| Author |
Message |
    
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 6:27 pm: | 
|
tjohn-
No domestic terrorist attacks since 9-11. Iraqi army being brought up to speed. Iran having to resort to having to have Hezbollah initiate conflict with Israel, to cover its weaknessess.
An airport stay in Israel in 1979 is the basis for your informed analysis?
I side with the Jewish "colonizers" who happen to be the indigenous residents of the land. For sure they are going to make sure they are going nowhere. |
pcs81632
Citizen
Username: Pcs81632
Post Number: 84
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
FvF
The mere fact that you bring up Bill Clinton, whether you voted for him or not, indicates a certain mind set. But, as you mention, it's all Bill Clinton's fault. Given that childish assumption, every President since Truman is also a failure.
I fault the current administration for not even trying. They're their own disaster.
|
The Soulful Mr T
Citizen
Username: Howardt
Post Number: 2261
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Never thought I find myself agreeing with Strawbelly.
   |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4550
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 8:29 pm: |
|
FvF,
Iran is not weaker because of 9-11 or because of our operations in Iraq. Iran's Armed Forces haven't particularly impressive since the Iranian Revolution.
None of my comments on Israel have anything to do with my visit to the country in 1979.
As far as the Iraqi Army is concerned, it will shatter into at least three pieces the minute we leave, if not sooner.
As far as no domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11 are concerned, I would attribute that to better police work than is discussed in the news, the disruption of the Taliban base in Afghanistan, perhaps a general lack of terrorists assets in the United States and perhaps a lack of motivation. I can't see how invading an Iraq which was not sponsoring terrorism in the United States could have reduced the threat of terrorist attacks in America. I will grant you that terrorists that might have been interested in attacking us at home have instead, decided to go to Iraq to fight us. But that, of all the tortured reasons for invading Iraq, is the worst. Besides, given the number of Arab men in their twenties, I don't see the supply of potential terrorists drying up anytime soon.
And since we have to weave Bill Clinton into every post, by your measure, his domestic anti-terrorism program was very effective - no Islamic terrorism from 1993 until Bush let down our guard in 2001. And Clinton didn't even have to commit to an army level operation in an Arab country to do this. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4551
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Mr T,
Love your improved version of Strawberry's tedious boring comment. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2156
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Fiction:
I apologize for the "gratuitous personal comments," as you call them. I was responding to what I believe were simplistic statements on your part about "our experiment" in democracy and what you seem to describe as culture change, but I should have done so more politely.
In my experience, an outsider can't change a culture (people try that in business every day and only a few succeed), certainly not one with millenia of history, by toppling one leader and holding a referendum and an election. You're "putting the possibility of real change" in a situation where there has been no real preparation for it, either internally, or by us, or by the world community.
Let me quote you to get the right context: "As former millitary I would think you would prefer that we try societal change as a means of changing circumstances and undermining our enemies, rather than reducing everything to a millitary equation and greater opportunities for our soliders to have boots in more countries."
Yes, I would prefer that we try societal change. Can you possibly show me how the current administration has tried, is trying, or might some day envision trying societal change in Iraq? We went in with our military. We took them off target in Afghanistan and decided to flex our military muscle in Iraq. How is that an example of societal change?
Next quote: "It is always easy to pull out the Vietnam analogy to any conflict( most of the left always do)." Is this comment an attempt to deflect the fact that the 2 top executives who assembled this wet dream of a war avoided real military service during the VietNam war? If not, what is the value of your comment?
The insurgents in Iraq don't need to have the equivalent of a Tet offensive. As vicious as that offensive was, it was only one of many attacks on US forces. In addition, the Viet Minh, the Viet Cong, had at least 15 years of experience studying French and US tactics, and many of their senior officers fought against the Japanese with French, British colonial forces, and they fielded a regular army as well, the NVA.
The Iraqi insurgents are pursuing a different approach, I would guess. While they're not as well organized as the Viet Minh/Cong, they seem to have an impact on our troops, to judge from the coffins that come to Dover AFB each week but which we never see, and the numbers of Iraqis sent to the grave each day, but who for some reason are not fit to be counted.
Also your quote: "You also know Clinton screwed up North Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur."
Since I am not a fan of Clinton (either one), the above comment is even more irrelevant and bizarre than it would seem at first glance. You seem to be saying that it's OK for this administration to have screwed up royally because previous administrations have done so. That speaks volumes about your opinion of this administration.
I find your whole post on this issue both irrelevant and simplistic. It also strains credulity that you would call the current administration's misadventure, mishaps, and misbegotten "plans" an experiment in building a society.
What an absurdity and what an abuse of your reasoning powers.
Tell them to keep the Kool Aid; you've already over-indulged.
|
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6749
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 9:44 pm: |
|
I just love this...
Quote:It is always easy to pull out the Vietnam analogy to any conflict( most of the left always do."
What about the Swift Boat Vets?? was that the doing of the left?
I think, rather, it is an overly broad hunk of tuna meant to distract from the point. Trying to validate and invalid point.
back to 24p
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Innisowen- I see I have to do the heavy mental lifting for you here, presently I am too tired but will do it tommorrow. Guess I didn't have enough "kibble" today. "Kool-aide" too.
pcs- What does your post mean? Something about a cigar and Monica?
Duncan- How about you use the Dukakis in the tank analogy(?) I mean, I don't know how Swift Boat Vets is any more relevant. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2157
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Fiction:
What heavy mental lifting could you possibly undertake on this subject?
Judging by your posts, you'll continue to provide a content-free pablum similar to the one that the administration has been trying to feed people since March 2003. You're a believer in this administration's initiatives, and I respect that. It's just that what you believe in is without merit and can be defended only by bravado and snide, empty commentary.
In my humble opinion, you should stay away from the Kristol, Hannity, and American Enterprise Institute websites--- they're doing your thinking for you, and you need to get off their kibble-Kool Aid-pablum diet.. it's causing a depletion in you somewhere. |
mlj
Citizen
Username: Mlj
Post Number: 343
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:41 am: |
|
Quick note to Dr. Rice - I like the sunglasses on the head look. Very middle eastern business casual chic.
P.S. I heard Karen Hughes is back. Thought I saw what's his name again, oh yes, the leader of the free world hiding behind her skirts too. |
Joe
Citizen
Username: Gonets
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
By the way, the conservative talking point, "No domestic terrorist attacks since 9-11" is false. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7587
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:27 am: |
|
"No domestic terrorist attacks since 9-11" is false."
wrong.. |
Joe
Citizen
Username: Gonets
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:29 am: |
|
3words...
John Lee Mohammed
Thanks for playing. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12237
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:32 am: |
|
....and don't forget the anthrax attack.
I don't think anyone knows if the anthrax was doemestic or foreign. While the story is that Mohammed and Malvo were ackting on their own it is hard to believe that they were not acting in sympathy with Al Qaeda. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4554
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:01 pm: |
|
I don't think that Mohammed and Malvo count. Even if they were acting in sympathy with Al Qaeda, there is no way to prevent a couple of nuts with a rifle from doing this sort of thing. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2278
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
no domestic al Qaeda attacks you mean. Tim McVeigh qualifies as a terrorist. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7591
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
In Joe's world Scott Peterson is a terrorist. I guess we can call Yates one as well. OJ Simpson, terrorist!
Poor Joe. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2158
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Timothy McVeigh was executed for his role in the Oklahoma City destruction of the Murragh Fed Building. That destruction occurred in 1995. That had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or WTC/Pentagon.
Just the same, some people disregard the fact that, as we know from publicly available information about their planning and "work methods," Al Qaeda spends years in detailed planning of attacks.
To vaunt that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 because "we're fighting them over here so that we don't have to fight them over here,"is disingenuous at best and blissfully ignorant at worst.
There's nothing like whistling past the graveyard. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7592
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:27 pm: |
|
You really have no clue. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2279
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:57 pm: |
|
innis,
yes I know. I was responding to someone who had mentioned no domestic terrorism between 1993 and 2001, but it appears I was in the wrong thread.
oops. I'll get outta here. |
Joe
Citizen
Username: Gonets
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
(Ignoring Straw, whose asinine Scot Peterson comparison doesn’t merit response.)
Tjohn,
A connection to Al Qaeda or any other organized terrorist organization is irrelevant. Terrorism is terrorism regardless of affiliation or goal. Those two lunatics brought a major metropolitan area to a standstill by fear alone. As you say, there’s no way to prevent a couple of nuts from doing this-that’s what I’m driving at by bringing it up. Terrorism is a method used by an enemy, saying we’re going to wage a war against terrorism is just hollow rhetoric that gave Bush way too much leeway to waging war. This way Bush could talk about the invasion of Iraq as another front in the war on terror when Hussein’s connections to Al Qaeda are as genuine as Mohammed’s and Malvo’s.
We had a clear enemy that we had trapped in Afghanistan, but we let them off the hook because the Congress allowed this administration to distract us from this concrete objective by offering up vague and unachievable one. Now we're bogged down in Iraq, while Qaeda and a reconstituted Taliban are not only in control of large areas of Afghanistan, they're also waiting to step into the void when a very vulnerable leader of a nuclear power gets knocked off. Gee I feel so secure. |
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 294
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Back to you Condi -
Are you taking your girlfriend on the trip? You are such a positive role model for all the "lipstick" lesbians out there! Don't let the Imelda comments get to you - it really is the shoes that make the woman (and gay men!).
Walk in Beauty! |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2159
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 4:48 pm: |
|
It's hard to ignore the straw.
He wishes to give the impression that he is tightly linked to our civilian and military intelligence services and of course knows more than hoi polloi about what's going on in Al Qaeda and in our "anti-terrorist" effort.
If wishes were horses, he could ride straight to hell. And what does it really matter if he opts to combine his disingenousness with a splash of blissful ignorance? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 5:58 pm: |
|
Innisowen-
Same put-down s%@#, new day?
You probably read those conservative web sites. I don't. You don't explain how Iraq is the same as Vietnam.
So you can't handle a serious discusion? Telling?
Don't talk trash before you show you can back it up.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1200
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:46 pm: |
|
Innisowen-
You haven't given me a historical and fact based presentation on how Iraq is the same as Vietnam, but rather the usual regurgitated anti-Bush polemic. Once again, I don't love Bush, but understand the nuances and the complexity of the policy approach, and the region.
I don't know if you are still young enough to be millitary reserve and have some interaction with those on active duty, but the U.S. millitary has learned it's lessons from Vietnam and extensively analyized it. As I understand it, an Iraqi insurgency was anticipated, but not the breath and length of it.
However our millitary learns and adjusts and is applying both Israeli and British experience in Northern Ireland and the Palestinian territories to the present fight. Am I saying they didn't screw up initially in terms of numbers of soldiers on the ground in Iraq or war planning? Nope.
But what you are serving up is the "pablum" if you don't wish to seriously evaluate this and discuss it. What's the cost/benefit analysis, devoid of politics? |
pcs81632
Citizen
Username: Pcs81632
Post Number: 85
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:04 pm: |
|
FvF
Your comment was:
"Plus Bill Clinton, who I voted for, secured no peace deal and actually made the situation worse."
It seems that when anyone criticizes this administration, the favorite bogey man of the right comes out: Bill Clinton. We can't blame Clinton for the fact that this administration has avoided any attempt to get a solution to the Israeli/Arab conflict since it came into power in 2001. By your logic we should also blame Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Truman. they didn't solve the Israeli/Arab conflict either.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4557
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:13 pm: |
|
One effective approach to counterinsurgency warfare is to disperse your troops so that you have platoons or companies in every town. This, however, is not something we will do because it results in higher casualty rates. It also requires more troops than we are willing to commit to Iraq.
With regard to the breath and length of the insurgency, surely we anticipated this. Did not FvF say that we have learned from Israeli experiences? Did not Israel have to deal with an increasingly violent insurgency in Lebanon?
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2160
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 11:02 pm: |
|
Fiction:
You are putting words in my mouth. I guess that's why I call you "fiction."
Please show where I said that Iraq is the same as VietNam.
In fact this is from my posting above where I mentioned VietNam: "The singular lesson of this country's VietNam experience (which some of us learned the hard way) never occurred to the people in power who cavalierly caused the Iraq mess."
What is the lesson of VietNam and what are possible parallels with Iraq? That there may be parallels doesn't mean that the situation is the same. That there are parallels means that somebody in power didn't learn from others' mistakes.
Here are what I see as a few parallels:
-embarking on a mission to save a country where local support for saving the country is either half-hearted or unprepared;
-using body counts to convince us about imminent victories in VietNam or using purple index fingers, one referendum and one not very successful election result to assure us that democracy is on the upswing;
-misunderstanding the nature of the guerilla war in VietNam, where the person sitting at the cafe next to you could blow you to hell; being surprized that insurgents in Iraq would use pregnant women, children, teenagers, zealots of all sorts to deliver IEDs where they do the most harm;
-expecting that our rules of engagement mean a damn to the "enemy;"
-announcing that victory is at hand, the enemy is on the run, and all that crap when there is no real evidence of such or when trends point in a contrary direction.
I am old enough to have maintained good contact with former fellow officers who are now senior commanders in the field (in several different regions of the world). They would agree with you that an insurgency in Iraq was anticipated and was part of their planning exercises.
They would add that executives in charge of war planning gave it nary a moment of serious reflection.
I think that I have "seriously evaluated this" (to paraphrase you).
This can't be done "devoid of politics" (quoting you exactly) because you equate disagreement with the way this war has been launched and executed with some form of Bush hatred. That's a bad rhetorical trick you practice and should be unworthy of you. But it is what it is, and it may say something about your thought processes.
I am still waiting for you to reveal the "nuances and complexity of the policy approach and the region."
You seem to praise the administration's intentions, and that's fine. So do I. Who could be against democracy, freedom, stability?
but you also seem to equate intentions with execution and performance. That's not fine. I find the administration sorely lacking on both counts. Who should accept mediocre performance, slipshod execution, excuses, and promises?
I look forward to the next chapter. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Innisowen -
I appreciate that you admit Vietnam is not analogous to Iraq. It saves us time and showing such comments to be "simplistic" and "pablum" for a wide spectrum of reasons.
However I am not sure how the term "parallels" is much different, or a substantive argument.
Our millitary has been preparing for alternative war scenerios since the fall of the Berlin wall, counter-insurgency is taught at the academies and elite officer-training levels, and tactics and strategy planning and development has been ratcheted up since 9-11 to address war against non-standing armies.
The President who talks with food in his mouth and says things like " Yo, Blair" has not been our battlefield Napoleon or Lord Nelson. Our millitary is now a professional rather than conscript force, unlike during Vietnam.
As a millitary historian I would think you would recognize that wars are not all won immediately or within a set number of years, being subject to the vagaries of the circumstances. Should the British have given up after Dunkirk, or should the U.S. have reconsidered fighting on after 1944? Was Vietnam the first domestically lost war for the U.S., premised upon a conscript army and extensive media coverage?
Results are best determined by the specific set of circumstances confronted, and an Iraqi force is being trained. Perfection in millitary terms is non-existent, as in any human enterprise. What is happening in Iraq is a revolution, and in historical terms most are born out of a high cost of human lives and excessively bloody events.
There is no comparison between the "local support" in terms of Vietnam and the majority shi'ite population of Iraq, which is not the same as the support of a few elites in South Vietnam. There is also theological support in the form of Grand Ayatollah Sistani.
To refine your argument for you, I would suggest your concerns about "parallels" instead runs to the "quagmire" which is why you have raised the Vietnam war.
I will adress our cynical and sophisticated national benefits in another post.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1208
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Innisowen-
The "benefits" of Iraq :
1) Our economy, our society, and our way of life, cannot afford extensive domestic terrorism. In short we are not the Israelis. Our porous borders and open society provide the opportunity for strikes that could kill in the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands, excluding a nuclear device. It has been correctly determined by our government that our jihadis are pavlovian in nature about our presence in a muslim country and attempts to introduce democracy there, so that they will apply the largest part of their manpower, weaponry, and limited resources to that goal fighting armed american troops in Iraq. They realize the worst thing possible for them is if we succeed.
2) To say Iraqi society should have been more responsive to us and democratic norms is nonsense given the historical lack of democratic institutions, and 30 years of a brutal reign of Saddam Hussein. Arab culture and society is also distinguishable from western concepts and politics. We have removed the threat of Saddam's millitary apparatus from our further regional planning and effectively established a deterring presence to Iranian or Syrian adventurism and patron-terrorism in our country by being on their borders.Hence their support for the insurgents.
3) Iraq has the holiest sites in sh'ia islam and some of the most respected theologians. The shi'ites have traditionally been repressed by the sunni, and are the biggest breeding ground, outside of Al Queda (sunni) for discontent and violence. We have the opportunity to utilize the good will and positive relationships developed with the shi'ite leaders in Iraq to undercut Iranian influence on the sh'ia in the Middle East and have a friend and interlocutor in that religious camp. This disturbs and concerns the Iranians.
4) Freedom and change in Iraq is seen throughout the arab world and Iran. It places the Saudis in a position where they will have to spend more time and attention to liberalizing their country or fighting it, than on contributing to the sunni fighting us in Iraq. The Iranian population is largely young and has a great deal of discontent with the mullahs.The more democratic or representative Iraq becomes, the more it strengthens their position and resolve in Iran in fighting against the mullah-ocracy.
5) If we succeed,even modestly, we open a new paradigm that reduces the liklihood we will have to put boots on the ground and fight in more places, costing the lives of young americans.
6) We determine, in a clear-eyed and effective way whether any change is possible in the arab world, and then are free to act accordingly. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 6:41 pm: |
|
Quote:1) Our economy, our society, and our way of life, cannot afford extensive domestic terrorism. In short we are not the Israelis. Our porous borders and open society provide the opportunity for strikes that could kill in the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands, excluding a nuclear device. It has been correctly determined by our government that our jihadis are pavlovian in nature about our presence in a muslim country and attempts to introduce democracy there, so that they will apply the largest part of their manpower, weaponry, and limited resources to that goal fighting armed american troops in Iraq. They realize the worst thing possible for them is if we succeed.
pure ridiculous trash. We can and we will survive any domestic terrorism, the first world trade center bombing, Oklahoma, 9-11 all major attacks that we were able to recover from. Terrorists are not only in Iraq. Attacking Iraq has drained our treasury and made us all poorer. Our economy certainly doesnt benefit from this war. Our Constitution is strong and our 'way of life' will not be threatened unless we change our laws, for our own protection.
Quote:2) To say Iraqi society should have been more responsive to us and democratic norms is nonsense given the historical lack of democratic institutions, and 30 years of a brutal reign of Saddam Hussein. Arab culture and society is also distinguishable from western concepts and politics. We have removed the threat of Saddam's millitary apparatus from our further regional planning and effectively established a deterring presence to Iranian or Syrian adventurism and patron-terrorism in our country by being on their borders.Hence their support for the insurgents.
Saddam was no threat to the USA. He had no wmd. He was contained in no fly zones and was nothing more then a noisy despot. Meanwhile we are building 12 permanent bases plus an embassy the size of the Vatican. I dare say the cost of that could have gone to far better uses at home
Quote:3) Iraq has the holiest sites in sh'ia islam and some of the most respected theologians. The shi'ites have traditionally been repressed by the sunni, and are the biggest breeding ground, outside of Al Queda (sunni) for discontent and violence. We have the opportunity to utilize the good will and positive relationships developed with the shi'ite leaders in Iraq to undercut Iranian influence on the sh'ia in the Middle East and have a friend and interlocutor in that religious camp. This disturbs and concerns the Iranians.
I will believe this when I see it, I thought that the 9-11 terrorists were all shia.
Quote:4) Freedom and change in Iraq is seen throughout the arab world and Iran. It places the Saudis in a position where they will have to spend more time and attention to liberalizing their country or fighting it, than on contributing to the sunni fighting us in Iraq. The Iranian population is largely young and has a great deal of discontent with the mullahs.The more democratic or representative Iraq becomes, the more it strengthens their position and resolve in Iran in fighting against the mullah-ocracy.
I sure do think that the Saudis could have been persuaded in other ways, but I really dont see any pressure on the Saudis to 'liberalize' because a new democratic theocracy is born in Iraq.
Quote:5) If we succeed,even modestly, we open a new paradigm that reduces the liklihood we will have to put boots on the ground and fight in more places, costing the lives of young americans.
What proof do you offer of this? I would think that the neocon thinking is that this is only the first of the dominoes, followed by Syria and Iran. Seems to me that the new paradigm is America attacking soveriegn nations on trumped up grounds to suit the policy
Quote:6) We determine, in a clear-eyed and effective way whether any change is possible in the arab world, and then are free to act accordingly.
So America decides what is right for the 'arab' world. And this differs from imperialism how? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
1. The present construct of american society and our consumer culture is simply not built to accept sustained terror as a way of life, and absent a massive terror blow, the degree of loss, self-sacrafice, and self-denial involved . People as it is complain about fighting in Iraq, although it is sufficiently far away from our population centers, the engines of our economy, and our civilians.
2. You fail to understand regional and national security issues. The extreme shi'a regime in Iran is the greatest threat we face at the moment.
3. Saudis are shi'a? The majority of Saudis are sunni and Al Queda is a sunni organization opposed to the sh'ia in general.
4 and 5. What are your arguments exactly? More representative government in the arab world undercuts the appeal of radical islam. The effect may reduce the need to commit even more troops and suffer more casualties down the road. What we are doing scares all the regimes in the region, except Israel, which is a representative democracy. The fact that the jihadis have made their major stand to fight America in Iraq is proof of how much of a change agent the policy potentially is.
6. We determine what can or cannot change in the arab world and then decide what is best to do for us. The foreign policy actions of the past 80 years have not improved the situation or reduced our risk. Bold measures make sense.There is never a guarantee of success. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2168
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Fiction:
I see it all more clearly now when I read all your lines.
Quotes from you above:
"The President who talks with food in his mouth and says things like " Yo, Blair" has not been our battlefield Napoleon or Lord Nelson. Our millitary is now a professional rather than conscript force, unlike during Vietnam."
You insist on inserting irrelevant observations about the president as a response to reasonable comments about the performance of his administration. It's pitiful to plot your mind movements. You still have no response to comments about the administration's shoddy performance.
"As a millitary historian I would think you would recognize that wars are not all won immediately or within a set number of years, being subject to the vagaries of the circumstances. Should the British have given up after Dunkirk, or should the U.S. have reconsidered fighting on after 1944? Was Vietnam the first domestically lost war for the U.S., premised upon a conscript army and extensive media coverage?"
Your English confuses me here. Are you saying that you are the military historian or that I am? If you're saying that I am, then you are continuing to put MY foot in YOUR mouth and attribute words to me that I have not said.
Again, this is a pitiful rhetorical trick and it won't wash.
Any officer knows that battles are won or lost in short time periods but that conflicts, wars, military actions, peace-keeping actions take years. Your allusions to Dunkirk, to post-D-Day, and to VietNam are irrelevant here as well.
While we do not have a conscript army but did have one in previous wars up to 1978 or so, we have historically had a professional officer corps and in-depth non-commissioned officer ranks.
The difference is that since Iraq we are losing those professionals through turn-over and non-re-enlistment at a higher rate than we saw in WWII, Korea, or VietNam. So we have an all-volunteer army, along with what has almost always been an all-volunteer Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
The result of the turnover is that the all-volunteer army has more inexperienced junior officers,non-coms, and troopers to turn into cannon-fodder. Or to order to extend their year of combat in Iraq by an extra four to five months.
As to your second posting: I quote:
"1) Our economy, our society, and our way of life, cannot afford extensive domestic terrorism. In short we are not the Israelis. Our porous borders and open society provide the opportunity for strikes that could kill in the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands, excluding a nuclear device. It has been correctly determined by our government that our jihadis are pavlovian in nature about our presence in a muslim country and attempts to introduce democracy there, so that they will apply the largest part of their manpower, weaponry, and limited resources to that goal fighting armed american troops in Iraq. They realize the worst thing possible for them is if we succeed."
Your dramatic rhetoric is nothing but willful trash. You are correct about our porous borders and open society. Unfortunately, the administration is doing nothing about our porous borders but it is playing hell with the spirit of openness and disclosure that Americans like to think they get from their top leaders.
As it turns out, WE are moving more troops to Baghdad, which we can't tame, and leaving other parts of the country without our presence.
As to the last part of your paragraph above, you need to power-wash your brain cells after spouting that.
"2) To say Iraqi society should have been more responsive to us and democratic norms is nonsense given the historical lack of democratic institutions, and 30 years of a brutal reign of Saddam Hussein. Arab culture and society is also distinguishable from western concepts and politics. We have removed the threat of Saddam's millitary apparatus from our further regional planning and effectively established a deterring presence to Iranian or Syrian adventurism and patron-terrorism in our country by being on their borders.Hence their support for the insurgents."
Who is saying that "Iraqi society should have been more responsive to us"?
You seem to be attributing that sentence to me. That is another cheap rhetorical trick of yours--- responding to a counter-argument that you made up yourself.
My point has been that our leaders should have known what kind of response our troops would receive, but our leaders failed to plan and failed to safeguard our troops when they put them in harm's way, and our leaders are still contriving excuses for our administration's failures in the "MUDDLE EAST."
Having read many of your posts, and responded to a few, I can reach only one of two conclusions:
1. Either you are playing devil's advocate about the administration's incompetence and failures, just for the hell of it, and not doing a great job at that. If I were the administration, I would not hire you if Tony Snow dropped dead. Or
2. You truly are as thick as a cinder block, and nothing gets through your one-dimensional thought processes.
I'll leave it to you to guess which one I am laying bets on. EOM
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Innisowen-
Your idea of a dialogue appears to continue to be trash-talking. It would be great if you addressed my points without resort to excessive rhetoric, which you seem to be projecting to me. Plus I have said nothing derogatory about you. I can appreciate your national service unlike some other posters and that you have a right to an opinion.
That being said I think I have acknowledged the "shoddy performance" of the Bush administration in Iraq, but by the same token would you have suggested President Lincoln sue for peace with the South, given the horrendous performance of the Union army during the initial-mid stages of the Civil War? No doubt we would have continued to have slavery in this country until it was no longer economically feasible.
I refined your argument for you, after you admitted Vietnam was not analogous to Iraq, but stating your concerns were that we were entering a quagmire in Iraq. Valid issue. But in your post you undercut your own argument by acknowledging wars and related actions can "take years". You are presuming and assuming the people who create strategy and policies have not taken the lessons of Vietnam into account, or people who require election would not avoid exactly such a situation.
And I totally agree with you that they are going through a rough patch right now, and need to bend the shi'a away from retaliation for sunni attacks via death squads and the like.
Yes, many may die in Iraq but it is a revolution, supported by the shi'a majority. Millions died during the cultural revolution in China and in the communist upheaval in Russia.
Our democrats controlled our borders no better than our republicans. The world is a Machiavellian place, our last U.S. government that made "morality" the key issue of foreign policy was the Carter administration,which was a disaster. Don't bother to raise the peace treaty beween Israel and Egypt in terms of success insofar as Egypt had domestic problems and need for extensive american financial aid that generated their movement to peace.
In the cold-hearted and real world equation, better to fight them there at lesser cost of life and economic effect, than to fight them here. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2172
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:50 pm: |
|
Fiction:
This gets more interesting as your lack of knowledge or your willingness to overlook facts gets in the way of what you write.
Your quote:
"Your idea of a dialogue appears to continue to be trash-talking." It seems that your definition of trash-talking is when someone dares to disagree strongly with your limp points of view.
If what I have said appears derogatory to your logic, your premises, and your conclusions, I am sorry, but so be it. It's my opinion. If you want trash-talking, well, MOL won't allow that. But I have it in mind.
Your quote:
"The President who talks with food in his mouth and says things like " Yo, Blair" has not been our battlefield Napoleon or Lord Nelson."
Quite disingenuous comparison. By associating Bush's name with two of history's illustrious military leaders, you elevate him in a way that even his own cabinet members would laugh at while giving the impression of acknowledging his worse than mediocre performance. We need instead to associate GWB's name with the names of Warren G. Harding and Millard Fillmore. That's the constellation where Bush's star should be placed.
Then you go on to link Bush with Lincoln and his presidency. If Bush did that himself, we'd call it the height of megalomania. Your quote: "That being said I think I have acknowledged the "shoddy performance" of the Bush administration in Iraq, but by the same token would you have suggested President Lincoln sue for peace with the South, given the horrendous performance of the Union army during the initial-mid stages of the Civil War?"
But you conveniently avoid mentioning that Bush has neither fired nor disciplined a single general officer for the Iraq fiasco or for losing control once again of Afghanistan.
Lincoln on the other hand fired Scott, McClellan, and Halleck, until he finally found in Grant the leader he needed to get the job done.
No such strong decisions have occurred on the watch presided over by the president who calls himself "the decider." He just botches on and on.
Quote from you:
"I refined your argument for you, after you admitted Vietnam was not analogous to Iraq, but stating your concerns were that we were entering a quagmire in Iraq."
Once again, I ask you to point out where I said that VietNam was analogous to Iraq. I said that the lessons our military learned in VietNam don't appear to have been applied to Iraq.
I did not say we were entering a quagmire in Iraq. I believe that I said that our lack of planning and strategy caused the quagmire almost from the beginning of the war, (and it seems that even President Bush has just recently come around to admitting that).
For those who speak and read English fluently, there is a difference.
So please stop putting my foot in your mouth.
"The world is a Machiavellian place, our last U.S. government that made "morality" the key issue of foreign policy was the Carter administration,which was a disaster."
Don't you find that a very stupid comment?
You're ignoring the Bible-thumping, morality play atmosphere surrounding the use of the words "moral mission," "evil-doers," "axis of evil," " I believe that god speaks to me, or through me," the blocking of funding to international medical efforts that supported needle exchange in drug-addiction reduction efforts in Africa, and domestically, the embarrassing scramble about the Terri Schiavo case (orchestrated by the President and Senator Frist). If the Carter administration was a moralistic disaster (and I can agree with that), this current administration is a moralistic catastrophe of immense proportions.
The trouble with your viewpoints is the ease with which you've been swallowing the administration's line "whole hog," as well as the fact that you appear to have a smattering of knowledge of history, and you appear to half-read what other people write and then twist it to your own conclusions.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1229
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:38 pm: |
|
innisowen-
You seem to want to do a freudian analysis of my comments rather than deal in substance. Now that is "limp".
Terry Schiavo? Wtf?
I am giving you the why and you are essentially ignoring it and blathering on. You now make two worthy points, which I will address further, with my "smatterings" of knowledge.
Instead of frothing at the mouth about Bush you need to communicate your points clearly and cut through the verbiage. You remind me of some of the Clinton haters.
As I have said before I did not see the need to invade Iraq at that time, so you characterizations are quite off.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2174
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:03 pm: |
|
Terry Schiavo, WTF? As they say in the law courts, you introduced the subject, talking about morality of administrations. I happened to mention the "Bushian" morality play that characterizes our foreign policy (which you conveniently overlooked in your whiz of a reply), and I added a piece of the Bushian domestic morality madness, for good measure.
I'm not doing any Freudian analysis of your comments. If that's what you think, then I guess that you've never read Freud.
I'm just doing what a good thorough reader does: close reading of what you wrote. If you don't like someone reading your comments closely, you should either not write them or you should write what you really mean. You make stupid parallels, draw inane conclusions, make comparisons that are pure foolish, and you deride me for pointing them out. Grow up. Learn to read and write better. Then maybe there will hope for you.
The plain fact is that you are giving me a "why" that is worthless. Another of your tricks.
And where have I frothed at the mouth about Bush? Your penchant for both exaggeration and misstatement is beyond staggering.
I'm almost convinced that you really don't have the attention span necessary for reading, and you need to make stuff up as you go along (not unlike the current administration, by the way).
We should just stop meeting like this. You'll continue to make inane parallels and empty statements, and you'll just get pissed off each time I call you out on them.
I don't mean to make you feel targeted, but you place yourself most willingly at the bulls-eye end of the rifle range and then you yell "fire at will." |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2898
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:40 pm: |
|
FvF, Innis: I think that next Friday night you out to have your "discussion" over a beer at The Pub instead of on MOL. I think you will find it more fun. As will the rest of us.  |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1236
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:34 pm: |
|
innisowen-
If I would give your last post the most polite reading I could, I would guess it was your best attempt at creating "shock and awe" on my part at your prodigious intellect and command of words.
Um.... well... if it made you feel good, I guess that is all that matters.
On addressing substance you actually raised a good issue.
"Our lack of planning and strategy caused the quagmire almost from the start of the war".
The Iraq invasion, I believe, was planned as a millitary campaign and not a war with an insurgency. It would appear to have been eminently successful, so that what happened afterwards, not from the beginning, is the key issue. Vietnam has been well dissected by the services and no one in the US millitary wanted to fall into the same type of situation, so you are way oversimplifying it here.
Bush obviously relied on Rumsfeld who relied on the JCS. Could they have known or anticipated the insurgency variables better? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The Middle East is a much trickier place than the relatively straight forward game planning for a war in Europe. Obviously the nature of the insurgency and the use of ieds created a need for revised strategies and doctrines, which occurs when you experience a new form of warfare. If you still wish to fault the millitary all you need do is look at the severe problems that the Israelis, far more experienced and insurgency-planned than the U.S. millitary, has had in fighting Hezbollah.
Certainly while it is regrettable in loss of life, the total experience the army is gaining in Iraq is preparing it for the kind of conflict it will be fighting in the 21st century. Morale among the troops is suprisingly high despite the nature of the conflict as well. The U.S. millitary in Iraq is not being defeated, nor is it being pushed out of Iraq, to support a comparison with Lincoln's dealing with his generals. The insurgents are attempting to wage a war of attrition against the U.S. presence, a very serious but different animal. The conflict will not reach the level of Vietnam's dealth tolls and there will be an exit strategy in the form of Iraqi units.
There have been a number of political failings there, ranging from the Bremer administration and the Iraqi exiles the Bush administration listened to onward. Big rewards sometimes come only from big risks. A cold calculus, which my previous posts note, was made here that we shouldn't be naive about. Calling for an immediate withdrawal doesn't cure the decision to invade Iraq or more importantly, justify the lives lost. At present we can't cut and run and need to stay the course.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2180
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Fiction:
...big yawn...
Please tell me where you go to get your brain washed. I'd like to take my laundry there, for they seem to do a thorough job.
Also, please tell me what college trained you in expository writing. Just so my children DON'T apply there. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4595
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:48 pm: |
|
"The Iraq invasion, I believe, was planned as a millitary campaign and not a war with an insurgency. "
I suppose that says all that is wrong about our operation in Iraq. It was clearly, from the beginning, a political operation with a military component.
"Bush obviously relied on Rumsfeld who relied on the JCS."
And Rumsfeld had a habit of shortening the careers of Army professionals who said things he didn't want to hear.
"Big rewards sometimes come only from big risks."
Yes, we all like to read about the guy who spent his home equity loan on the lottery and wone. But in reality, big rewards come to those who know what they are doing. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:07 pm: |
|
innisowen-
As I read your post your comments remind me of that ad classic " where's the beef?". You can do better.
tjohn-
Some would say all wars are based on politics. We have to see what happens now.
As I have stated before I think they should have sanctioned and blockaded Iraq prior to considering invasion. No question it is a very risky and bold venture. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2182
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:38 pm: |
|
fiction:
You're like Bush. You expend a lot of wind restating the same points over and over. By "staying on message," you assume you'll eventually refashion a series of stupid actions, bad decisions, and poor execution into something that sounds like truth and a robust plan. That's fine. Keep at it. It won't change any of the screw-ups that have occurred by one iota.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1242
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:11 am: |
|
Innisowen-
Bush as a moron- The man is no silver-tongued thespian, and seems to have a frat boy mentality born of privilege. He also has a Harvard M.B.A. and real dummies never make it to the Presidency. Let's agree he is as probably as bright as Ted Kennedy, another son of nepotism. The policies, strategies, and programs are devised by others with greater expertise than Bush who takes the role of a CEO in approving them.
The Vietnam parallel- No parallel at all as you have recognized. It is simply a familiar touchstone for those opposing the war. A better discussion can be had if you want to compare Iraq with the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
Losing the war- As you have noted wars may take a long time. The problem is that our society is an immediate gratification/results one that has become soft in a consumerist way. In short we don't take the long term view of things like our current islamic enemies do( ever wonder why they refer to us as Crusaders?).
A very cold and cynical calculus was made by the Bushies that it was better to engage and fight them there to decrease their opportunities to fight us here. Extreme risk has been a part of many successful wars or battles. If you read the biographies the D-Day invasion was viewed as a major crapshoot that if unsuccessful would have a major impact on the allies' abilities to further prosecute the war, unless of course the subjects or authors were engaging in puffery to make their subjects or themselves look even better.
Even if we do not achieve all our objectives here it is not resulting in the destruction or defeat of the USA. If moderately successful we may change the equation that might otherwise require us to fight wider battles in the region and lose even more troops. Moral authority does not work with this enemy and our normal european allies are in decline and dissarray. We are the lone world superpower.
Whether the invasion was right or wrong we gain nothing from immediate withdrawal. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2186
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Fiction:
para 1. I agree on the first half. I don't see expertise on anyone's part from the "CEO" on down. And again, the "CEO" has fired no one for incompetence.
para 2- again, the dopey misinterpretations you throw up mystify me. I never said there were parallels. I said there were lessons that should have been learned, but which no one was applying. How dense are you that you fail to see the difference?
para 3-your brand of pyscho-babble
para 4- trouble with the d-day analogy is that we had successful landings in Africa and Italy, and the German command knew by 1944 that Germany was losing the war.
para 5- a superpower with few resources to engage enemies in other conflicts in other parts of the world at the same time is a super power on paper only. The cost of the war in dollar terms alone will drain us for the next 10-15 years. A war that is worth waging would make sense. The "trumped up" Iraq debacle meets no criteria except the current administration's.
Last sentence: you love putting words in other people's mouths so that you can refute them. I never said anything about immediate withdrawal.
It always comes back to your reading comprehension and retention. You must be ingesting too much mental garbage. It's bad for your brain. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1252
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Innisowen-
Here I am trying to help you out and you bite the hand that feeds you. I gave you the Soviets in Afghanistan to give you the opportunity to make a more cogent and logical argument than the saps that use Vietnam. Research it and let's go.
If you want me to spend the time pulling out your Vietnam equivalency posts, hey, I don't have the time, but like Mulder said on the "X files" -" the truth is out there".
Again, the biographies on D-day speak for themselves. You make the assumption about the time frame for Iraq and the dollar drain. Our presence deters Iranian and Syrian mischief and secures stability in the the Saudi oil fields that the world needs at the moment. You apparently don't read my posts closely enough to discover I was not a fan of the Iraq invasion. Still, I understand the geo-political basis of it, and the need to isolate ourselves from the direct impact of the islamofacists as the poor people in Israel experience almost daily.
At the moment your argument is in tatters. You admit Iraq is not Vietnam. You admit wars can take a long time. And you admit you don't want an immediate withdrawal.
History is going to decide our disagreement my friend, and not you or me.
I have enjoyed your posts and welcome your comments always.
FVF
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3657
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
 |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1283
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 7:20 pm: |
|
notehead-
I am not a big Rice fan either. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page