d299&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Sectarian Ties Weaken Duty’s Call for Iraq Forces
By MARC SANTORA
Published: December 28, 2006
BAGHDAD, Dec. 27 — The car parked outside was almost certainly a tool of the Sunni insurgency. It was pocked with bullet holes and bore fake license plates. The trunk had cases of unused sniper bullets and a notice to a Shiite family telling them to abandon their home.
“Otherwise, your rotten heads will be cut off,†the note read.
The soldiers who came upon the car in a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad were part of a joint American and Iraqi patrol, and the Americans were ready to take action. The Iraqi commander, however, taking orders by cellphone from the office of a top Sunni politician, said to back off: the car’s owner was known and protected at a high level.
For Maj. William Voorhies, the American commander of the military training unit at the scene, the moment encapsulated his increasingly frustrating task — trying to build up Iraqi security forces who themselves are being used as proxies in a spreading sectarian war. This time, it was a Sunni politician — Vice Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie — but the more powerful Shiites interfered even more often.
“I have come to the conclusion that this is no longer America’s war in Iraq, but the Iraqi civil war where America is fighting,†Major Voorhies said.
A two-day reporting trip accompanying Major Voorhies’s unit and combat troops seemed to back his statement, as did other commanding officers expressing similar frustration.
“I have personally witnessed about a half-dozen of these incidents of what I would call political pressure, where a minister or someone from a minister’s office contacts one of these Iraqi commanders,†said Lt. Col. Steven Miska, the deputy commander for the Dagger Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division, who oversees combat operations in a wide swath of western Baghdad.
“These politicians are connected with either the militias or Sunni insurgents.â€
Whatever plan the Bush administration unveils — a large force increase, a withdrawal or something in between — this country’s security is going to be left in the hands of Iraqi forces. Those forces, already struggling with corruption and infiltration, have shown little willingness to stand up to political pressure, especially when the Americans are not there to support them. That suggests, the commanders say, that if the Americans leave soon, violence will redouble. And that makes their mission, Major Voorhies and Colonel Miska say, more important than ever.
They added that while political pressure on the Iraqi Army is great, the influence exerted on the police force, which is much more heavily infiltrated by Shiite militia groups, is even greater.
Shiites, led by militia forces and often aided by the local police, are clearly ascendant, Colonel Miska said.
“It seems very controlled and deliberate and concentrated on expanding the area they control,†he said.
The Sunni forces are being bolstered by support from insurgent strongholds in the West. The Shiite militias are using neighborhoods in the north, specifically Shuala and Sadr City, as bases of operation. There is also increasing evidence that militia members from southern cities like Basra are coming to Baghdad to join the fight.
“I believe everyone, to some extent, is influenced by the militias,†Colonel Miska said. “While some Iraqi security forces may be complicit with the militias, others fear for their families when confronting the militia, and that is the more pervasive threat.â€
Looking at a map he had his intelligence officers create, which highlights current battle zones and details the changing religious makeup of neighborhoods, Colonel Miska noted just how many different forces, each answering to different bosses, currently occupied the battlefield.
“Who would design this mess?†he said. “It is like an orchestra where everyone is playing a different song.â€
His main focus, he said, is trying to establish some kind of unity of command.
As it stands, the police and military answer to different ministries, and within the police force the bureaucracy is divided even further between the regular police and the national police. On top of that are about 145,000 armed men who work as protection detail for the Facilities Protection Services, with minimal oversight, according to United States military officials.
There are also thousands of Shiite militia members and Sunni insurgents posing as security forces.
Colonel Miska tried to define where American forces fit in the tangle of competing interests, which is only further complicated by the complicity and direct participation of top government officials.
* 1
* 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/world/middleeast/28sectarian.html?hp&ex=1167368400&en=ccc353334198d299&ei=5094&partner=homepage
How on earth is this a war that we can continue to fund and to fight? This is madness.
-
"It would be useful to simply have a plebiscite on whether the Americans stay or leave every six months."
Suits me.
With one caveat we can also go without being asked to go .
-
Suits me.
With one caveat we can also go without being asked to go .
=========================================
\I can agree with this entirely.
But the Juniorbushies plan to stay until oil is flowing at an optimum rate, and profits are flowing into their supporter's coffers even faster.
They have learned ZILCH about the various religious factions and their expectations.
The USA was woefully unprepared to start this war, but even after over three years, they do not have ample translators. Unless six is what you would call 'ample'.
'
-
Weary and Alone, Bush Still Playing to Win in Iraq
By David Ignatius
WASHINGTON -- Watching President Bush in recent weeks has become a grim kind of reality TV show. In almost every news conference, speech and photo opportunity, the topic is the same: What to do about the grinding war in Iraq. Bush has let the facade crack open -- admitting that his strategy for victory isn't working -- but then he struggles to rebuild it with new words of confidence.
The stress of the job -- so well hidden for much of the past six years -- has begun to show on Bush's face. He often looks burdened, distracted, haunted by a question that has no good answer. When a photographer captures him at ease, as in a sweet Texas-romance picture of Bush and his wife Laura that appeared in People magazine last week, it's like he has escaped the Iraq sweatbox.
I grew up in a Washington that was struggling with the nightmare of a failing war in Vietnam. The government officials of that time were people who behaved as if they had never known failure in their lives. They had the rosy confidence of the chosen -- "the best and the brightest,'' as David Halberstam put it. But then the war began to grind them down. I see that same meat-grinder at work now. Bush and his officials are strong characters; they work hard not to let you see them sweat. But the anguish and exhaustion are there.
Bush is not a man for introspection. That's part of his flinty personality -- the tight, clipped answers and the forced jocularity of the nicknames he gives to reporters and White House aides. That's why this version of reality TV is so poignant: This very private man has begun to talk out loud about the emotional turmoil inside. He is letting it bleed.
Bush opened the emotional curtain at a news conference last week. A reporter noted that Lyndon Johnson hadn't been able to sleep well during the Vietnam War and asked Bush if this was a "painful time'' for him. He gave an unexpectedly personal answer: "Most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I read about it every night. And my heart breaks for a mother or father or husband or wife or son or daughter. It just does. So when you ask about pain, that's pain.''
Bush's "state of denial,'' as Bob Woodward rightly called it, has officially ended. He actually spoke the words, "We're not winning,'' last week in an interview with The Washington Post, coupling it with the reverse: "We're not losing.'' But in truth, he cannot abide the possibility that Iraq will not end in victory. So a day after his "not winning'' comment, he half took it back, saying: "I believe that we're going to win,'' and then adding oddly, as if to reassure himself: "I believe that -- and by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you've got to know. We're going to succeed.''
Policy debates in this White House are often described as battles between competing advisers -- Dick Cheney wants this; the Joint Chiefs favor that; Condi Rice favors a third outcome. This kind of analysis implies that Bush isn't really master of his own house, but I think it's a big mistake. The truth is that with this president, the only opinion that finally matters is his own. And he's a stubborn man. Military leaders can tell him it's a mistake to surge troops into Baghdad, but that doesn't mean he will listen.
Bush says he doesn't care what happens now to his poll numbers, and I believe him. He broke through the political barriers a while ago. I sense that as he anguishes about Iraq, he has in mind the judgment of future historians. He said it plainly in an interview last October with conservative talk-show host Bill O'Reilly: "Look, history is interesting.
I read three books on George Washington last year. And my opinion is that if they're still analyzing the first president, the 43rd president ought to be doing what he thinks is right. And eventually, historians will come and realize whether ... the decisions I made made sense.''
What makes reality TV gripping is that it's all happening live -- the contestants make their choices under pressure, win or lose. So too with Bush. He is making a vast wager -- of American lives, treasure and the nation's security -- that his judgments about Iraq were right. The Baker-Hamilton report gave him a chance to take some chips off the table, but Bush doesn't seem interested. He is still playing to win. The audience is shouting out advice, but the man under the spotlight knows he will have to make this decision alone.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/bush_still_playing_to_win_on_i.html
-
I remember how much this office aged Carter , and how his style of leadership was exausting him.
Is Bush the antipode of Carter in style and method?
Do we fail either way?
-
Do we fail either way?
I don't believe Bush is as hands off as Carter had the reputation for being hands on.
I do know that Bush is certainly not the demon some portray him to be, nor is he as stupid as "conventional wisdom " would like for us to view him.
And this article helped reinforce that impression.
-
This is the question before you.
Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.
If not now, when.
Your representatives knew that was the core question and that is why they voted as they did.
Your polls reflect disatisfaction with Bush, the way he has prosecuted the war and a discomfort with the causualties that occur in any war.
Interesting Bt.
I don't believe i ever made that claim, so i guess my "ridiculous" question was met by a "ridiculous" response.
However, if not there, where.
If not now, when?
So, you aren't relating Iraq to being the central stage on the "war on terror?" It sure looks like it to me. What else did you mean when you used the sentence: Your representatives knew that was the core question and that is why they voted as they did.? And then went on to talk about the casualties that occur in any war?
If not there, where?
By all means explain to me how fighting sectarian guerilla combatants in Iraq is preventing radical religious terrorism?. I agree with you that we have to be there, but not for the head in the clouds reasons you are giving here. Primarily because we screwed up. Royally. Now we owe it to the people of Iraq not to abandon them to a massive civil war if it is even possible.
If not now, when?
Irrelevant question because it presents a false dichotomy. We'll be fighting them now and in the future. If we would look beyond hammer to nail solutions we might be able to overcome this circle of violence.
-
Well, that's one opinion. One not shared by those who can grasp the concept of connections both direct & indirect that were present between terrorists and Saddam's regime, when we went into Iraq.
An invasion that failed every reasonable just war theory.
And "no" nothing will stop radical Islam "in it's tracks" outside of nuking a determined location that every Islamofascist radical happens to at. Since that is as unlikely as the Earth's rotation reversing, the best we can do is keep knocking it down, bit by bit, where & when we can.
Yes, that worked well in Northern Ireland. It continues to be sound policy for Israel. Oh wait. No, it failed miserably in Northern Ireland and Israel only creates more and more enemies for every time it retaliates violently. Wow, what a brilliant plan you've stumbled upon. An historically useless plan of constant violence, they'll never see that one coming.
Or does Js have a suggestion that will stop radical Islam "in its tracks"? Hint, "being nice" to them won't work
We could try acting like Christians.
-
JS,
I have never claimed Iraq was the central front in the war on terror, but it certainly is a theater in that war. Jusat as Afghanistan is and the electronic warfare that is going on monitoring chatter and financial transactions.
And though you claim the war is sectarian , the sects they belong to are religious in nature (Shiite vs Sunni) and their tactics certainly utilise terror as a main weapon. I don't know any other way to describe car bombs indiscriminately aimed at civillians.
And if not now-when, is a valid question. When will the american people have the stomach to face up to terror in the form of Al queda and hezbollah and hamas, the various militias and their state sponsors?
Are you comfortable with Iran becoming a nuclear power? Would you be comfortable if Hezbollah or Hamas had access to those weapons?
-
We could try acting like Christians.
So much for separation of church and state.
-
I don't believe Bush is as hands off as Carter had the reputation for being hands on.
======================================================
You would like to hope that our country is not being run by some incompetent boob. But the evidence is that it is being run by a fool or assortment of fools that have put us into an unwinnable war
Look at the friggin' evidence.
---------------------------------------------
I do know that Bush is certainly not the demon some portray him to be, nor is he as stupid as "conventional wisdom " would like for us to view him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, he's not a demon. He lacks the intelligence to be a demon. A demon would have a semi-workable plan. This clown has nothing,. He's an empty suit, a figurehead.
No, he's a simple-minded patsy who was hired because they knew he was loyal and wound do as he is told, regardless of the lnearly total lack of sense of his marching orders.
Cheney and a cabal of oilmen is in charge. They are so incompetent that they have actually split the oilmen cabal into two factions, the second being Jim Baker's crew.
Juniorbush is the WORST president ever. He makes one long for Warren G Harding, who at least was a stud, and one thaqt did the country the courtesy of dropping dead.
Of course, Cheney needs to drop dead, too, for President Pelosi to finally restore competence before January 2009.
I suggest we all contribute to the 'Extra Cheese for Cheney Pizza Fund' to enhance his bad cholesterol, should Juniorbush do us Harding's one act of statesmanship. I hear he ate some bad salmon in Alaska.
Let's send Juniorbush to Sitka.
-
And though you claim the war is sectarian , the sects they belong to are religious in nature (Shiite vs Sunni) and their tactics certainly utilise terror as a main weapon. I don't know any other way to describe car bombs indiscriminately aimed at civillians.
It is terror that would not have existed in Iraq without our invasion. Is there any doubt in that? Hence my point that we screwed up the country and that's why we have to stay. But it is sectarian violence - just like Northern Ireland or Israel.
And if not now-when, is a valid question. When will the american people have the stomach to face up to terror in the form of Al queda and hezbollah and hamas, the various militias and their state sponsors?
Probably at the same point when the American people realise that Israel is no land of milk and honey with a perfect democratic government (more democratic than the United States according to some...). What do you want Bt? A country full of people reciting Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori? The truth is that some people see that it is a mixed bag. Israel isn't this perfect little homeland for Jews that is innocently targetted by evil Arabs. Every once in a while they get to see the other side - a Palestinian woman holding her dead, lifeless baby. They get to see that Iraq isn't this brilliant democratic regime that Bush and Rummy promised with freedom "spreading" like water filling a container. The truth is Bt, that despite 11 September, international terrorism kills less people worldwide than industrial accidents. It is an exaggerated threat and whether you like it or not, eventually people will recognize that.
So what is it you want? A nation in fear of al Qaeda? A nation lining up to kill in Iraq? A nation willing to enlist in the Israeli military? I just don't understand. Is it not the right of Americans to dislike the Iraqi War? You and I both believe that American troops should remain in Iraq, but we cannot force that view onto others. Isn't that a principle of Jeffersonian democracy?
-
What is worth fighting for? Who is worth fighting for? That is what i want to know.
-
What is worth fighting for? Who is worth fighting for? That is what i want to know.
===========================================================
A stable Iraq might be worth fighting for, but this fighting would have to be done and won by Iraqis.
___
Good guys are worth fighting for, but there are virtually none of those. Everyone involved in this morass is too defective to be called a good guy.
-
An invasion that failed every reasonable just war theory.
An invasion that accomplished precisely what it's primary objective was --> Regime change, and the prevention of any of Iraq's WMD being transferred into the hands of terrorists, such as AlQueada. How that's a "failure" is beyond me :-\
that worked well in Northern Ireland. It continues to be sound policy for Israel. Oh wait. No, it failed miserably in Northern Ireland and Israel only creates more and more enemies for every time it retaliates violently. Wow, what a brilliant plan you've stumbled upon. An historically useless plan of constant violence, they'll never see that one coming.
Boy, you do have this nearly obsessive need to apply Northern Ireland to everything middle east. Moving that aside, you continue to demonstrate an apparent mindset that we just haven't been nice enough to these terrorists. That we haven't gone above and beyond the call in being pleasant, "understanding"...appeasing enough. Beyond the complete unrealistic naivety of such, the fact remains that in some cases military intervention becomes a necessary evil. No one likes it, no one hopes it'll go on indefinately, but you'd think those who despise it, especially when it's supposedly applied "unjustly", the then approach at implying supporters of this current war on terrorists are war lovers, who supposedly disregard any & all forms of diplomacy or civility, simply demonstrates the emptiness of the charge, and worse, a complete lack at dealing with the reality of current events and ACTS of those same terrorists you think we can placate.
Or does Js have a suggestion that will stop radical Islam "in its tracks"? Hint, "being nice" to them won't work
We could try acting like Christians.
You're now advocating implimenting Christian doctrine within our Governmental foreign policy??
-
<<We could address the NIE & Global intelligence conclusions on the disposition of Saddam's WMD prior to going into Iraq,>>
Sure you could. But you'd also have to ignore the evidence of many who described in specific detail the kind of pressure that was being exerted to shape those conclusions. You'd have to ignore that none of those conclusions convinced Canada, France, Russia, Germany or China. You'd have to ignore the total absurdity of Saddam Hussein, even if he had WMD, ever fucking with the U.S. with them. You'd have to ignore Saddam's running from armed confrontation with the U.S. in the first Gulf War when his army was at its peak. You'd have to ignore that all of the "intelligence" that you seem to think was akin to the voice of Zeus speaking from Mt. Olympus, could all be traced back to a single source, with a powerful interest in overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime. You'd have to ignore that forgeries and frauds were a key part of the evidence for WMD. You'd have to ignore that as far back as the first Gulf War, the U.S. presented faked satellite photo evidence to the UN to defraud that august body into supporting a military intervention. You'd have to ignore that Bush's closest advisers even during Clinton's presidency were trying to persuade Clinton to invade Iraq as part of the Project for a New American Century dreamed up by them and their Zionist buddies. In fact, you'd have to do what you conservatives are so addicted to doing, that is, sticking your heads so far up your own ass that you'll never see daylight.
<<You'd have to ignore & the throng of committees that concluded how none of the intel was abused, shaped, or distorted in taking us to war. >>
Throng my ass. Those are the same fucking morons who approved the invasion in the first place basically investigating their own spinelessness and coming to the convenient decision that nobody pulled the wool over their eyes and that they acted on the best available information. Only an IDIOT would be taken in by such transparently self-serving BS.
-
<<We could hit all those facts that Tee & co give a short shrift to, while he and like minds connect non-existant dots, as to how Bush stole the election & lied us into war. >>
Well, I'm a little surprised at that, because if you "could," you have never done so to date. Specifically, how Bush stole the 2000 election, as detailed minutely in the Vanity Fair article, the use of a partisan Republican firm to "purge" the voting rolls of felons who mainly happened to live in black neighbourhoods, the use of state troopers on Election Day of all days in the year to conduct random spot checks of mainly black drivers before the polls closed to look for "fake documents," etc. As far as I am aware, none of you "hit all those facts" that could have proven us wrong, and none of you has ever dealt with the specific lies (except to claim them against all odds as "mistakes" - - probably the longest chain of simple "mistakes" that linked end-to-end would all point to the same fraudulent conclusion) and then fake your usual amusement at the "craziness" of anyone who could dare to think that George W. Bush - - former cokehead, drunk driver and secret insider trader - - could ever lie about anything.
I'm running out of metaphors for people like you. What planet are . . . nah. Stuck your head so far up . . .let it go. Totally divorced from . . . bin there done that. Your . . . let's call it naivete . . . is truly awe-inspiring.
<< We could even address the nonsensical hyperbole of "war lovers". We could, but it's all been done adnauseum already.>>
Yeah, I admit that was a little over the top. At heart, you guys are just a big bunch of loveable, cuddly pacifists and do-gooders. I know it and you know it.
-
domer, first of all, I have to say that your post was intelligent and perceptive even though I don't agree with much of it. But I don't disagree with all of it, either. I found I had a lot of trouble figuring out your thought processes. For instance:
<<Humans are flawed, and I would present George W. Bush as exhibit number one on that account. He made a tragically flawed, monumently poor decision to invade Iraq for reasons retrospect clearly dissolves.>>
domer, WHY are you so convinced that Bush invaded Iraq for the reasons he claims he did? Does that make sense to you? Is the involvement of his key advisers in PNAC of no significance whatsoever?
<<you like to bitch . . . when in fact you throw flames on the fire by your very acts of hate.>>
You are mistaken if you think that the masters of war listen to what goes on between us, domer. They set the fires for their own purposes, and they'll burn till they get what they want. Or are struck down dead trying. This is a debating club, not a policy planning group. Maybe a different language would be appropriate if I were speaking to the decision makers, but in here, we're all just impotent schmucks gabbing. There is no wider effect except in the most indirect sense, so indirect that I can allow myself the luxury of venting.
<<You see matters in black and white . . . >>
Far from it. But I'm talking to people who see things in black and white, and I am trying to show them that their white is a really muddy almost-black. They really need to have one side of the picture over-emphasized, otherwise they'll never see it at all.
<< . . . you distort reality and impinge on the truth . . .>>
I have on quite a few occasions tried to recover balance by pointing out some of the good things about the U.S.A. This is a group, by and large, that really needs to hear about the BAD side of the U.S. Because it's their uncritical acceptance of the goodness of the U.S.A. that has led to much of the horror of the post-War world. IMHO.
domer, I'd like to finish my reply to your post. In a nutshell, I don't really think we're on opposite sides of the fence, but I'm a little bit troubled by what appears (to me!) to be your overeagerness to compromise. But maybe that's a virtue. Believe it or not, I'm still at work, and something's come up, so I'll have to try to finish this off later.
-
If not there, where?
By all means explain to me how fighting sectarian guerilla combatants in Iraq is preventing radical religious terrorism?. I agree with you that we have to be there, but not for the head in the clouds reasons you are giving here. Primarily because we screwed up. Royally. Now we owe it to the people of Iraq not to abandon them to a massive civil war if it is even possible.
Amoung the root causes of terrorism is the huge number of peoiple liveing hopeless lives in poverty and repression , with their ignorance fostered by governments who controll their access to information strictly and use scapegoats to explain their every failure.
How to attack this root cause ?
Saddam was a low hanging fruit and was not so hard to topple , unfortunately he has been hard to replace with something better even at the low standard he set.
-
<<Your cynical outrage, what you see (and revel in) as a clearcut chance to be grandly self-righteous, aggravates the situation. >>
Well, that's an issue I dealt with in my last post. The situation, I believe, is unaffected by the outrage of Michael Tee, cynical or not. The debating club versus the policy planning group, etc.
<<Your concern, to me, is not genuine as to those that suffer but instrumental to your chance to "moralize" with a vengeance . . . >>
I think here you're maybe getting into a subject, the character and psychoanalysis of Michael Tee, that, while it seems to preoccupy minds of sirs' calibre, isn't really of much interest to me or to the rest of the group. Not that that was your intention, I hasten to add. I'm not accusing you, just observing where comments of that type tend to lead. So I will necessarily try to keep this as impersonal as I can.
I think you're trying to draw a distinction between moral outrage based on compassion for the victims and moral outrage based on the character of the perpetrators. And to construct a kind of pecking order or hierarchy of moral outrage, with compassion outranking contempt as a valid base or rationale. Fair enough, if you're coming from a place where the primary value in the universe is said to be love. Which I think you are. I'm not coming from that place. I am coming from a place where the highest value is, quite frankly, vengeance, or in its more exalted form, justice. But certainly not love. I don't like to be that way, and maybe it's not the best way to be, but it's what I am. Born and raised. And I can't change it. One small caveat: note that I did not say that your tradition's highest value was love, I said that it was said to be love.
Be that as it may, I would say only that in a situation where, once again, man's cruelty to man is markedly on the rise, moral outrage of either kind - - based on hatred of the war-lover or compassion for his victim - - is clearly preferable to moral ambiguity, vacillation and compromise. In the face of the atrocities we now see on a daily basis, which you yourself claim to be horrified by, it seems like pointless nitpicking for anyone who wants to see the carnage stopped (in its tracks, I couldn't help but add) to snipe at the motives of others with the same goal.
<< a vengeance I suspect (but of course can't know) that goes back to the nightmare your people suffered during the last great war. >>
Well, I've said as much in previous posts. The Jews are and always have been the world's primary victims of fascism, racism, xenophobia and militarism, which explains why even now, with much of that several generations behind them, we tend overwhelmingly to vote Democratic in the U.S. and Liberal in this country, even when the right wing in both countries panders outrageously to the Israeli lobby. (As do the Democrats, as a necessary evil to keep "their" Jews in the corral.)
<< Thus, your cynicism, to me, is emotionally based and utilitarian in nature: you like to bitch as if you're God's saving (indeed, avenging) angel, when in fact you throw flames on the fire by your very acts of hate. You see matters in black and white, much like Bush. In doing so, you distort reality and impinge on the truth.>>
Well, most of this I've already dealt with. I didn't understand the reference to "utilitarian" cynicism, but I'll let that pass. Did you mean it served a psychological need of mine? in which case, I would have thought you'd have had a better chance of hitting the mark with my outrage rather than my cynicism . . . see how easy it is to get sucked into these kinds of discussions when the topic is ME, MICHAEL TEE . . . domer, I honestly think that the tactic of psychonalyzing the poster rather than analyzing the contents of the post is going to result in an empty and pointless diversion.
I'd rather live in the kind of world where the monsters are embarrassed by the extent of their evil deeds and are called to account for their murderous ways, and it seems like you are moving in the opposite direction, where the protestors are called to account for their outrage and have to defend their moralizing. I can understand the pull of reconciliation - - but reconciliation at what price? Reconciliation with whom, exactly? It just seems to me that you are willing to give up way too much, domer.
<<That truth is not as simple as you would like it to be. >>
Well, this is a debating club, isn't it? Why is the truth not as simple as I "would like" it to be? Whatever happened to Ocam's razor? (He ran out of blades.) Why DIDN'T the US foreign policy makers decide that, in the absence of the USSR, there remained nothing to stop them from going back in there and grabbing themselves some oil? With a little help from the former colonial power in the region.
<<Granted that the invasion should never have occurred . . .>>
See, domer, that alone convinces me that you have just bought uncritically into the establishment, MSM view of the situation now - - that the invasion "was a mistake." What if it wasn't a mistake? What if the invasion SHOULD have occurred because it was part of a plan previously urged on the Clinton administration, to grab some big oil fields while the grabbin' was good? So I see that even your basic premise may be flawed, and then everything that follows is also flawed. Like . . .
<< . . . the task we now have is to leave Iraq in the best position we can and extricate ourselves as quickly and deftly as possible . . . >>
which makes some kind of sense IF the invasion was in fact one big "mistake." And if it wasn't? If it was a deliberate oil-grab? In effect, your support of more troops for a little more time, to permit a little more restructuring before the final exit, actually turns out to be a facilitiation of the neo-cons in their aim to keep the troops there as long as possible to solidify an American grip on the country and its natural resources. What if YOUR concept of "the task before us" is nothing at all like your "leaders'" concept of that task?
Sorry, domer, once again I don't have time to finish. It was a good post, gave me a lot to struggle with, but I really do need to catch some shut-eye. One real quick comment on the ISG which you refer to in your last para - - do you not realize it's a crock? They picked their own to investigate their own. There were no fresh voices and no outsider opinions involved. It was OBVIOUSLY a PR exercise, no more no less. I'm kind of disappointed you fell for it.
-
<<We could address the NIE & Global intelligence conclusions on the disposition of Saddam's WMD prior to going into Iraq,>>
Sure you could. But you'd also have to ignore the evidence of many who described in specific detail the kind of pressure that was being exerted to shape those conclusions. You'd have to ignore that none of those conclusions convinced Canada, France, Russia, Germany or China.
You'd actually have to show validated evidence of how such intel was "shaped". Not just your opinion, or the opinion of other ABB nut jobs, but documented referencing of how the intel was actually shaped. Because, currently the FACTS say other wise. And yea, last time I looked messers France, Russia, & Germany were all in agreement that Saddam did posess WMD stockpiles. I realize facts to you is like Kriptonite to Superman, but that's not my problem
You'd have to ignore that all of the "intelligence" that you seem to think was akin to the voice of Zeus speaking from Mt. Olympus, could all be traced back to a single source, with a powerful interest in overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime. You'd have to ignore that forgeries and frauds were a key part of the evidence for WMD. You'd have to ignore that as far back as the first Gulf War, the U.S. presented faked satellite photo evidence to the UN to defraud that august body into supporting a military intervention. You'd have to ignore that Bush's closest advisers even during Clinton's presidency were trying to persuade Clinton to invade Iraq as part of the Project for a New American Century dreamed up by them and their Zionist buddies.
Interesting tact now. Umm, no, I've never claimed the intel was Zeus speaking. As Pooch has made clear on countless times in the old saloon, the Intel services take their best guess, with the information they have gathered. They take it all up, and make conclusions based on their information gathering. So, subtracting all the irrelevent and pathetic efforts to imply some Zionist conspiracy, the FACT remains that the intel agencies from nearly every country, concluded that Saddam still possessed stockpiles of WMD, prior to our going into Iraq. A sticky FACT for you, I understand, but still a FACT, and not some emotionally bent charge of how the intel was shaped
In fact, you'd have to do what you conservatives are so addicted to doing, that is, sticking your heads so far up your own ass that you'll never see daylight.
You mean, like fringe left Democrats?
<<You'd have to ignore & the throng of committees that concluded how none of the intel was abused, shaped, or distorted in taking us to war. >>
Throng my ass. Those are the same fucking morons who approved the invasion in the first place basically investigating their own spinelessness and coming to the convenient decision that nobody pulled the wool over their eyes and that they acted on the best available information. Only an IDIOT would be taken in by such transparently self-serving BS.
So, in other words, the FACTS are that various committees and commisions have concluded no manipulation of intel, no lying us into war, yet, we get the emotionally charged rant of how they had the wool pulled over their eyes, MINUS any FACTS to support the allegation. Just more of those non-existant dots again
<<We could hit all those facts that Tee & co give a short shrift to, while he and like minds connect non-existant dots, as to how Bush stole the election & lied us into war. >>
Well, I'm a little surprised at that, because if you "could," you have never done so to date.
LOL......now you're only pulling the wool over your own eyes, on that one Tee.
Specifically, how Bush stole the 2000 election
Specifically, newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper, that went back and looked at the election results, and recounted every vote, in every way possible, had Bush winning the election. In only 1 scenario in 1 newspaper, I do believe, did Gore actually win, when the entire state was recounted, and all multiple votes for President (invalid ballots) were counted
<< We could even address the nonsensical hyperbole of "war lovers". We could, but it's all been done adnauseum already.>>
Yeah, I admit that was a little over the top.
Ahhh, finally, concensus
-
<<Your concern, to me, is not genuine as to those that suffer but instrumental to your chance to "moralize" with a vengeance . . . >>
I think here you're maybe getting into a subject, the character and psychoanalysis of Michael Tee, that, while it seems to preoccupy minds of sirs' calibre, isn't really of much interest to me or to the rest of the group.
Don't flatter yourself Tee. I could care less about your America hating, military hating delusional psychosis ::)
-
What is worth fighting for? Who is worth fighting for? That is what i want to know.
Who are you asking?
I've said that we should stay and fight for the Iraqi people. I just oppose the notion that this is some grandiose "Hannibal at the gates" battle with Islamic radical terrorism. It is what it is: a battle to clean up a horrible mess that we made by invading in the first place. We went into the china shop with our sledgehammer and now we have to glue the little pieces back together.
If you are asking the American people. I have no idea. We are but voices amongst millions. That is how a Republic works, correct?
-
An invasion that accomplished precisely what it's primary objective was --> Regime change, and the prevention of any of Iraq's WMD being transferred into the hands of terrorists, such as AlQueada. How that's a "failure" is beyond me
Read my point again and ask yourself how this is even a response to it? I said that the invasion failed every reasonable just war theory. You are arguing the success or failure of the invasion on its own merits. I'm offering a legitimate critique over here at home plate and you are out in left field responding. I didn't even make a statement on the invasion's success or failure, my statement was that it failed to meet the criteria of being a just war.
Boy, you do have this nearly obsessive need to apply Northern Ireland to everything middle east. Moving that aside, you continue to demonstrate an apparent mindset that we just haven't been nice enough to these terrorists. That we haven't gone above and beyond the call in being pleasant, "understanding"...appeasing enough. Beyond the complete unrealistic naivety of such, the fact remains that in some cases military intervention becomes a necessary evil. No one likes it, no one hopes it'll go on indefinately, but you'd think those who despise it, especially when it's supposedly applied "unjustly", the then approach at implying supporters of this current war on terrorists are war lovers, who supposedly disregard any & all forms of diplomacy or civility, simply demonstrates the emptiness of the charge, and worse, a complete lack at dealing with the reality of current events and ACTS of those same terrorists you think we can placate.
First of all, I used both Northern Ireland and Israel as examples. Secondly, I do so because both are excellent historical examples of Western governments handling armed sectarian violence where religion is the primary (but not the only) source of contention between the warring parties. From my point of view, nothing is really new. Certainly warfare changes with technology and tactics, but the essence of it is not exceptionally new (which is why the battles of Hannibal and Julius Caesar are still taught at West Point). In this case we have two very good historical examples of sectarian warfare within two western states, but you and many others seem too busy to bother with such minor details. It is clearly easier to label someone as "obsessive" and of course, "naive." After all, why attack the argument when one can attack the person making the argument?
Note for anyone else reading these debates, I have never used the terms: pleasant, understanding, appeasing, placate when talking about US policy towards terrorists. I have also never characterised anyone here as a "war lover." That would be a logical fallacy on Sirs part, deliberately used here to mischaracterize my argument.
You're now advocating implimenting Christian doctrine within our Governmental foreign policy??
And again. I'm saying that Christians should act like Christians.
-
Specifically, newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper, that went back and looked at the election results, and recounted every vote, in every way possible, had Bush winning the election. In only 1 scenario in 1 newspaper, I do believe, did Gore actually win, when the entire state was recounted, and all multiple votes for President (invalid ballots) were counted
Actually, the scenario that would have resulted in a win for Gore was to throw all out of the military votes. Which was actually requested by Gore at one point.
-
I said that the invasion failed every reasonable just war theory.
We don't run this country based on Roman Catholic doctrine ("just war theory").
Fact is, this country initiates hostilities by having Congress vote to authorize the President to use the military. This was the procedure followed in 2003.
To stop hostilities, a similar procedure is in place - Congress votes to remove authorization from the President to use the military.
This leaves the control of the military ultimately in the hands of the citizenry.
-
I said that the invasion failed every reasonable just war theory. You are arguing the success or failure of the invasion on its own merits. I'm offering a legitimate critique over here at home plate and you are out in left field responding. I didn't even make a statement on the invasion's success or failure, my statement was that it failed to meet the criteria of being a just war.
That's just your opinion, and since when do we make military decisions based purely on how "just" war is? IMHO, war is NEVER justly, simply sometimes necessary
First of all, I used both Northern Ireland and Israel as examples. Secondly, I do so because both are excellent historical examples of Western governments handling armed sectarian violence where religion is the primary (but not the only) source of contention between the warring parties. From my point of view, nothing is really new.
Again, I appreciate your opinion, but we didn't enter into this war, with sectarian intentions. We're dealing with the after effects of our taking out Saddam & his WMD threat of offloading/selling them to terrorists. How that is in anyway similar to Northern Ireland or Israel, is beyond me. What we currently have our terrorists & insurgents, being fueled by the likes of Syria & Iran, to destabilize Iraq. Again, I fail to see anything similar in Northern Ireland, but you could definately see the same 2 countries trying to do the same to Israel. And why are they doing so? You've already answered that, the hopes of filling any power vacuum left by any Iraq failure in bringing forther a free democratic country. Again, not sure how that compares to Northern Ireland
Certainly warfare changes with technology and tactics, but the essence of it is not exceptionally new (which is why the battles of Hannibal and Julius Caesar are still taught at West Point). In this case we have two very good historical examples of sectarian warfare within two western states, but you and many others seem too busy to bother with such minor details. It is clearly easier to label someone as "obsessive" and of course, "naive." After all, why attack the argument when one can attack the person making the argument?
Well, considering how I shot that notion out of the water, in my previous paragraph, the point of how naive it is to think that we simply need to "talk" to these folks, make nice nice to them, be "Christian" to radical muslims, and then all will be just swell, remains similarly valid
Note for anyone else reading these debates, I have never used the terms: pleasant, understanding, appeasing, placate when talking about US policy towards terrorists.
And I suppose the turning the other cheek by recommending --> "I'm saying that Christians should act like Christians." is some form of military manuever?
I have also never characterised anyone here as a "war lover." That would be a logical fallacy on Sirs part, deliberately used here to mischaracterize my argument.
My apologoes if you took that as making that claim just about you. True, you've never made direct characterizations of such, merely implied similar sentiments. There are others on your side who have weakly made such claims, when the substance of their debate is found to be sorely lacking, but you're not one of them
You're now advocating implimenting Christian doctrine within our Governmental foreign policy??
And again. I'm saying that Christians should act like Christians.
Strange, I coulda swore we were talking how to deal with Terrorists, Insurgents, & their enablers, bent on killing innocent men, women, & children. Preferrably Jews & "Western Christians"
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061227/allie.jpg)
-
We don't run this country based on Roman Catholic doctrine ("just war theory").
Fact is, this country initiates hostilities by having Congress vote to authorize the President to use the military. This was the procedure followed in 2003.
To stop hostilities, a similar procedure is in place - Congress votes to remove authorization from the President to use the military.
This leaves the control of the military ultimately in the hands of the citizenry.
That doesn't make my statement any less true or any less meaningful. The decision to go to war is far different than the procedure used to enact such a decision.
-
That doesn't make my statement any less true or any less meaningful. The decision to go to war is far different than the procedure used to enact such a decision.
And the facts, intel, and realities at that time, following the events of 911, justified precisely the decision to go to war
-
In my view, the origin of the Iraq struggle is now irrelevant to the decisions we have to make going forward. We have to deal with the reality of the war, and focus on the best way now to LIMIT bloodshed, stabilize, if we can, the Iraqi government -- assuming it represents the will of the electorate -- help that government provide security and services necessary for their commonweal, and to fashion an American withdrawal or retreat, as the case may be, consistent with both the welfare of the Iraqi people and American strategic goals in the "main event," the struggle with violent, radical Islam. This is a complex task which will have repercussions down the decades. My greatest fear at this juncture is that President Bush will be the "decider," a man with an abysmal track record on this very issue, and a "fight first, talk later (if at all)" cowboy style "leader," a far cry from the statesman we now need.
Nevertheless, he will announce a policy that will represent the official stance of the American government, and its people in the sense that the decision will have been arrived at by a process and by personages that are lawfully exercising the powers we gave them. There is no question of usurpation as opposed to a huge question of competence and vision. Yet, there is some cause for hope in our present predicament: an unprecedented process of consultation seems to have gone on in this affair, replete with the promise of "serious" consultation with Democratic members of Congress. I view that as essential. Aside from what I consider a "toss-up" on the opposing policy choices judged by the facts and principles available to me, which are not static -- "withdrawal starting now" or "surge" -- there is the broader goal of consensus, if it can be approximated, that will serve our country well in resolution of this affair.
There are "wild cards," unknowns, which no honest person can be said to understand, that is, to offer an opinion on without a certain (or overwhelming) degree of speculation. We must be handicappers; we must play the odds.
What we don't know is whether right now the situation has degenerated so much in Iraq that a rabid civil war is inevitable. So too, we don't know if the present Iraqi government can survive, and if it can, how far the Sunnis will have to be beaten down in the process and how far the Shia will go in installing an Islamic government. Plainly and simply, as "forward-looking statements," any views we might express on these matters are highly speculative.
That brings us to our policy choice, that is "ours" if President Bush does it right. In my view, a rational argument can be made for a longer engagement (a surge) but so too can it be made for a withdrawal starting now. Unfortunately, the clarity of each position is not equally distributed. The expected "surge" will clearly be aimed -- IF IT IS POSSIBLE GIVEN THE FACTS AS THEY NOW STAND -- at the outcomes I listed above as our goals. I won't elaborate that. On the other hand, the "withdraw-sooner" strategy, if it is to be considered valid, must be seen as asserting that none of this is now possible, or at least, none of it is within our control. The weakness in this approach -- just as a surge may be simply unrealistic -- is the utter lack of a vision of a pathway to success in the overall conflict with violent, radical Islam in the wake of withdrawal. Yet, factoring in that much is unknown and that the task is actually an exercise in "handicapping reality," I find each approach, given their assumptions, to be "rational," and perhaps almost equivalent in odds: surge risks flying in the face of an already-determined fate, and withdrawal risks much more Iraqi bloodshed and a tougher go to confront the real antagonists: violent, radical Islam. One thing is for certain, however: withdrawal will save more American lives.
-
<<You'd actually have to show validated evidence of how such intel was "shaped". Not just your opinion, or the opinion of other ABB nut jobs, but documented referencing of how the intel was actually shaped. >>
Well, I guess the word of Richard A. Clarke, security adviser to three presidents including Bush Jr. isn't "validated" evidence. And because it proves that Bush himself, personally, DID try to shape the evidence, that makes Clarke an "ABB nutjob." But I'll tell you what, sirs - - THAT evidence is good enough for me. And for a lot of sane, normal, straight-thinking people. It's good solid evidence and whether you like it or not, it ain't going away. So argue that you don't believe it. Argue that Clarke has an agenda (if you can demonstrate it.) But just don't argue that there is "no evidence" because that IS evidence, and very strong and credible evidence.
<< Because, currently the FACTS say other wise. >>
Bullshit. I quote facts, you quote bullslhit. "The facts say otherwise." You don't HAVE any facts. Just the word of a bunch of political hacks all feeding from the same troughs. The same schmucks who were dumb enough to fall for Bush's BS in the first place protecting themselves by trying to prove that they weren't really dumb and spineless after all.
<<And yea, last time I looked messers France, Russia, & Germany were all in agreement that Saddam did posess WMD stockpiles. >>
Not true. When did they all agree, when (according to what you say they agreed on) did they agree that Saddam was last in possession of WMD and why if they were all so much in agreement did they not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq?
<< I realize facts to you is like Kriptonite to Superman,>>
How would you know? You haven't presented one single relevant fact in any of your crypto-fascist rants.
<< but that's not my problem>>
THAT'S for sure. I know what your problem is. Or more accurately, what your problems are.
<<As Pooch has made clear on countless times in the old saloon, the Intel services take their best guess, with the information they have gathered. They take it all up, and make conclusions based on their information gathering. >>
Yeah, maybe in some ideal world or better-run administration. What Pooch failed to make clear that this was an administration with a plan, and when the intelligence didn't fit the plan, as Richard Clarke makes so abundantly clear, the intelligence had to be tailored to fit the plan.
<< So, subtracting all the irrelevent and pathetic efforts to imply some Zionist conspiracy, . . . >>
i.e., IGNORING the well-known Zionist connections of Perle, Wolfowicz and/or Feith and their involvement (and Cheney's) with PNAC, IGNORING their prior attempts to get the Clinton administration to invade Iraq, and IGNORING the fact that Israel (together with Iran) are the principal beneficiaries of the invasion and occupation . . .
<<the FACT remains that the intel agencies from nearly every country, concluded that Saddam still possessed stockpiles of WMD, prior to our going into Iraq. >>
Bullshit. Which ones and where do you find that crap? Even if you could find one or two who DID believe it, one (Britain) was deliberately faking the evidence and cooking the books and the others were probably lied to by the USA. But come on, Mr. Fact Man , where are those facts? WHAT intelligence agencies other than Britain and the USA claimed to believe this crock of shit? Where's your proof?
<<A sticky FACT for you, I understand, but still a FACT, and not some emotionally bent charge of how the intel was shaped>>
It's not a sticky fact, it's just plain old bullshit. Capitalizing the word doesn't change a thing.
<<Specifically, newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper, that went back and looked at the election results, and recounted every vote, in every way possible, had Bush winning the election. In only 1 scenario in 1 newspaper, I do believe, did Gore actually win, when the entire state was recounted, and all multiple votes for President (invalid ballots) were counted >>
None of them dealt with the suppression of the black vote, outlined in great detail in Vanity Fair - - which was the key mechanism of rigging the vote and whcih was repeated in OHIO in 2004.
-
That's just your opinion, and since when do we make military decisions based purely on how "just" war is?
Interesting point Sirs. Wouldn't having such criteria separate the civilized nations from the "rogue" states?
Again, I appreciate your opinion, but we didn't enter into this war, with sectarian intentions.
Intentions are irrelevant to reality. I'm sure Britain and Israel never intended to deal with the situations with which they were presented.
We're dealing with the after effects of our taking out Saddam & his WMD threat of offloading/selling them to terrorists. How that is in anyway similar to Northern Ireland or Israel, is beyond me.
Both the UK and Israel have their tales of how they got where they are. The fact we got there more quickly and through more bizarre circumstances does not deny the similarities of the situations.
What we currently have our terrorists & insurgents, being fueled by the likes of Syria & Iran, to destabilize Iraq. Again, I fail to see anything similar in Northern Ireland, but you could definately see the same 2 countries trying to do the same to Israel. And why are they doing so? You've already answered that, the hopes of filling any power vacuum left by any Iraq failure in bringing forther a free democratic country. Again, not sure how that compares to Northern Ireland
What we have is a large segment of society (the majority in fact) that has been oppressed for years with the blessing of both the East and the West, or don't you remember our good friend Saddam fighting off the evil forces of the Ayatollah and shaking hands with special envoy Donnie Rumsfeld? The Shi'a and the Kurds aren't stupid Sirs. We have a history of ignoring them, or blatantly stabbing them in the back, or letting them stick their necks out only to have their heads removed by their enemies. People here are sometimes amazed that we aren't considered great liberators and saviors in Iraq. It isn't anything amazing, the Shi'a and Kurds just know their history. They know they have to fight for themselves because at any given moment the United States may just leave, or start supporting the Sunni, or something equally ridiculous.
The flipside to the coin is that the smaller, but historically more powerful segment of Iraqi society has suddenly lost all of its power. For them, it is no choice but to fight. They know the evils they allowed to take place in order to keep a Sunni-dominated society. They expect retribution. We came in and turned their world upside down, stripped them of their power and put them out into the streets. For some Sunni it is fight, or live under Shi'a rule.
I could easily do a similar look at the power struggles inside Northern Ireland and Israel. And no, not every member of each nation belongs to a militant faction by any means, but they all tend to have strong opinions.
You pawn this off on Syria and Iran. Quite frankly, that is absurd. Anyone can supply the weapons. Iraq is a factional tenderbox and we provided a hell of a spark.
Well, considering how I shot that notion out of the water, in my previous paragraph, the point of how naive it is to think that we simply need to "talk" to these folks, make nice nice to them, be "Christian" to radical muslims, and then all will be just swell, remains similarly valid
Right, being Christian isn't necessary for a Christian except on Sundays at church. And what are you "shooting out of the water" exactly?
And I suppose the turning the other cheek by recommending --> "I'm saying that Christians should act like Christians." is some form of military manuever?
Did you make a funny Sirs?
My apologoes if you took that as making that claim just about you. True, you've never made direct characterizations of such, merely implied similar sentiments. There are others on your side who have weakly made such claims, when the substance of their debate is found to be sorely lacking, but you're not one of them
To my knowledge I don't have a "side."
Strange, I coulda swore we were talking how to deal with Terrorists, Insurgents, & their enablers, bent on killing innocent men, women, & children. Preferrably Jews & "Western Christians"
You act like that is something new. The insurgents in Iraq kill far more Muslims (and target more Muslims) than they do Jews or Christians, therefore that assertion is completely false. I'm not sure who you define as terrorists, so you'll have to be more specific. If it is the same as the insurgents in Iraq, then the same would hold true.
Why would acting like a Christian be detrimental to "Jews and Western Christians" or even Muslims for that matter?
-
In my view...One thing is for certain, however: withdrawal will save more American lives.
In the immediate short term perhaps. We do need to look at the big picture, however domer
-
The decision to go to war is far different than the procedure used to enact such a decision.
In this country (a republic) the decision is in the hands of the representatives. Congress, in this case. The procedure is in the hands of the President, via the Pentagon.
-
<<stabilize, if we can, the Iraqi government -- assuming it represents the will of the electorate -->>
What if it represents the will of a Shi'ite majority of the electorate to do things that a Sunni minority won't accept? Is that "the will of the electorate" and if so, should it he stabilized? Or should the Sunnis be allowed to destabilize it until something more favourable to their interests evolves?
related question << help that government provide security and services necessary for their commonweal . . . >> assumes that that government actually IS providing security and services necessary for their "commonweal," doesn't it? What is their concept of "commonweal" and how far if at all does it diverge from your own?
You've got a made-in-America solution to the problems of an artificial nation superimposed on an ancient culture that you know next to nothing about and have the God-damn fucking arrogance to think that you now have an obligation - - your ass-hole "President" probably thinks of it as a right - - to go in there and straighten them out accordingly at the point of a gun, having probably already caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them with no let-up in the slaughter.
Despite all the high-sounding but tortured verbiage that accompanies your agonized "solution" it is actually pure insanity. International law could not be clearer: you have no right to be there. For ANY purpose. Their problems are not your problems to solve. The simplest solution is the only solution in this case: get out. Leave them alone. They will sort out the problems of their country, you should sort out the problems of yours.
-
So once Congress and the President take the nation to war Ami, people should never discuss it again? I still don't see where your statements invalidate my point. I am well aware of the procedures this country has for going into armed conflict. Yet, that does not a just war make. Otherwise you are arguing that simply because a war happens (and thereby follows some semblance of protocol) it is justified.
I don't agree with that. It is the same distinction that a legal action is not necessarily moral simply because it is legal just as an illegal action isn't necessarily immoral just because it is illegal.
-
So once Congress and the President take the nation to war Ami, people should never discuss it again?
When did I say that?
I seem to recall explicitly saying that the people's representatives have the power to remove that authorization as well.
-
Your simplisms only rankle, Michael, not enlighten. And so while you're in this avenging angel, holier than thou mode, I will not engage you in conversation. I do note, however, that I think your basic conception of the problem we now face is seriously flawed.
-
<< Because, currently the FACTS say other wise. >>
Bullshit. I quote facts, you quote bullslhit. "The facts say otherwise." You don't HAVE any facts. Just the word of a bunch of political hacks all feeding from the same troughs. The same schmucks who were dumb enough to fall for Bush's BS in the first place protecting themselves by trying to prove that they weren't really dumb and spineless after all.
The art of projection rearing it's irrational face, yet again
When did they all agree, when (according to what you say they agreed on) did they agree that Saddam was last in possession of WMD and why if they were all so much in agreement did they not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq?
At the time we went into Iraq, nearly the entire global intelligence community, the UN, messers France, Gernamy, & Russia all still believed Saddam possessed his stockpiles. That's a FACT. This wasn't that they all got togehter to form some unanimous position, simply taken on a country by country basis. And that FACT isn't going to go away. You may have isolated folks who didn't believe it, but no one is claiming that 99% of the world believed it, but Tee was right. Only that the folks in charge believed it, and common sense, not to mention the intel conclusions are on their side.
<< I realize facts to you is like Kriptonite to Superman,>>
How would you know? You haven't presented one single relevant fact in any of your crypto-fascist rants.
Still playing that game where you get to play fool yourself?
<<As Pooch has made clear on countless times in the old saloon, the Intel services take their best guess, with the information they have gathered. They take it all up, and make conclusions based on their information gathering. >>
Yeah, maybe in some ideal world or better-run administration. What Pooch failed to make clear that this was an administration with a plan, and when the intelligence didn't fit the plan, as Richard Clarke makes so abundantly clear, the intelligence had to be tailored to fit the plan.
Ahhhh, what would ever do without Tee being able to read those dots and tell us what moron Bush and pure evil Cheney really had in mind. Minus of course the bipartisan commissions that debunked that nonsense
-
<<At the time we went into Iraq, nearly the entire global intelligence community, the UN, messers France, Gernamy, & Russia all still believed Saddam possessed his stockpiles. That's a FACT. >>
Bullshit. It's a FACT that you post and claim is a fact but it's a fact in no other way. It did not happen. They did not convince their own leaders that Iraq was dangerous enough to warrant an invasion. They KNEW Bush's claims were bullshit. You haven't produced one source to back up your absurd allegations. Why would they all believe that Saddam had these dangerous stockpiles of weapons, yet not be able to convince their own leaders and how could they all have come to the same "mistake" including (in your ridiculous version) as Bush?
-
MT, why don't you use the "Quote" buttons? They make following the threads back easier, when you can click on the link generated and see the actual post you're responding to?
-
You haven't produced one source to back up your absurd allegations.
Actually, a number have been produced and posted here. Here is another:
Analysis
41. The JIC Assessments, which are based on all sources of information including secret intelligence, are the consensus view of the UK intelligence community. Based on the information available, the JIC13 judged that Iraq had the capability, including raw materials, to produce chemical agents within weeks and biological agents within days, together with the capability to weaponise these agents – a process that did not take long if empty munitions were available. The JIC also judged that Iraq had retained chemical and biological agents and weapons, together with up to 20 al Hussein ballistic missiles from pre-1991 production. The JIC reported that intelligence indicated that the production of chemical and biological weapons was taking place. Iraq also had a ballistic missile programme that was producing missiles with a range in excess of the 150km allowed by UNSCRs and a nuclear programme.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/reports/isc/iwmdia.pdf (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/reports/isc/iwmdia.pdf)
-
You haven't produced one source to back up your absurd allegations.
Actually, a number have been produced and posted here.
But Ami, it's all BS. After reading the "Tee leaves", Richard Clarke apparently said the intel was tailored, end of story. Those apparent "few folks" (read: the entire global intelligence agencies, and a horde of World leaders) that believed that Saddam had WMD were all snookered, except of course for the pure evil administration of Bush Co. Any and all facts demonstrating the contrary are to be labeled BS and CYA's
-
Ami the report you quoted from was from Bush's partner in crime, the British government, NOT coincidentally the former colonial power in Iraq and its present co-invader. The committee issuing the report was hand-picked by Blair himself "in consultation with" the opposition parties. Naturally they are going to back up their leader. It's meaningless. Furthermore, the quote in paragraph 41 is not even the Committee's findings, it's the opinion of the Chairman of the JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) about the "concensus" opinion of the British establishment. This one has "whitewash" written all over it.
Further, if you read back on sirs' posts, he is alleging that all the major intelligence agencies of the world bought into this BS. It hardly bolsters his case to show the report of the major partner in the same criminal enterprise. You'd EXPECT both of them to claim the same excuse.
BTW, I'll try using the quote buttons next time. Thanks for the suggestion.
-
MT, why don't you use the "Quote" buttons? They make following the threads back easier, when you can click on the link generated and see the actual post you're responding to?
Test of the quote button
-
MT, why don't you use the "Quote" buttons? They make following the threads back easier, when you can click on the link generated and see the actual post you're responding to?
Test of the quote button
Hey it works. Thanks, Ami.
-
Hey it works. Thanks, Ami.
Don't forget to edit the quote section down to the point you're responding to.
If you want to make multiple sections (as you usually do) you can either copy and paste the [quote][/quote] tags, or use the "Insert Quote" links on the response page to include a new copy of the quoted post. I generally use the former, unless I'm quoting from more than one one post, when I use the latter.
-
The flipside to the coin is that the smaller, but historically more powerful segment of Iraqi society has suddenly lost all of its power. For them, it is no choice but to fight. They know the evils they allowed to take place in order to keep a Sunni-dominated society. They expect retribution. We came in and turned their world upside down, stripped them of their power and put them out into the streets. For some Sunni it is fight, or live under Shi'a rule.
How was this avoided in South Africa?
-
Test of the quote button
Hey it works. Thanks, Ami.
The letters are too little, purple background is hard to read. I prefer the old <<quotes>> ;)
-
Test of the quote button
Hey it works. Thanks, Ami.
The letters are too little, purple background is hard to read. I prefer the old <<quotes>> ;)
Highlight them and you get white on black.
-
The letters are too little, purple background is hard to read. I prefer the old <<quotes>> ;)
Reading glasses can help.
-
The letters are too little, purple background is hard to read. I prefer the old <<quotes>> ;)
Reading glasses can help.
Changing font size and color wthin the quote is a goody as well
-
I didn't know you could do that, thanks, Sirs.
Ami, I have trifocals, that's all I can do.
-
Ami, I have trifocals, that's all I can do.
Actually, you could also set Firefox to override the text selections, making them larger or changing the colors. There is even a Firefox extension that allows to edit the CSS sent out by BT's software.
There is lots you can do.