Jump to content

A war we can't win, and can't afford to lose...


glutes
 Share

This topic is 6034 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

The crumbling has begun, methinks. Congressmen, a few only now, speak of withdrawal from Iraq. A small thing, but for the White House a worrisome step toward vertebracy in that body of polyps. The numbers of the dissenting will grow as they see that they do not get hurt. Military recruiting is way down, and will stay down: The gullibility of the young cannot forever be relied upon. The House has summoned the courage to vote against parts of the Patriot Act. The president’s polls drop and drop.

 

The crumbling has begun, methinks.

 

Is this surprising? If I may risk repeating myself tiresomely, the way to defeat the American military is to avoid giving it clear targets, keep the body bags flowing into Dover or Travis, and wait. It is that simple. The insurgents know this. They are doing it, and it is working. Five Marines today, three tomorrow, twelve GIs one week, nine another. On and on. So far we have killed 1700 of our soldiers, closing in on 2000. Sooner or later, even Middle America will notice.

 

Is victory still possible, if it ever was? The military can’t stop the bleeding, or it would have. Short of a miracle, of perhaps a serious attack within the United States, actually or apparently by terrorists, the casualties will continue. The public will weary of the war, and it will all be over. No?

 

Wars are marketed as involving moral principles or geo-strategic necessity, but they can become grudge matches, contests of vanity grown stubborn. A president who has led his country into a war has his ego on the line. He cannot easily say, “In the light of events, the adventure appears to have failed, and so we will return home.” The world would regard him as a fool and a knave. Further, humble men do not become presidents. Such a man will struggle on desperately, unwisely, with no real purpose any longer than to avoid the personal ignominy of defeat. When his pride has been engaged he can’t stop. For this men die.

 

One sees a similar approach in the gambler who, having lost his car, bets his house in hopes of redeeming himself.

 

As the news worsens the lying, begun long ago, increases. Democracies of course have to be lied into aggressive wars, since no one really cares about the form of government in an obscure and remote nation. Thus as losses mount, the enemy’s successes are described as defeats, as the last throes of a failing force. (I would not be surprised to find that Tokyo described the bombing of Hiroshima as a sign of American desperation.) The government forbids reporters to photograph the coffins, punishes soldiers who talk to the press. The horribly wounded are discreetly hidden. Generals who are not upbeat are fired. Dissidents become labeled as traitors. War crimes become isolated incidents: Only those which are discovered have occurred. Etc.

 

Historians tend to see wars as consequent to abstract currents of history. They speak of the balance of power, the clash of civilizations, of economic rivalry, and it all sounds dispassionate, reasoned, and occasionally majestic. It might be more accurate to say that wars are the hobbies of half-informed children who have somehow come into possession of the levers of power. Can anyone possible believe that Mr. Bush knew anything about the Arab world when he set out to conquer it? That Hitler understood the Russians, or the Japanese Army, America?

 

Getting into wars is so often easier than getting out. In terms of national and presidential vanity, the prospects of Iraq, short always of a miracle, vary between bad and ghastly. If the United States pulls out, in a sort of exploitus reservatus, the One Remaining Superpower will be seen not to be. No one will be afraid of us any longer. In particular, countries like Iran will not be afraid. One wonders whether this may not be what Mr. bin Laden had in mind.

 

Of course in material terms the United States will not be weaker. If driven out of Iraq, America will still be superior in remarkable aircraft and fast carriers and extraordinary submarines. But submarines are of use only in certain kinds of wars, which the enemy will avoid. The good ship USS Thundertrinket can destroy Japan, yes. It cannot defeat a few thousand determined men with rifles. Militaries seem never to learn this.

 

It is curious. The French, having underestimated both the enemy and the potential of guerilla warfare, got thrashed at Dien Bien Phu. The Americans, equally full of themselves, then went into the same country and got similarly thrashed. The French, having learned nothing, tried again in Algeria, with the same result. The Israelis tried to hold down southern Lebanon, encountering the same problems and equally losing. The Russians, having seen all of this, invaded Afghanistan and got thrashed. Now the United States is in Iraq. For militaries, the learning curve seems to be flat.

 

The problem is not that soldiers are stupid. They are not. Rather it is (I think) that they become excessively taken with the technology and power of their weapons, with the computers and precision and speed, with themselves, and just do not stop to ponder the difficulty of killing hornets with a howitzer.

 

The future? Having restored the Vietnam complex, presumably the US will be very hesitant for a decade or so to throw its weight around. Then, having forgotten again, it will invade another country defended by only a few contemptible men with rifles who, in any case, will be expected to throw flowers.

 

If America loses the White House war – what? I suppose that Mr. Bin Laden will come out of his hole a hero in the Moslem world, laughing pointedly at Mr. Bush. I do not know what part he actually had in the events in New York, but he gets credit for them, which is enough. He would be able to say that he had goaded the Great Satan into a losing war in Arabia that left America defanged and no longer able to give orders to Moslem nations. Isn’t that what he set out to do?

 

What price nothing? A couple of thousand dead kids, countless cripples who will remain crippled when the current administration has been forgotten, a country wrecked, God knows how many dead Iraqis (I know, they don’t count), thousands of sisters and mothers remembering Bobby every Christmas and looking at his last year book from high school, a tremendous diminution in America’s influence and prestige as China rises, unforeseeable consequences in the Middle East. For what, Mr. Bush? For what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This war on Iraq has been a lose-lose proposition from the start, if only now we could focus on the [a href=http://impeachbush.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=VTI_articles]impeachable[/a] offenses which resulted in our becoming ensnared in this morass.

 

A very insightful [a href=http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed68.html]article[/a] from one of my very favorite libertarian [a href=http://www.lewrockwell.com/]web sites[/a], always a good read to be found there. I certainly don't [a href=http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sapienza3.html]always agree[/a] with everything written there, but it's [a href=http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006838.html]usually[/a] [a href=http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy81.html]at least[/a] [a href=http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker37.html]thought provoking[/a].

 

Thanks for posting this glutes! I've been tempted to post hot issues from there, but I didn't know if there were enough libertarian anti-prohibition type guys here on the board to care :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I have posted anything on this board on the war on Iraq since it started in March 2003. At that time I had participated on this board vociferously against the war but once America made up its mind, I just let it drop. Anyone consulting the archives will see that at that time I stated that George Bush was a war criminal for starting an illegal war. I still stand by that assessment, and now the UN Secretary General agrees with me.

 

Of course, the Bush Administration has nothing to fear from the Court of International Justice. No superpower head need lose any sleep over the thought that he might be arrested like the former leader of Serbia for war crimes. It just ain't gonna happen. However, I sort of like the idea that after Bush retires he may not want to travel much (not that he seems the sort anyway), for fear of becoming another Pinochet.

 

As for the folly of America invading Iraq, I think the time is not far away when the American people are going to turn on Bush and his henchmen like Donald Rumsfeld with a vengeance. If you think the war is going badly now, just wait.x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>If America loses the White House war – what? I suppose that

>Mr. Bin Laden will come out of his hole a hero in the Moslem

>world, laughing pointedly at Mr. Bush. I do not know what part

>he actually had in the events in New York, but he gets credit

>for them, which is enough. He would be able to say that he had

>goaded the Great Satan into a losing war in Arabia that left

>America defanged and no longer able to give orders to Moslem

>nations. Isn’t that what he set out

 

Ten years ago the Clinton Administration warned that the idea of a terrorist attack taking place within the borders of the United States was a very realistic possibility. At the time no one really paid much attention or heeded the warning, mainly at the time in 1995, the idea was almost improbable. Osama Bin Ladin made it a reality in 2001 and it left the United States as a nation stunned and mortified. In the process Osama became a hero to many within the Middle East and proved that the mightiest of nations can be pricked and hurt. Osama never cared who occuppied the White House, he had one aim and that was to hurt America in the worst way possible. Osama follows the teachings of the Koran in a radical way and they believe that muslims will one day dominate and rule the world.

 

It's not just a question of whether America wins or loses the war in Iraq, the question now becomes who will suffer the most, the United States or Islamic Insurgents. Islamic Fundamentalists see the United States as the standard bearer of what is corrupt within the western world. Obviously over 50 years of global dominance doesn't help either and muslims see the United States as the oppressors and themselves as the victims. Not too long ago Osmaa declared that Iraq is now the beginning of World War III. Here's what worries me the most, these days the Bush Administration are warning that the idea of a bioligical or nuclear attack in America within the next ten years is realistic. God forbid if it were ever to happen, but I dont want to even begin to imagine what this could do to a nation of 270 million people. It would not suprise me if it were Islamic Fundamentalists were to carry out such an attack. It's too horrible to contemplate, but as the old expression goes " It is better to kill than be killed ". For all the right or wrong reasons of starting a war in Iraq, the one aspect that President Bush has always said is that it's better to take the war to the terrorists than have it reach the shores of the United States. The war against terrorism will never be winnable, at best the war can only be delayed from reaching the United States. Right now Mr Bush is paying for it in the political polls, who knows maybe in ten or even twenty years from now, historians may say that perhaps Mr Bush just might be right in his assessment in igniting a war in Iraq. The one aspect that tends to get overlooked is that these days, Arab nations are now being forced to confront people with extreme radical islamic beliefs and they are now being forced to implement certain aspects of democracy just for their own surivival in avioding a popular uprising. It's happening in Saudi Arabia and now in Egypt and maybe it'll spread to other regions of the Middle East, just not Iran at this point in time. All these nations are being forced to evaluate themselves because they see what Iraq is going through as a nation. Whether democracy works in the Middle East, only time will tell and part of Mr Bush presidency will be judged on the fact of whether force feeding democracy works or not.

>

>What price nothing? A couple of thousand dead kids, countless

>cripples who will remain crippled when the current

>administration has been forgotten, a country wrecked, God

>knows how many dead Iraqis (I know, they don’t count),

>thousands of sisters and mothers remembering Bobby every

>Christmas and looking at his last year book from high school,

>a tremendous diminution in America’s influence and prestige as

>China rises, unforeseeable consequences in the Middle East.

>For what, Mr. Bush? For what?

 

 

You ask what price, this a very good question to ask. I'll have a go in trying to answer your question, so here goes. First of all the people who gain the most from Saddam being reomoved from power are the Shite Muslims. Secondly, now that Saddam is gone, does anyone see signs on television that say " Bring Back Saddam ", offcourse not. A lot of Iraqis remember of what life was like under the Baath Party. Most Iraqis certainly dont want to go back to those days and certainly not the Shite Muslims. They're not grateful to the Bush Administration for a liberation of Saddam's regime. Muslims by nature have a huge distrust of westerners, they dont mind the mighty dollar or the pound being invested in their nation, they just dont want the culture of the western world thrown in their faces, because it goes against everything that their holy book the Koran teaches. You bring up an interesting point in terms of thousands of soldiers being killed, President Bush argues that the insurgents are threatened by democracy and a free Iraq from tyranny. By his own defintion the sacrifices made by US soldiers for a free Democratic Iraq are worth it. At it's worst will be Iraq on the brink of a civil war where sunni and shite muslims will create a blood bath and the United States will ultimately get the blame for cause and effect.

 

On the other hand the insurgents argue that once again America has poked it's nose in the affairs of the Middle East in attempt to destroy Islam and the enemies of Israel. They point out that the US is trying to purposely begin a confrontation with Iran. Simply for the fear that if Iran creates a nuclear bomb, it could be used on Israel. That's why I feel that at the end of the day the war has now taken a life of it's own and has now gone way beyond Iraq. It's become about preserving civilizations. It's Islam against christianity. It's the us versus them factor. In the future who knows what will happen. BTW, to those of you unaware, homosexuality is considered to be a sin and dead enemy of the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. Just be grateful that we have from freedom to express ourselves in a christian country such as the United States as opposed to an Islamic nation such as Saudia Arabia. It's a tough world we live in these days.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Rohale, for a sensible take on what is happening.

 

It seems to me that the critics of the current situation of Iraq can be divided into several camps, which are by no means the same.

 

1) The "We shouldn't start anything we can't win" crowd. These are pragmatists, who are happy to see the US act if it can accomplish what it wants, but carp and criticize and carry on at the first signs of difficulty. For those of us who live in New York City, they are a familiar presence in almost every civic issue, paralyzing the public good often for undisclosed private gain. They are in fact amoral, as their criteria are those things that power can accomplish for them that don't inconvenience themselves. The NIMBY crowd writ large.

2) The Republican-haters. Anything Bush proposes or does, right or wrong, is going to be opposed by these folks. They are partisan fools, in the same way the Clinton haters were, and are a real and present danger to us all because their attitude precludes any kind of sensible discussion or agreement between those elected to power and the rest of the political community. Dr. Dean is their current leader, with his acolyte Michael Moore and their Daddy Warbucks, George Soros.

3) The people who believe anything the US does is wrong. They are not willing to accept the responsibility that power and wealth bring. They are willing to accept its benefits -- in fact, many of them profit mightily and live very, very well from that system -- but not its responsibilities. I think of Hollywood starlets of both genders, the Scientologists and the sane alike.

4) The modern Know-Nothings or ignorance is bliss crowd. Here we may locate many on the right (Buchanan, etc.) as well as on the left (there's a lot of this on NPR) who simply don't believe the rest of the world is worth the trouble. The sophisticated version of this currently is the stream of thought that holds that Islamic societies and non-westerners generally are not capable of democracy, of a public civic life and of non-authoritarian government, so we should leave their Saddams and Assads and Mubaraks and Khameinis alone.

 

There are, however, many responsible people in this country who understand that in fact a major struggle between a fundamentalist, other-rejecting Islam and the West (not just Christianity, but Judaism and humanist secularism as well) has begun. Although western attitudes and action over centuries have played a part in the genesis of this struggle, it is rooted in the Islamic concept of absolutism. Deep at the heart of fundamentalist Islam you will not find respect for the beliefs on non-Moslems, but at best tolerance for submerged and conquered minorities. The so-called golden age of Al-Andalus was based on a thorough suppression of the public life of all non-Islamic religions and communities, and that is what this struggle hopes to reinstate, this time for all of us.

 

We did not start this struggle. It has emerged from within Islam itself. It would be better if it had not started, but it has, and it will not end with a battle or two, or even with a perfectly peaceable and prosperous Iraq, as unlikely as that may be. It will not end until that virulent form of Islam understands with complete clarity that it cannot and will not win, and when its own people are so disgusted with terrorism in the name of Islam that they will join forces with the West to create a peaceful and prosperous society.

 

This being the case, having made the decision to invade Iraq, rightly or wrongly, Iraq must be pacified. Period. The failure to do so will embolden the Islamic terror machine to carry the struggle with increasing force to Western soil. Think of a nuclear bomb exploded in Times Square, The Mall or Westminster, biological warfare in Paris or Madrid, the targeted destruction of the Vatican, and on a smaller scale, the poisoning of water supplies, destruction of dams and bridges and the crippling of transit systems, the kidnapping and torturing of religious figures from the Pope on down, and the routine publicized torture and mutilation of ordinary westerners. And all this aimed at producing fear and disgust at our own inept response, leading to capitulation, at the ballot box (like the Spanish election) or in paralysis of governmental capacity to act.

 

If what began years before 9/11, with the first bombing of the WTC, and other acts, is not met with successful retaliation, all this will begin. It is only a matter of time. The only victory the fundamentalist-terrorist Islamic brigades will recognize is an Islamic fundamentalist "conversion" of the west, in which most of the freedoms we enjoy, including the (admittedly now-partial) freedom to be gay, will be lost. So they must not win.

 

The British learned in the struggle with the IRA that it is fatal at any point to cease to respond, and that the battle must be fought by going after the terrorists. Only when the Irish population itself became disgusted with its own murderous hatreds and began to set them aside was peace possible, and that peace is still fragile. In short, the British learned to live with the consequences of day to day terrorism, and those consequences include significant redesign of public space to minimize damage and danger, a sophisticated and up to date surveillance system, swift and certain apprehension of perpetrators, and their instant removal from ordinary society. We must learn to adopt their stiff upper lip.

 

I wish it were not so. I wish that the attacks on 9/11 and those that preceded it had not happened, or that they were aberrations of a few fevered minds. I wish that these acts were comparable to the temper tantrums of children and could be responded to with reason and indugence. But I am afraid they are the acts of serious adults with long term goals which do not include leaving us and our civilization intact. Bush did not start this struggle, and it will be going on when Hillary or some other person is our President. Perhaps that is why Hillary is in fact reasonably (and sensibly) muted in her criticisms when others bash Bush on this front, and so vocally supportive of the military. She must understand that she stands a very good chance of being the next President to lead us in a struggle which is very real, even if many would wish it away. I hope she does a better job than Bush. But thank God he has at least recognized this issue and initiated a forceful response.

 

Get out of Iraq? No way. We must win. And in the meantime, we must encourage the learning of Arabic, Farsi, Pashtun and Urdu, and not simply by immigrant native speakers, but by the "best and brightest" who are training to enter our diplomatic and intelligence services. We must know, and insist that our "intelligence" services know the intricacies of Islamic histories and cultures. We must find better ways of building economic and cultural ties with moderate Islamic societies, and strengthen the non-fundamentalist, other-accepting strain of Islam, to the extent that tolerance and mutuality and equality with non-Moslems can be fostered. And frankly, we must stand by and applaud as a new spirit of progressive Islam, a Reformation, if you will, takes place, as it thankfully has in different ways in Christianity and in Judaism. We must identify and eliminate vulnerabilities in our own infrastructure, giving bridges, water supplies, information networks, transit systems, emergency response preparedness and ports at least as much money and attention as the pointless, idiotic and enormously expensive make-work airport "security" system we have erected. We must teach the positive values of our religious and cultural beliefs to our children and find ways of sympathetically communicating them to the Moslem world. Without these efforts all our military efforts will fall short. If we fall short, if we lose confidence in our own way of life and lose the will to defend it and win, our own future will be very bleak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fisher

I find it interesting that many supporters of the Iraqi war have such tunnel vision, and such naivety that they cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly disagree with them and oppose such a noble cause as the Iraqi war. This should not surprise me since the Bush administration also suffers from a similar affliction and has little understanding of the Middle East, Arab/Islamic nationalism, and jihadist terrorism. You cannot hope to defeat an enemy if you do not understand them.

You are basically saying that those that oppose the war are either:

1) amoral … or

2) super partisan … or

 

3) American haters … or

 

4) idiots

 

IT can be said that numbers 1, 2, & 4 easily apply to those who are for the war. You can also add three other categories to those that support the war:

 

- religious zealots that believe the Bush has been anointed by God to save the U.S and Christianity.

- Neo-cons that believe that so rabidly in their ideology and their own rightness that they obviously cannot be wrong.

- People who are very afraid and therefore easily manipulated because of their fears. The Bush Administration is very effective at exploiting people’s fears. They used and exploited people’s fear of terrorism, Islam, foreigners, and the unknown (as well as the fear of homosexuals and gay marriage) to win the 2004 election.

 

You can also add another title to many of the people who “support” the war cowardly hypocrites. While American men and women are making the supreme sacrifice over there, the war monger-crowd is sitting on their fat asses merely paying lip service. Their personal sacrifice/support for the war extends only to flying a flag and putting a sticker on their car. If their child/grandchild/niece/nephew enlisted they would most likely stroke out.

 

Now, the reason I did not and do not support the Iraqi war is because Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, nor did Iraq pose ANY threat to the U.S.; moreover, at the time we were engaged in a legitimate war in Afghanistan. That was not the best time to launch an elective war. The Iraqi War served as a huge diversion of troops and resources. In addition, the invasion of Iraq served to significantly diminish world wide support/sympathy for the U.S.; moreover, the invasion also served as one of the most effective recruiting tool for jihadist terrorists in the world.

 

It has now almost four years since we went into Afghanistan. Neither Bin Laden, nor his deputy, nor the Taliban leader Mullah Omar have been captured. Al Qayda is still an operating terrorist organization. Other jihadist terrorist organizations are emerging and growing. Afghanistan is still not under full civil control. In recent months there has been an up surge in fighting and American deaths in Afghanistan. One wonders what the situation in Afghanistan would be if we did not invade Iraq and instead sent maybe ten or twenty per cent of the hundreds of thousands of troops we sent to Iraq into Afghanistan instead.

 

So, what was the Bush Administration’s true raison d’etre was for the Iraqi invasion. I do have my suspicions. I think perhaps mister super Christian was motivated by a little vengeance (Saddam did try to kill daddy). I also think Bush is easily influenced/manipulated by his advisors. These advisors (many from Bush I) wanted to rehabilitate both the former president as well as themselves in regards to Iraq. In addition, the neo-cons of the administration needed to prove that their ideology was correct - 9/11 offered the perfect venue.

 

While invading Iraq was the Bush Administration’s biggest mistake, the incompetence they showed in prosecuting this war is a close second.

 

- No plan for civil control after the fall of Saddam.

- No plan for securing Iraqi weapons/armaments (a great cache for the terrorists)

- Not enough troops to adequately secure the country (ignoring and embarrassing the Army Chief-of-Staff and thus allowing an insurgency to begin)

- Not providing U.S. troops with enough armored vehicles and Kevlar vests.

- Significantly cutting veterans’ benefits (Although not directly related to prosecuting the war in Iraq, it certainly affects troop moral)

 

Military recruiting is now at an all time low. Mostly because parents do not want their children to join and die in the growing quagmire that both Iraq and Afghanistan are becoming, but also because a growing number of people do not trust the competence of the administration – they might be willing to fight, but not under the current incompetent leadership.

 

Iraq and possibly Afghanistan are becoming (if not already) quagmires. Because of the diversion of the war in Iraq, the success of the war on Terrorism should also be questioned. Since 9/11 there has been several major jihadist terrorist attack (Bali, Madrid, and horribly today London). Thankfully the U.S. has not been hit again; however, remember it was eleven years between the first and second attacks on World trade Center.

 

Unfortunately at this point, we are in Iraq. We cannot cut and run. However, I fear that we will, for I do not trust the administration in staying the course. I see an incompetent administration that rewards incompetence and yes men and punishes dissent. I see a republican congress distancing them more and more from the administration – this can only increase as the 2006 elections near. I see democrats forgetting their previous support of the Iraqi war and now gleefully criticizing the war. Unfortunately I see in the future a Vietnam-style ending to the Iraqi war – declare “victory” and leave - that would only bolster the jihadist terrorists.

 

In regards to previous posters mentioning the possible impeachment of Bush or of him being declared an international war criminal that is not going to happen.

 

Regarding impeachment, despite whatever evidence may accumulate, the republican-controlled congress will never allow a Bush impeachment to happen. Even if in the 2006 elections the democrats take control of the House, I doubt that they would launch impeachment hearings. Such hearings would only let come to light their total abrogation of their responsibilities and duties as the second branch of government and blindly following … undebated, unquestioned, unchallenged … Bush into war.

 

George W. Bush will also never be charged as war criminal. Even those politicians who hate Bush will never allow a current/former U.S. president be treated in such a way. However, I do agree that he could become the new Pinochet. A country whose citizen was killed in Iraq (or while in U.S. custody, or a prisoner/detainee in Gitmo) that country could charge Bush with a crime (like Spain did with Pinochet of Chile). While embarrassing to Bush, he would have nothing to fear since prior to becoming president I believe he only traveled once outside of the U.S and that was just across the border to Mexico. I doubt that once Bush leaves the White House he would travel much outside of even Texas (except to summer in Maine with daddy).

 

Finally, when he leaves office George W. Bush will leave a horrendous situation to the new president and to the American people. The Bush II legacy will be one of hubris, deceit, and gross incompetence. The tragedy of Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson’s legacy for decades. Only now is Johnson being rehabilitated and given credit for the landmark civil rights legislation passed during his presidency. Unfortunately for Bush II, he has no other legacy except the invasion of Iraq and the incompetent prosecution of that war.

 

Fisher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BGMSTR4U:well put; i think you are pretty much on target with your posting.

 

FISHER:the senate, not the house does the impeachment (the bringing of charges); the house does the trial based on those charges. a Democratic house can not hold impeachment hearings; they can hold hearings on subjects that can embarras an administration which can be almost as effective. also, i believe you will find bush has travled to more foreign countries than mexico.

 

the sad murderous bombings today in london are what we can expect from the terrorists that do not respect any life and will do anything to bring the west down. the title of this thread is correct: "a war we...can't afford to lose" we have no choice but to win this war. i for one did not realize the seriousness of the attacks during the clinton years (first world trade center bombings, the african embassy bombings, the cole bombing, the kobar barricks bombing, etc.); it took the destruction of 9-11 to wake me up.

 

like bush or hate him, we must hope he is successful in this war; personally, i feel that fisher is correct that much of what he has done is incompetent, primarily in not having enough troops in iraq to do the job. bush is correct that our hope lies in creating democratic governments in the islamic world; i see no other way myself.

 

imagine a society run by islamic terrorists: all western culture would be destroyed like the taliban did with non-islamic culture when they controlled afganistan; all the freedoms we know would be ended such as we see today in iran; gay rights would not survive the murder of all the open gays (notice the killing of gays in strict islamic countries); religions other than islam will be hard pressed to survive (there are no churches or synagogues in saudi arabia); women's rights will be zip, zero, nada (but at least they will not be killed like the gays); need i continue?

 

save the arguements over going to war for history; they make nice dinner time talk but our task is now to win this war; the past is gone, concentrate on today's task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>In regards to previous posters mentioning the possible

>impeachment of Bush or of him being declared an international

>war criminal that is not going to happen.

>

>Regarding impeachment, despite whatever evidence may

>accumulate, the republican-controlled congress will never

>allow a Bush impeachment to happen. Even if in the 2006

>elections the democrats take control of the House, I doubt

>that they would launch impeachment hearings. Such hearings

>would only let come to light their total abrogation of their

>responsibilities and duties as the second branch of government

>and blindly following … undebated, unquestioned, unchallenged

>… Bush into war.

 

I disagree whole heartedly with you. If the democrats do retake the House in 2006, I think the democratic leadership does have the stomach to begin hearings on certain aspects of the war in Iraq and eventually may lead to impeachment hearings if the democrats can retake the senate. For starters, I do think there are a lot of democrats who do remember what happened to President Clinton during the 1990's, when Speaker Gingrich went after him with a political vengeance. What goes around comes around. I think Harry Reid would do exactly the same to President Bush. It will certainly put the Republicans on the defensive. Only time will tell.

 

 

 

>George W. Bush will also never be charged as war criminal.

>Even those politicians who hate Bush will never allow a

>current/former U.S. president be treated in such a way.

>However, I do agree that he could become the new Pinochet. A

>country whose citizen was killed in Iraq (or while in U.S.

>custody, or a prisoner/detainee in Gitmo) that country could

>charge Bush with a crime (like Spain did with Pinochet of

>Chile). While embarrassing to Bush, he would have nothing to

>fear since prior to becoming president I believe he only

>traveled once outside of the U.S and that was just across the

>border to Mexico. I doubt that once Bush leaves the White

>House he would travel much outside of even Texas (except to

>summer in Maine with daddy).

>

 

When you state that Mr Bush could become the new Pinochet of modern times. I think that's a bit far fetched. For starters, the man who Bushed pushed from Power in Iraq, Saddam Hussein resembles more to Pinochet than Bush ever could at this stage in time. There are countless leaders around the world who are far worse than Mr Bush. Take the leader of Zimbabwe, Mr Robert Mugabee, Colonel Khadaffi of Libya. How about the former Leader of Serbia who now sits in the Hague waiting trial for crimes against huminity in the form human genocide. The list is endless, most make Bush look like a picnic basket.

 

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is too early to conclude that Bush would not face possible impeachment after 2006 if the Democrats recapture control of the Congress, especially the Senate. Of course it all depends on what happens in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and what further evidence comes to light concerning the lies and deceptions used by Bush et al to stampede the American public to war in Iraq.

 

Those of us who are old enough to remember how invincible Nixon appeared after his convincing electoral victory in 1972 and how it all came tumbling down barely 2 years later can only wonder if it could happen again. After all, what Nixon did to destroy his presidency was a mere trifle in terms of human consequences compared to what Bush II has done. As I have said before, the American people could turn on Bush with a vengeance if the current trend towards anarchy in Iraq results in an absolute quagmire, with untenable US losses of personnel.

 

The events in London bode ill for those countries that actively supported Bush in the Iraq invasion. The Madrid bombings resulted in a change of government and Tony Blair is also vulnerable. Many in Britain now consider him to be a liar (albeit a most charming one)and the will to get to the truth about the true motivation to go to war in Iraq may yet lead to adverse consequences for Blair politically. Time will tell.

 

Britain has afforded Bush with a very effective fig leaf for his operations in Iraq. The world still holds Britain in high esteem for its role in World War II when it stood alone opposing Hitler and fighting to preserve democracy in Europe. A withdrawal by Britain from Iraq (although unthinkable at this point) would effectively isolate America in its fight in Iraq. Of course Blair could never do this and he would have to be overthrown in his leadership (remember how Margaret Thatcher was ousted) for any of this to happen. Again we will have to see.

 

As for Bush being treated as a war criminal by other countries, if this were to happen, the real damage would not be to Bush's freedom to travel (I agree he seems most happy to cut trees in Texas and summer in Maine) but to the prestige of the American presidency and America's role in the world. In the cold war, the western deocracies were happy to follow the US leadership in its fight against the communists. In this new world of global terrorism, the false moves that the US has made have undermined that willingness to follow. It portends ill for the US if the democratic countries around the world become anti-American, which we already see happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigjoey says: "FISHER:the senate, not the house does the impeachment (the bringing of charges); the house does the trial based on those charges. a Democratic house can not hold impeachment hearings"

 

In fact, the House of Representatives impeaches, and the Senate tries the impeachment, either convicting or acquitting. An impeachment is a political form of an indictment, necessary when those in certain public offices are immune from indictment under normal legal procedures. Clinton was impeached by the House, and tried and acquitted by the Senate.

 

It is unlikely that Bush would be impeached, much less convicted, just because his war has not worked out well. Impeachment is a process for holding office holders to the law, and it would have to be demonstrated that Bush has broken the law, not simply administered his war poorly. Clinton was impeached for breaking the law, specifically for lying under oath, and acquitted because the charge was considered trivial, even though it was clear that in fact the charge was true. It is very difficult to change the partisan makeup of Congress, and for structural reasons likely that the House will continue in GOP hands for the foreseeable future.

 

I think it is important to distinguish one's attitude to Bush and conservatives in general from the conflict we are now engaged in. It seems to me that the real question is, Is this a struggle between us (the West, liberal democracy, religious or secular humanism, etc.) and fundamentalist Islam which has moved from an ideological to a war footing? If it is, it really, in a sense, doesn't matter who the President is or which party controls Congress. It is pretty clear now that several incidents under Clinton's leadership were in fact battles in this war, and arguably some stretching back into Reagan's time. If this is now a struggle on a war footing, with thousands killed in the US, hundreds in Spain, and dozens in London, then whoever is in a position of authority will need to respond aggressively. Replace W with Gore, Kerry, or Hillary and the same scenarios will present themselves, with pretty much the same limited menu of responses.

 

It is arguable that Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, or only Afghanistan. In that case, it is entirely possible that we would now be arguing that our government's response was weak and ineffective. He might have found Bin Laden, and we would have discovered, what many now suspect, that Bin Laden himself doesn't matter, that his movement is hydra-headed, and that without him as a visible symbol, it is in fact more difficult to fight an amorphous non-centralized cell-based movement. We will never know. But the people of the US did render a judgment on these alternative policies last year, and Bush significantly increased his vote, decisively carrying the popular vote, and increasing the Republican margins in the Congress.

 

I do not doubt that with another attack or two or three like the one in London, the support for Bush's policies will once again grow. It should, because the only alternative currently on offer from the Democrats is a mindless hatred of Bush, as if he caused this, a la Michael Moore and others of the fever-swamp left. What would drive the GOP from office is a reasoned determinination to win this struggle using a more sophisticated armory of weapons -- real intelligence service reform, long term commitment to homeland security that goes beyond flash and make-work, and a consistent policy to move Islamic countries in the direction of humanism and inclusivism, together with a clear willingness to use military force when that is appropriate. But that would require a fundamental agreement by the Democrats with the Bush analysis of this struggle, and that is probably more than their current leadership can manage.

 

I think such a policy would command support in 2006, if the Democrats could field a range of candidates on that platform. But with their current leadership, they can't, and it's actually probably too late to turn their ship around in the water. But it can be done in 2008, with success, because Bush won't be running, and so far no-one in his administration seems interested in running either. To this point, that strategy has only appeared in the guise of Joe Lieberman. Unfortunately, the Democrats are far too busy enjoying their bash Bush parties to be taken seriously by the rest of the nation. I am afraid that will still be true 3 years from now, when we get serious again about the nation's leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fisher

Bigjoey,

 

Regarding impeachment: go back to Civics 101.

 

Regarding Bush and traveling to foreign countries: yes, since becoming president, Bush

Has traveled to many foreign countries; however, I believe it was brought up in the 2000 campaign that at THAT time he had only been to Mexico (and I believe it was just across the border). I believe that this became a minor campaign issue: a man of 53 years of age who certainly had the means but never the interest or curiosity to travel aboard/ see the world – how could this type of a man with no foreign experience deal in international affairs … well we now have our answer.

 

Regarding,…

> save the arguements over going to war for history; they make nice dinner time talk but our task is now to > win this war

 

I agree. Unfortunately I have little faith in the Bush administration in effectively prosecuting/winning either the Iraqi war or the war on terror.

 

 

Rohole,

 

Regarding Bush/Pinochet: I did not mean to equate Bush with Pinochet. While I obviously am not a fan of Bush, he is not even close to the brutalism of Pinochet. What I meant about Bush is that he could find himself in a similar situation as Pinochet. Several citizens of Spain while in Chile were taken into custody and died at the hands of the Pinochet regime. Years later Spain filed criminal charges against Pinochet and sought to extradite him. I could see years from now country “X” which had citizens in Iraq or Afghanistan that died in U.S. custody filing charges against Bush.

 

 

Luv2Play,

 

Regarding,

>The events in London bode ill for those countries that actively supported Bush in the Iraq invasion. The

> Madrid bombings resulted in a change of government and Tony Blair is also vulnerable.

 

Italy announced today that they will start gradually withdrawing their 3000 troops from Iraq. They had previously stated that they would remain Iraq for at least another year.

 

 

BgMst4u,

 

Regarding, …

> It seems to me that the real question is,

> Is this a struggle between us (the West,

> liberal democracy, religious or secular humanism,

> etc.) and fundamentalist Islam which has moved

> from an ideological to a war footing? If it is,

> it really, in a sense, doesn't matter who the

> President is or which party controls Congress.

> It is pretty clear now that several incidents

> under Clinton's leadership were in fact battles

> in this war, and arguably some stretching back

> into Reagan's time.

 

I don’t necessary disagree with you. However, Iraq was not a fundamentalist Islamic country. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. The Iraq war served not only to divert manpower and resources from the real war on terror, but it also served as an effective recruitment tool for anti-American anti-western terrorist organizations.

 

Regarding, …

>He might have found Bin Laden, and we would

> have discovered, what many now suspect, that

> Bin Laden himself doesn't matter, that his movement

> is hydra-headed, and that without him as a visible

> symbol, it is in fact more difficult to fight an

> amorphous non-centralized cell-based movement.

 

I agree the capture/death of Bin Laden and/or his senior deputies would probably not significantly reduce terrorism; however, unlike Saddam, Bin Laden was responsible for the murder of more than 3,000 Americans and for that he must pay the price.

 

Regarding, …

> with another attack or two or three like the one in

> London, the support for Bush's policies will once again grow.

 

I don’t know. I could see the London attacks reviving Americans’ fear and thus stopping or even reversing the falling support for Bush and the war; however, I could also see the London attacks causing even more Americans to question the effectiveness of Bush and the war. The next few polls probably will not accurately gauge support (or lack there of), but maybe a month from now we will be able to see if the London attacks have any effect on support for the war.

 

 

Cheers,

Fisher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigjoey: Thanks.

 

Fisher writes: "I agree the capture/death of Bin Laden and/or his senior deputies would probably not significantly reduce terrorism; however, unlike Saddam, Bin Laden was responsible for the murder of more than 3,000 Americans and for that he must pay the price."

 

Yes and no. Yes, it appears that Bin Laden is responsible. But, as you state, he did not do it himself. It required an organization of considerable sophistication, each member of which is also responsible for those murders. This is especially true since it is clear that Bin Laden designed his organization to splinter and multiply into separate ideologically-linked cells, but to function without central coordination or control. Such a cell may turn out to have been responsible for the London transit bombings. So in fact an act of justice requires that the entire organization be punished, not simply its leader. Second, it is not yet entirely clear, at least to us the general public, what that organization consisted of at the time of the 9/11 attacks. It may well be that it was not then a single organization. For all these reasons the strategy of bringing in Bin Laden is in itself insufficient. "He must pay the price" -- Yes, but so must the others, and that requires a long term willingness to track them down and deal with them all. This is the point at which, in my understanding, the search for Bin Laden becomes the war on terrorism.

 

As every next event in this drama unfolds, I am more and more discouraged, on two fronts.

 

First, on the political front, I am discouraged, not so much by the Republicans, who have in fact tried to understand what is going on, faced its consequences, and forged ahead, for better or for worse. The Democrats have been almost entirely reactive and critical, and have not in fact produced a credible policy which can attract support. Which to my mind means that they will be more and more marginalized as a political force until they do.

 

Second, on the technical, homeland security, front, the necessary work of altering our systems to be more and more terrorist proof seems to have bogged down in the bureaucratic slime of studies and policy papers and inertia. The latest example of this is the now almost 3 year old do-nothingism of the New York MTA, whose subway system must surely be on the short list of terrorist targets. This article from today's NY Times documents it well: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/nyregion/09mta.html

 

You will notice that much of the H.S. money reported is being spent on new communication equipment, not on basic changes in how the systems operate. The smallest glance at a typical station in the NY subway will tell you that it is not ready in any sense to deter anything at all, a drunken bag lady, or even a MacDonald's burger wrapper, let alone a determined terrorist.

 

Iraq: Perhaps we should not have gone to war there. I did not support that decision when we did. There seem to have been no WMD -- I say "seem", because the Ba'athists are proficient at hiding things and bringing them out when it suits them. The administration seriously misunderstood the extent to which Iraqi civil society -- and not just the political part, but the technical parts as well, water and electricity and so forth -- had been politicized. The CIA and other "intelligence" agencies seem not to have bothered to study how fascist organizations transform societies, integrating the whole society into a single unified structure controlled by the party. Take away the party from a truly successful fascist society and all the responsible and capable people are removed as well.

 

But. For geopolitical reasons Iraq is the key to the transformation of the Middle East. It borders Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, the Gulf states, and most importantly, a huge stretch of Saudia Arabia. The Saddamist regime would make the transformation of that region from Islamic autoritarianism to anything resembling popular-consensus, humanist-based governments impossible. The war against Iran made it clear that Saddam would willingly undertake conflicts at gigantic cost to Iraq itself if he thought it suited his purposes, which clearly intimidated all his neighbors. Its removal at least places a regime dedicated to a popularly-based political consensus in that central position. It seems to me that this was a pre-requisite for the transformation of the political systems in that region, which must be a primary goal of our policy if the conflict with fundamentalist Islam is to be resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fisher

> I am discouraged, not so much by the Republicans,

> who have in fact tried to understand what is going

> on, faced its consequences, and forged ahead for

> better or for worse

 

I do not think the republicans understand what is going on, or are willing to face the consequences. The republicans in the administration rushed into the Iraqi war without having a comprehensive and competent plan and without thinking of the consequences of the invasion. The republicans in congress followed the administration lockstep into the war – totally abrogating their responsibilities as the second branch of government. Only now - with the war going badly - with public support for the war waning – are republican members of congress (all be it still a small number) starting to go against the war – their understanding of the polls seems to be more apparent then their understanding the situation in the Mid East. The democrats in congress are in the same situation as the republicans. The democrats also abrogated their congressional responsibilities. I believe at the time of the invasion of Iraq, the democrats still controlled the senate. Where were the questions/concerns … where were the hearings? Again like the republicans only now with the war going badly and with public support for the war waning are the democratic members of congress starting to go against the war.

 

> The Democrats have been almost entirely reactive

> and critical, and have not in fact produced a

> credible policy which can attract support

 

We do not have parliamentarian form of government. The democrats as the minority/opposition party do not have a shadow cabinet. Even though some democrats may have a specific idea/plan for dealing with some aspects of the Iraqi war, what we need is a large comprehensive plan to deal with the Middle East and terrorism. The only people who can develop such a plan is the administration, and unfortunately the administration is made up of individuals who believe they cannot be wrong and yes men.

 

Regarding homeland security, I totally agree with you - it is a total joke. The U.S. is as vulnerable if not more vulnerable then we were on 9/11. Our cities are as vulnerable as London or Madrid. All the changes in the intelligence services … in homeland security are just bureaucratic shufflings. Homeland Security has become major pork barrel.

 

> But. For geopolitical reasons Iraq is the

> key to the transformation of the Middle East

 

I’m not sure I agree with you here. Egypt at least since the end of WWII has been the most important country in the Arab world.

 

>The Saddamist regime would make the transformation

> of that region from Islamic autoritarianism to

> anything resembling popular-consensus, humanist-based

> governments impossible

 

Agreed; however, we are not going to have any humanist-based government in Iraq in the next decade now that Saddam is gone. The Shi’a majority have had their religious rights suppressed for a long time. Their religiousness will strongly influence the government. The more secular Iraqi Sunnis will also become more religious if only to protect their cultural differences from the Shi’as.

 

Cheers,

Fisher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York, Madrid, London....

 

Freakshows,

 

If you don't believe that we are not fighting this war in Iraq right now so that it is not on out soil right now. TWIN TOURS, MADRID, LONDON. It will be back here again if we do not prevail. But then again, Lucky, is it not peace in our time? One word liberals, because they are just like the one you like to pin on Bush the Nazi so much, MUNICH. Think about it. Has appeasement ever worked?

 

Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: New York, Madrid, London....

 

>Freakshows,

>

>If you don't believe that we are not fighting this war in Iraq

>right now so that it is not on out soil right now. TWIN

>TOURS, MADRID, LONDON. It will be back here again if we do

>not prevail. But then again, Lucky, is it not peace in our

>time? One word liberals, because they are just like the one

>you like to pin on Bush the Nazi so much, MUNICH. Think about

>it. Has appeasement ever worked?

 

Traveller, you are much better when you write your own words rather than simply regurgitating those words told to you by Sean Hannity and Rxush Limbaugh

 

Fact: George Bush abandoned the war on terror to go after Saddam Hussein.

 

Fact: Saddam Hussein was not a threat to anyone except his own people. Had Bush allowed Hanx Blix to finish his work, we would have discovered, without the loss of 1700 lives, that Saddam had no WMD and was in fact complying with the UN resolutions.

 

This liberal has never suggested appeasement. What Bush should have done was finish the job in Afghanistan, routed Al Qaeda and THEN Saddam could have been dealt with if he even needed to be. (By that time, the Kurds would have seen what a paper dictator he was an overthrown him) Had Bush not abandoned the war on terror, had Bush not allowed Al Qaeda to regroup, there would have been no bombings in Madrid or London. Part of the blame for those attacks lies sqaurely at the feet of Bush and Bliar. Bush's stupidity allowed the war he abandoned to come back and smack him in the face.

 

Simply put, George Bush is the singularly worst president in the history of the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: A war we can't win...pullout planned.

 

Well, trav, then why is your president planning to withdraw (I know you love that word) 100,000 troops from Irag within the next one year?:

 

U.K. Memo Cites Plans For Pullout From Iraq

 

By Glenn Frankel and Josh White

Washington Post Foreign Service

Monday, July 11, 2005; Page A01

 

LONDON, July 10 -- The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

 

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesperson in Baghdad.

 

 

Reid on Sunday did not dispute the authenticity of the document, but said that no decision on troop levels had been made. In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said officials there had not seen the document.

 

The undated memo, which was reported in the newspaper The Mail on Sunday, stated that "current U.S. political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong U.S. military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall U.S. commitment levels."

 

While top U.S. military commanders and Pentagon officials have been hoping to reduce troop levels in Iraq for some time, the British memo is apparently the first time such a significant reduction has been outlined under a specific timetable. President Bush has refused to set a withdrawal date, citing concerns that such a deadline would allow insurgents to wait out the U.S.-led occupation.

 

The memo, posted on the newspaper's Web site, notes a debate between U.S. officials at the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq, saying that officials in Washington favor "a relatively bold reduction in force numbers," differing with battlefield commanders, "whose approach is more cautious."

 

Such debates contribute to contingency planning, according to U.S. officials, and there can be several different scenarios under consideration at the same time. A rapid reduction in troops would depend on the success of several political processes in Iraq and of the emerging Iraqi security forces.

 

While U.S. commanders have praised the development of the Iraqi army and police forces, training and equipping the units has taken longer than expected. None of the provinces in Iraq are solely protected by Iraqi forces, and expected significant decreases in U.S. troop strength have not materialized.

 

"At any given time, there are a number of plans, for all sorts of developments, good or bad," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman. Carpenter declined to comment specifically about the British memo because Pentagon officials had not seen it. "The U.S. leadership for some time has been on record stating that our drawdown and eventual withdrawal is based on a conditions-based strategy."

 

Many analysts consider the tenacity of the Iraqi insurgency to be the major impediment to troop withdrawals, although U.S. officials have heralded recent successes in quelling violence.

 

Part of the overall reduction, said the memo, would be a drop in total British forces by mid 2006 from 8,500 to around 3,000. The change, the memo added, could save Britain half of its current cost of around $1.7 billion per year.

 

"None of this, however, represents a ministerially endorsed plan," the memo cautioned. "There is a good deal more military analysis to do which is under way."

 

Reid, in a statement Sunday following publication of the memo, said the British government had "made it absolutely plain that we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed.

 

"No decisions on the future force posture of UK forces have been taken. But we have always said that it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi Security Forces as their capability increases," Reid said. "We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies.

 

"This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios."

 

British forces have been assigned to four relatively peaceful provinces around the southern city of Basra but 89 British troops have died since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The war has little support among the British public and officials hope to pull forces out of the area as soon as practical. Blair has insisted no troops will be withdrawn until Iraqi forces can take over.

 

British commanders hope to hand over control of two provinces to Iraqi forces by October 2005, according to the memo, and to hand over control of two more provinces by April 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fisher

RE: New York, Madrid, London....

 

> Freakshows,

 

Yes, if you cannot use facts or logic to prove your point use insults – that always works. x(

 

> If you don't believe that we are not fighting

> this war in Iraq right now so that it is not

> on out soil right now. TWIN TOURS, MADRID, LONDON.

> It will be back here again if we do not prevail.

 

So if, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack in the U.S. (which even members of the current administration admit it is WHEN not IF the U.S. will be attacked again) will that prove that Bush's policy is all wrong (that is your logic not mine)

 

> One word liberals, because they are just

> like the one you like to pin on Bush the Nazi

> so much, MUNICH. Think about it. Has appeasement

> ever worked?

 

In 1938, German intrigue and militarism fueled in part by their irredentism was rewarded with the Munich Pact which caused Czechoslovakia to lose approximately 10,000 square miles. This appeasement did not forestall war, for less then a year later Germany invaded Poland and WWII began in earnest. It is nice to learn from history; however, 1938 and the Munich Pact has NOTHING to do with the Iraqi war.

 

In 2001, Saddam scratched his ass; wrote some bad poetry; put up a few statues of himself; gave Uday some Viagra and scotch; tortured and killed some of his countrymen (as horrid as that is – many of our “allies” in the Mid East are doing that right now); cooperated albeit stubbornly and very, very slowly with the U.N.; and thumbed his nose at the U.S.

 

In 2002, Saddam scratched his ass; wrote some really bad poetry; put up a few statues of himself; gave Uday some Viagra and scotch; tortured and killed some more of his countrymen; cooperated albeit stubbornly and very slowly with the U.N.; and thumbed his nose at the U.S.

 

Obviously those were grave and important reasons to invade Iraq and divert much need manpower, resources, and international support from the wars in Afghan and on terrorism, as well as serve as the best recruiting tool for jihadist terrorism. Yes an excellent reason for the death of 1600+ American Military, billions of dollars, and a world a lot less safe.

 

That being said Traveller, I must say to you I hope all is well and

you are safe because of your strong support for this war you are obviously…

- writing to us from the field in Iraq…

- or the mountains of Afghanistan…

- or just returned home from overthere (welcome home soldier)...

- or is preparing to leave for the war zone(Godspeed soldier)...

So which is it? Or might there be another answer?

 

Cheers,

Fisher :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: New York, Madrid, London....

 

>> Freakshows,

>

>Yes, if you cannot use facts or logic to prove your point use

>insults – that always works. x(

 

It's a term of endearment you big ole tub of lard, you.

 

>> If you don't believe that we are not fighting

>> this war in Iraq right now so that it is not

>> on out soil right now. TWIN TOURS, MADRID, LONDON.

>> It will be back here again if we do not prevail.

>

>So if, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack in the

>U.S. (which even members of the current administration admit

>it is WHEN not IF the U.S. will be attacked again) will that

>prove that Bush's policy is all wrong (that is your logic not

>mine)

>

There will be an attack here again, but on a far less grand scale. Each successive attack shows weakening strength because we're in Iraq and Afganhistan.

 

>> One word liberals, because they are just

>> like the one you like to pin on Bush the Nazi

>> so much, MUNICH. Think about it. Has appeasement

>> ever worked?

>

>In 1938, German intrigue and militarism fueled in part by

>their irredentism was rewarded with the Munich Pact which

>caused Czechoslovakia to lose approximately 10,000 square

>miles. This appeasement did not forestall war, for less then

>a year later Germany invaded Poland and WWII began in earnest.

>It is nice to learn from history; however, 1938 and the Munich

>Pact has NOTHING to do with the Iraqi war.

>

>In 2001, Saddam scratched his ass; wrote some bad poetry; put

>up a few statues of himself; gave Uday some Viagra and scotch;

>tortured and killed some of his countrymen (as horrid as that

>is – many of our “allies” in the Mid East are doing that right

>now); cooperated albeit stubbornly and very, very slowly with

>the U.N.; and thumbed his nose at the U.S.

>

>In 2002, Saddam scratched his ass; wrote some really bad

>poetry; put up a few statues of himself; gave Uday some Viagra

>and scotch; tortured and killed some more of his countrymen;

>cooperated albeit stubbornly and very slowly with the U.N.;

>and thumbed his nose at the U.S.

>

>Obviously those were grave and important reasons to invade

>Iraq and divert much need manpower, resources, and

>international support from the wars in Afghan and on

>terrorism, as well as serve as the best recruiting tool for

>jihadist terrorism. Yes an excellent reason for the death of

>1600+ American Military, billions of dollars, and a world a

>lot less safe.

 

We're fighting global fanatical islam, not unlike naziism in one generation and Soviet communism in the next. Both took a lot of time and treasure. The anti-Munich strategy (started by a dude named Keenan) worked quite well in the latter case. Viet Nam (sometimes thought of as a failure) prevented the collapse of Southeast Asia to the communists. We can't foresee yet all of the benefits of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

>That being said Traveller, I must say to you I hope all is

>well and

>you are safe because of your strong support for this war you

>are obviously…

>- writing to us from the field in Iraq…

>- or the mountains of Afghanistan…

>- or just returned home from overthere (welcome home

>soldier)...

>- or is preparing to leave for the war zone(Godspeed

>soldier)...

>So which is it? Or might there be another answer?

>

 

My contribution to the economy (in weekly escort fees alone - trickle down, baby) helps the war effort far more than my holding a rifle. This is getting to be a pretty stale canard.

 

Fisher, friends have told me you can throw a mean rug; and aren't too bad at canasta. You should stick with the things that you do best.

 

Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fisher

RE: New York, Madrid, London....

 

>>> Freakshows,

>>

>>Yes, if you cannot use facts or logic to prove your point use

>>insults – that always works. x(

>

>It's a term of endearment you big ole tub of lard, you.

 

 

You’re just proving my point on your inability to

support your position.

 

>There will be an attack here again, but on a

> far less grand scale. Each successive attack

> shows weakening strength because we're in

>Iraq and Afganhistan.

 

Sorry it does not. The magnitude of a terrorist

attack is purely a technical matter depending on

the materials used/available and the timing/luck

of the attack. I hope that if/when there is another

terrorist attack casualties will be less than in London.

However, whether or not the next attack has more or

less casualties has little to do with the strength or

weakness of the terrorist.

 

> We're fighting global fanatical islam, not unlike

> naziism in one generation and Soviet communism in

> the next. Both took a lot of time and treasure.

> The anti-Munich strategy (started by a dude named

> Keenan) worked quite well in the latter case. Viet

> Nam (sometimes thought of as a failure) prevented

> the collapse of Southeast Asia to the communists.

> We can't foresee yet all of the benefits of liberating

> Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

No shit Sherlock. Except Iraq did not have anything

to do with 9/11 or jihadist terrorism. Perhaps we

should also invade Andorra, or Laos, or Uruguay in

the war on terrorism. That almost makes almost as

much sense as invading Iraq. The Iraqi invasion did

not help the war on terror. All it did was divert

manpower and resources, cause us to lose international

support, and serve as a recruitment boom for the

terrorists. Because of the Iraqi war there are now

more terrorists for us to defeat.

 

> My contribution to the economy (in weekly escort

> fees alone - trickle down, baby) helps the war

> effort far more than my holding a rifle.

 

Traveller talking to a neighbor “So sorry your son

Billy was blown up in Iraq, he was a brave boy.

His and your sacrifice for our country and the war

effort is greatly appreciated. I too am sacrificing

for the war effort - why only last week I was fucked

in the ass by three hookers.” :p

 

> This is getting to be a pretty stale canard.

 

Sure you think its stale, because you cannot come

up with an adequate response.

 

Cheers,

Fisher :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: New York, Madrid, London....

 

>I too am sacrificing

>for the war effort - why only last week I was fucked

>in the ass by three hookers.” :p

>

 

Certainly I would put it more delicately, like "I too am giving my all to the war effort by getting my butt pounded repeatedly by Latin w****s." And most decidedly, those over the age of 60 (you included) would not have to hear about the felching.

 

Later.

 

PS. Interesting that you feel that there are more fanatics to fight because of Iraq. I believe that there are finite number and that we have concentrated them and thus made them easier to kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fisher

RE: New York, Madrid, London....

 

> those over the age of 60 (you included)

 

LOL – in about two decades – you are nearly as clueless about

me as you are in you knowledge of terrorism and the Iraqi war.

 

> would not have to hear about the felching.

 

You are just baiting me to say something

really nasty (and I could }( ), but I won’t. ;)

 

>PS. Interesting that you feel that there

> are more fanatics to fight because of Iraq.

> I believe that there are finite number and

> that we have concentrated them and thus made

> them easier to kill.

 

I wish you were correct about this, but unfortunately

I fear you are wrong. It now appears that the London

attacks were not only perpetrated by suicide bombers,

but those bombers were apparently home-grown Brits.

This adds a chilling new dimension to the terrorists.

 

Cheers,

Fisher :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: New York, Madrid, London....

 

>LOL – in about two decades – you are nearly as clueless

>about

>me as you are in you knowledge of terrorism and the Iraqi

>war.

 

Fuck off. I'm omniscient. You'll be 63 in November.

 

>> would not have to hear about the felching.

>

>You are just baiting me to say something

>really nasty (and I could }( ), but I won’t. ;)

 

Triple dog dare you. You still into amputee teen Azeris?

 

>>PS. Interesting that you feel that there

>> are more fanatics to fight because of Iraq.

>> I believe that there are finite number and

>> that we have concentrated them and thus made

>> them easier to kill.

>

>I wish you were correct about this, but unfortunately

>I fear you are wrong. It now appears that the London

>attacks were not only perpetrated by suicide bombers,

>but those bombers were apparently home-grown Brits.

>This adds a chilling new dimension to the terrorists.

 

Like I've mainatained since 9/11, it's time for an Arab version of Korematsu.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fisher

RE: New York, Madrid, London....

 

> Like I've mainatained since 9/11, it's time

> for an Arab version of Korematsu.

 

Wow I guess Sister Marita was correct - racists

are very ignorant people.

 

Cheers,

Fisher x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

Posts that do not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.


×
×
  • Create New...