I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: Bill Peckham on January 10, 2007, 10:50:12 AM
-
:banghead;
Sing with me through the tears. If you can't sing you can watch the old pro himself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnrHWhmMiz8&eurl=
(hat tip effect measure) Waist Deep In The Big Muddy by Pete Seeger 1963, planned for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour in 1967 but CBS objected to the blacklisted Seeger making obvious references to the"big fool" in the White House, finally sung by Seeger on the Comedy Hour in 1968 as the finale in a medley of anti-war songs
It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.
We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.
Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!
Words and music by Pete Seeger (1967)
TRO (c) 1967 Melody Trails, Inc. New York, NY
-
"Surge" - yeesh. Who comes up with these word choices, anyhow.
Every time they use the word surge, I get a visual impression of the body-filled waters from that tsunami, only all the bodies are in uniform.
-
You are kidding right?
The little communist POS pete seeger? :urcrazy; :thumbdown; :banghead; :banghead;
Funny you would think he would move to Cuba or North Korea and lived his life in the system of his choice.
-
It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger. Not sure what the solution is to that but there sure is allot of it going on. If not Pete then how about listening to General Petraeus. He "is probably the smartest active-duty general in the U.S. Army today. Late last year, he co-authored the Army's field manual on counterinsurgency—its first in over 20 years." (hat tip slate)
Here is the link to pdf of the general's guide to counterinsurgency.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
-
It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger.
The messenger's message is worthless by the fact that the messenger in question HATES America and democracy!
-
It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger.
The messenger's message is worthless by the fact that the messenger in question HATES America and democracy!
General Petraeus?
-
It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger.
The messenger's message is worthless by the fact that the messenger in question HATES America and democracy!
General Petraeus?
Well that PDF never came up so dont know what he is saying now. When it comes up I will read it.
He is indeed a good soldier.
However I would dispute him being the smartest active duty general.
It was his job to train the Iraqi forces and by all accounts that has been a failure under his command has it not?
-
Try this article http://www.slate.com/id/2157155 The PDF took a while to come up even on my High Speed Connection - after all it is an Army report. Are there short Army reports too?
I have no personal knowledge to add so I like to read what smart paople are saying. I'll read any links you post.
-
We don't have to agree with the decisions made by our leaders, They have more information than we do about current events, with limited information, possible tainted information, how can we sit here on the couch and think we know what is better for the Country than the ones who are overthere?
I'm prior service and I was taught to respect my Commander in Chief, regardless of his decision right or wrong. This is a free country and many have died on the battle ground to give us this right to speak our minds, but I think most people only ride the shirt tails of the popular vote. I have many Brothers all over the world wether it's peacekeeping, or the front lines and for them I will keep my faith in my leaders. No one here knows the true situation of what is happening over there except the ones who have been there.
Media coverage is not accurate. Rumors are not accurate. Popular Vote is not accurate.
This war is not WWI, it is not WWII, it is not the Korean War, and it sure the hell is not Viet Nam so give our Brave Soldiers the proper respect they so rightfully deserve. I don't care about the war and the casualty count because If my Commander in Chief tells me we are doing good there then we are. Part of War is Loss of Life and it is a sad statistic but the numbers are definately less in each war than the previous ones. To complain without proper information is to say that the Brave soliers who died for you and me was in vain.
I have lost Brothers very close to me in the war on terror, that gives me the right to Rant. :rant;
-
It finally came up and I scanned it.
Sorry but I do not see that he actually co-authored it. He did the foreword.
From the looks it looks to be that the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is the proponent for the publication and that it was prepared by the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center.
-
We don't have to agree with the decisions made by our leaders, They have more information than we do about current events, with limited information, possible tainted information, how can we sit here on the couch and think we know what is better for the Country than the ones who are overthere?
I'm prior service and I was taught to respect my Commander in Chief, regardless of his decision right or wrong. This is a free country and many have died on the battle ground to give us this right to speak our minds, but I think most people only ride the shirt tails of the popular vote. I have many Brothers all over the world wether it's peacekeeping, or the front lines and for them I will keep my faith in my leaders. No one here knows the true situation of what is happening over there except the ones who have been there.
Media coverage is not accurate. Rumors are not accurate. Popular Vote is not accurate.
This war is not WWI, it is not WWII, it is not the Korean War, and it sure the hell is not Viet Nam so give our Brave Soldiers the proper respect they so rightfully deserve. I don't care about the war and the casualty count because If my Commander in Chief tells me we are doing good there then we are. Part of War is Loss of Life and it is a sad statistic but the numbers are definately less in each war than the previous ones. To complain without proper information is to say that the Brave soliers who died for you and me was in vain.
I have lost Brothers very close to me in the war on terror, that gives me the right to Rant. :rant;
hear hear
-
We don't have to agree with the decisions made by our leaders, They have more information than we do about current events, with limited information, possible tainted information, how can we sit here on the couch and think we know what is better for the Country than the ones who are over there?
One way we can decide we know better is by looking at the results of past decisions. I can't see how we can say we are honoring our cousins and neighbors in uniform if we are blindly following bad leadership. Those in uniform have a duty to follow orders, we civilians have a duty to demand competent leadership.
Never forget our dear leaders work for us. I don't understand how one could be for the Mideast democracy project yet disparage democracy at home. Tainted information? Are you saying the results are tainted? Are you really able to simply put aside everything that has been said, everything that has happened, and just accept the next order? The next plan? Is that how you support the troops?
Sure all of this is over our pay grades but we are all the troops have. We are the ones who hired their leader and it is up to us to step up to our oversight duty. I think the way you honor the people over there is by demanding competency. I think the way to honor our troops is by giving our best effort and I don't think our government is preforming as well as this country is capable of doing. Damn the blame. Damn the political consequences but dammit we need to do a better job. This is happening on our shift. It is your job to understand this situation.
It has been three years. There are books about this. First person accounts of missed opportunities. See: Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq; Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq; Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, et al, it is a long list. This is limited information? This is tainted information? Does the Baker/Hamilton report fall into that category?
The people who made the decisions in 2002 and 2003, the Generals and the appointees are there on your TV set telling you that we are way off track. The elder luminaries of both parties - the Baker/Hamilton Commission - have tried to point out that the horse has left the barn on our Iraq democracy project. Iraq is not going to be the first domino triggering a cascade of Mideast democracy from Egypt to Iran. There may have been a way to accomplish these goals back in 2002 but that was a long time ago and really the risk was never worth the reward.
If the Iraq debate is such a balanced debate that there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong then wouldn't the situation be getting better? Which books written in support of this policy are still read and held up as insightful. Who among all the people who worked in this administration, name a person who has had their reputation burnished. What person could you point to as someone who made their name by working in or for this this administration's?
-
It finally came up and I scanned it.
Sorry but I do not see that he actually co-authored it. He did the foreword.
From the looks it looks to be that the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is the proponent for the publication and that it was prepared by the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center.
Right, but someone wrote it, I believe Petraeus was one of the authors. The point is the doctrine outlined we'd need 120,000 troops to clear and hold Bagdad. There are 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq. Unless we pulled from Korea where would we get the forces to clear and hold Bagdad? Wanting to do something is not enough, you have to have a reasonable idea that it can be done.
-
:banghead;
Sing with me through the tears. If you can't sing you can watch the old pro himself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnrHWhmMiz8&eurl=
(hat tip effect measure) Waist Deep In The Big Muddy by Pete Seeger 1963, planned for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour in 1967 but CBS objected to the blacklisted Seeger making obvious references to the"big fool" in the White House, finally sung by Seeger on the Comedy Hour in 1968 as the finale in a medley of anti-war songs
It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
1942 was WWII. Most people hold WWII in high esteem.
Let's ask the people who lost loved ones on 9/11/2001 if we should pull the troops home. Let's ask Saddam Hussein if he is sorry for all his black deeds...oops he's dead. Thank you George Bush.
Seattle is about as liberal as they get, so who knows what you hear. Any service men that I've talked to say we are doing good over there.
The difference between WWII and now is we can't just go drop the Atomic Bomb because this war has no borders. These terrorists are everywhere. Even in the United States.
-
Bill Peckman,
I believe in backing our leaders right or wrong. Election time is the time allotted for change and when the majority decides who is in then thats the way it is. Like I said before, the honorable thing to do is support our troops instead of judging our leaders.
Our soldiers need to know that they are out there because our leaders sent them there as a necessity, and that we back them at all cost, thats what they are doing aren't they, backing us at all cost?
The question is troop moral, if all you hear is negative comments about your commander in chief, THAT IS going to bring down troop moral. However if the troops hear positive comments about our leaders and about the accomplishments of there duties, we are then a force to be reckoned with.
Everyone makes mistakes and I'm sorry going to war is not text book sometimes, but I hardly think any President would make the call if they did not think they were making the right choice.
People sit around thinking they know more than everybody else, but they do it in the comfort of their homes in their own enviroment but half of these people have never been to war, who are they to judge?
Although you bring up some good points, I don't see a value in debating it so I'm ending here, I've had my say, we can agree to disagree.
-
1942 was WWII. Most people hold WWII in high esteem.
They "were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna," to me this just points out that you need good leadership all the time. Even in Loozianna. Men in uniform depend on their leaders. We do not "Hire and Forget". We vote someone into office and then we have oversight responsibilities. That's how it works, or at least that is how it suppose to work.
-
Seattle is about as liberal as they get, so who knows what you hear. Any service men that I've talked to say we are doing good over there.
Whatever Couger :P More liberal than Eugene?
-
Let's ask the people who lost loved ones on 9/11/2001 if we should pull the troops home.
I lost a dear friend on 9/11. He worked at JP Morgan Chase Bank at One World Trade Center.
There were several people who died at the U.S. Customs offices that worked with my Dad.
I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone for good. The world is much better.
But, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
-
I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone for good. The world is much better.
But, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
EXACTLY RIGHT!
As a sidebar, I worked for 10 years as a systems analyst for the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon, and one thing I learned was that none of us has the whole story of what's going on - or what WILL be going on. I respect to the nth degree every one of the troops fighting for us, and I respect the Office of the Presidency, but that doesn't mean I agree with some of the decisions being made at that level. Even allowing for not knowing what all goes into the decisions, I think that in hindsight, a case can be made that "mistakes were made". In my view, adapting strategy to current needs based on past learning is not a weakness, it's a strength, and we should do some of it!
-
First off there was no scandel to the Iraq war.
Iraq committed numerous terrorist attacks and acts of war on the US over the years. There were 5 major reasons listed for our war with Iraq. Yes even to date we have indeed found some WMD despite claims of some on the issue. Were they the stockpiles as Bush had outlined that we thought Saddam had from UN reports? No. Bush has long ago admitted we have not found the huge stockpiles of WMD's. That does not however mean we have not found some WMD of which Saddam was banned from having ANY at all! As of 2004 the ICS listed that it had found 47 canisters of sarin gas alone. Was this enough for war?? Maybe, maybe not, however it was over more than WMD remember?
As to 9/11 and Iraq. We went to war with Iraq because of 9/11, not because they were involved with 9/11.
Was Iraq actually involved with 9/11. So far what we are told no. However....
We will never probably know Iraq's true involvement if any on 9/11 because of the CIA bs. After all the CIA missed Iraq's involvement in the 93 WTC bombing.
It is noteworthy that Atta did meet with Iraqi Intelligence in the Czech Republic. Does this mean that Iraq was in on 9/11? No, but it brings up questions.
Of course an "unnamed source" at the CIA says it didn't happen.
Problem is I believe the Czech Republic because its leaders stood before cameras and gave their names and said it did happen but yet the CIA who screwed the pooch on this event and the 93 WTC, says it didn't happen. Hmm I believe those who stood up and put their names out their over some POS at the CIA who will not even give his/her name to their claim. But thats me.
What is going on now is a fight with terrorists.
There is no battle plan to fighting terrorism like their is with an organized government. Fighting terrorists is a dirty fight and is by no means a conventional battle like past wars have been.
We were all told up front the fight with terrorism was going to be a long fight.
My how soon some forget.
Yes over 3000 US soldiers have died. Any death of a soldier is not good. Yet over 6600 died on D-day alone. This fight with terrorism is just important as our fight during past world wars.
We have seen how the Clinton Administrations idea of using the courts to fight terrorism worked. Somalia, Cole, Kohbar Towers and on and on and on. After Somalia where Clinton tucked tail and ran and left the troops high and dry, Bin Laden called America a paper tiger and said he would attack us anywhere he wanted, the result....9/11.
Terrorists are still going to try to strike this nation. So either we fight them in Iraq or somewhere else. The more we keep them preoccupied somewhere else the less time they have to focus on attacks on mainland US.
-
First off there was no scandel to the Iraq war.
Iraq committed numerous terrorist attacks and acts of war on the US over the years. There were 5 major reasons listed for our war with Iraq. Yes even to date we have indeed found some WMD despite claims of some on the issue. Were they the stockpiles as Bush had outlined that we thought Saddam had from UN reports? No. Bush has long ago admitted we have not found the huge stockpiles of WMD's. That does not however mean we have not found some WMD of which Saddam was banned from having ANY at all! As of 2004 the ICS listed that it had found 47 canisters of sarin gas alone. Was this enough for war?? Maybe, maybe not, however it was over more than WMD remember?
As to 9/11 and Iraq. We went to war with Iraq because of 9/11, not because they were involved with 9/11.
Was Iraq actually involved with 9/11. So far what we are told no. However....
We will never probably know Iraq's true involvement if any on 9/11 because of the CIA bs. After all the CIA missed Iraq's involvement in the 93 WTC bombing.
It is noteworthy that Atta did meet with Iraqi Intelligence in the Czech Republic. Does this mean that Iraq was in on 9/11? No, but it brings up questions.
Of course an "unnamed source" at the CIA says it didn't happen.
Problem is I believe the Czech Republic because its leaders stood before cameras and gave their names and said it did happen but yet the CIA who screwed the pooch on this event and the 93 WTC, says it didn't happen. Hmm I believe those who stood up and put their names out their over some POS at the CIA who will not even give his/her name to their claim. But thats me.
What is going on now is a fight with terrorists.
There is no battle plan to fighting terrorism like their is with an organized government. Fighting terrorists is a dirty fight and is by no means a conventional battle like past wars have been.
We were all told up front the fight with terrorism was going to be a long fight.
My how soon some forget.
Yes over 3000 US soldiers have died. Any death of a soldier is not good. Yet over 6600 died on D-day alone. This fight with terrorism is just important as our fight during past world wars.
We have seen how the Clinton Administrations idea of using the courts to fight terrorism worked. Somalia, Cole, Kohbar Towers and on and on and on. After Somalia where Clinton tucked tail and ran and left the troops high and dry, Bin Laden called America a paper tiger and said he would attack us anywhere he wanted, the result....9/11.
Terrorists are still going to try to strike this nation. So either we fight them in Iraq or somewhere else. The more we keep them preoccupied somewhere else the less time they have to focus on attacks on mainland US.
Well Said. Big Sky
Thanks
Sluff
-
Big Sky - That is what I was thinking but didn't know how to word it.
:clap; :beer1;
-
Bigsky I agree we'll never know what business Atta had in the Czech Republic but does it make sense that the Wahabi terrorists of 9/11 would partner with the Bathist Sadam? And what was Iraq supposed to have supplied? There seem to be a clear quid pro quo between the terrorists and the Taliban. The terrorists take out Massoud and the Talban have to tolerate more international diplomatic heat. They really misjudged - they screwed up and brought the world down on their heads.
I just can't help wondering what sort of hand we'd be playing if instead of going into Iraq we had continued into that ungoverned area along the boarder with Pakistan and then camped on the Afghanistan/Iran boarder. I think there is a lot to be said for a strategy of realpolitik that would have used Sadam to press Iran. I mean you have to stretch to find a connection between Iraq and Bin Laden but what about Iran? I know the whole shia/sunni, Arab/Persian hatred but still my point is the US had some actual good options once upon a time.
Now we have only bad options. So I think we have to look at the manuals. Evaluate the situation away from emotions and domestic politics. We should follow the advise of by the book experts - our generals, our elder statesmen, our history. One point that counterinsurgency manual made is that to do the job you need a lot of men —at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 locals. Baghdad has about 6 million people. The outcome of the current situation may well be the outcome of the situation if it was a civil war. It may or may not fit the historic definition of ciivil war but the necessary outcome may have to be the same - sunni/shia one side will have to win. If that has to happen what are we going to do about it? What are our too few guys suppose to do?
I worry when I hear the casualty numbers used to say it's been worse and those past sacrifices paid dividends. It's not over and with those dividends came consequences. It also depends if you think the comparison is 1973 or 1965. Last night we were told to pin a lot of hopes on the people in the Iraq leadership. That is very hard for me to do.
-
Simply put if we leave Iraq in its present situation, there will be civil war and it will destabilize the region. It will also give other countries a reason to go into Iraq and the areas around the region and take over. If one Arab country goes, the whole barrel of them will go and the region will become a real hot zone. If the government can stabilize itself in Iraq and begin to police it people and settle terrorism in the area, then we can begin moving American troops out of there. Remember Iraq was pretty stable because Saddam Hussain was in large and in charge, when we deposed him we set up a sequence of events we are now responsible for correcting. We cannot just leave it and bring our soldiers back home right now. I wish we could and I do NOT agree with sending more over there to die.
-
Bigsky I agree we'll never know what business Atta had in the Czech Republic but does it make sense that the Wahabi terrorists of 9/11 would partner with the Bathist Sadam? And what was Iraq supposed to have supplied? There seem to be a clear quid pro quo between the terrorists and the Taliban. The terrorists take out Massoud and the Talban have to tolerate more international diplomatic heat. They really misjudged - they screwed up and brought the world down on their heads.
I just can't help wondering what sort of hand we'd be playing if instead of going into Iraq we had continued into that ungoverned area along the boarder with Pakistan and then camped on the Afghanistan/Iran boarder. I think there is a lot to be said for a strategy of realpolitik that would have used Sadam to press Iran. I mean you have to stretch to find a connection between Iraq and Bin Laden but what about Iran? I know the whole shia/sunni, Arab/Persian hatred but still my point is the US had some actual good options once upon a time.
First off remember that Saddam was FORBIDDEN from having any association or funding any terrorist or terrorist group.
Well the Iraqi coalition government said if found documentary proof that Saddam had Atta in country and was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.
You might note that Saddam has a long history of funding Abu Nidal.
Saddam had a long history of funding Muslim terrorist groups. Al-Qaeda was behind the 93 WTC bombing but it was considered a black flag operation by Iraq. Yousef was brought into build the bomb. Yousef was called the "Iraqi" by those that got caught. After the bombing one of the suspects escaped and went to Iraq where he was given safe haven by Saddam.
One of Saddam's own sons (Uday) ran a paper called the Babel. In it he triumphed their talks with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
A senate intelligence report stated that Saddam and given Bin Laden financial and logistical support for more than a decade. That an Iraqi defector had stated that bin laden had met with Aziz in 1998.
It might also be noted that a CIA report in 2000 on the Cole bombing stated it was the work of Al-Qaeda but that Iraq had played a role in it.
Also an indictment by the Justice department during the 90's made the link between Saddam and Bin Laden.
Newsweek ran an article in 1999 that stated the following:
Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.
Just days after this ran ABC ran the following:
Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.
Again remember that Saddam was FORBIDDEN from doing any of the above when he asked for a cease fire to the first Gulf War.
The history goes on and on and on between Saddam, bin laden and terrorism.
After all those that committed 9/11 were also out drinking and going to strip clubs. Both a violation of their religion. So to think that they would not associate with Saddam because he was secular is misguided.
So it does not take a stretch of imagination to see the links. No it doesnt. It is well documented before 9/11 occurred.
-
Let's ask the people who lost loved ones on 9/11/2001 if we should pull the troops home.
I lost a dear friend on 9/11. He worked at JP Morgan Chase Bank at One World Trade Center.
There were several people who died at the U.S. Customs offices that worked with my Dad.
I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone for good. The world is much better.
But, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
I knew some people who died on 9/11 including a man I went all through school with. His wife is one of the Jersey Girls who's always on the news shows talking about 9/11. We'll never know what really went on, who was really involved with it. Everyone wants to put their own spin on it
I just know that one day I looked at my view of NYC and the WTC was there.
The next day I looked and it was gone. The shock of it in the beginning was so real, you could physically feel it
It felt like your stomach was turning and twisting. It was and still is an incredible sense of loss. Every time I felt and heard a low flying plane I'd think "oh shit", is it going to happen again? (I live right by Teterboro Airport) The day after it happened they shut down the airports but over where I live the military flew their fighter jets constantly all day and night. And every channel kept showing it over and over again the footage of the plane going into the building, I'd have nightmares about sitting at a desk and seeing a plane coming through the wall. Then I think of the cops and firefighters who when everyone was running out of the buildings, they were running IN the buildings to a certain death. My boyfriend and I went up to the WTC on a beautiful spring day in 1991 and spent the afternoon there, I still have the pictures of the view from the top. If I can find them I'll post them in a thread. If anyone wants to see them!
Donna
-
I still have the pictures of the view from the top. If I can find them I'll post them in a thread. If anyone wants to see them!
Donna
:pics; please
-
BigSky it is true that Stephen Hayes is the favorite authority of many conservatives on "The Connection". For those who don't recognize the name Stephen Hayes is a Weekly Standard staff writer and author of the book The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (released on June 1 2004), here is a link to his writings on "The Connection": http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1
I didn't read his book but I did notice that it did not get very favorable reviews. And I can not think of any corroborating scholarship. From his Weekly Standard writings I think the links are thin. Why did al Qaeda need an Iraq connection? Money? Is that it?
Back to now without having direct access to intelligent reports I think we can look at how the White House frames their postion and it is almost always a binary good/bad; them/us formulation. I think it is a fundamental mistake to lump everyone into one bucket and treat all the factions like a single enemy. The lack of thoughtfulness is manifest. It seems like no one in the White House asks what happens if it doesn't work? For instance what happens if the proposed surge doesn't work?
Do we "Blame and run" - We tried, you the Iraqi people failed. You don't deserve our help
Or do you do the classic strategy when faced with a unsolvable problem "Enlarge the Question" - expand operations into Iran and Syria.
I doubt it will be the former so that leaves - watch out Iran.
-
Well as to the book it actually got mixed reviews and in fact is more favorably reviewed than unfavorable at sites that sell the book.
But that matters very little in the whole thing because it is not about writing style is it. It is about the factual information that was reported by others that is contained in the book.
Hayes merely gathered the various things that were reported through the years and wrote a book on it.
Much of the link on Bin Laden and Saddam was well reported long before that particular book came out now wasn't it. Yet again you forget that this was not the only reason we went to war with Iraq.
However the very fact that Saddam was in contact with OBL itself proves a connection to him. This is because Saddam was FORBIDDEN from having any talks with any terrorist or terrorist group!
We do not need WH Intelligence Reports now to determine this issue.
From DOJ indictments under Clinton on the issue; to Uday himself making the link with al-qaeda; from Saddam giving safe haven to a 93 WTC al-qaeda terrorist; to the fact that Yousef was called the "Iraqi" despite the fact he was not an Iraqi Citizen and was in contact with Iraqi Intelligence is more than enough evidence something was going on.
There is much truth to the phrase: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
To think they would not work together based on ideological differences is absurd.
The war with Iraq was accomplished. We are now at war with terrorists. The fact is we were war with them before this action and we will still be at war with them when its over.
We have already won. Iraq is now a democracy and is itself fighting terrorists. Our success in this is not judged on that Iraq democracy look exactly like that of the US, but that they now fight terrorism instead of supporting it.
-
That is a very sunny view of the situation.
Frankly reading Kagen and the AEI on the surge (don’t call it an escalation) I can’t believe this kind of crap is the basis for these extremely important policy decisions. There does not seem to be a methodology behind the madness. One would expect that the deeper you look into this the more subtle and thoughtful the plan would become but that is not true in the case of the new plan. The whole thing is just a shell game of rosy and ambiguous assumptions and assertions hiding behind a thin veneer of “military planning” after “careful deliberation”.
Is it really a surprise that Iraqi “democracy” would lead to an Iranian style theocracy hell bent on Mideast hegemony. Iran lacked one thing to lead a pan-Arab revolution - they need Arab street credibility. As Persians Iran’s influence always had a hard ceiling. Now? Now they’re well on the way to establishing a Shiite puppet state in the historic center of Arabia.
We have won nothing but years and years of pain. The United States has taken a huge step backwards in terms of national security. There is no historical equivalent to the damage that has been done to our country.
As far as what I would do if somehow I had to direct the actions of our government? At this point we have no good options - I would work on a delaying strategy to wait for a new administration and new options. My tactics would be to do anything I could to turn down the heat - in Iraq but also internationally. Closing Gitmo would help a great deal. In Iraq I would let Petraeus follow the counterinsurgency manual that he coauthored with the goal being to deescalate the civil war while not allowing or at least not encouraging more de facto partition. I would also give Petraeus a "slush fund" of reconstruction dollars that he could control directly.
-
"The war with Iraq was accomplished. "
We are not suppose to have ever been at war with Iraq. Remember: we just went into Iraq to help the Iraqis achieve the universal human desire for democracy. Right? All we have to do is let people vote and everything else will sort itself out. :banghead;
-
My tactics would be to do anything I could to turn down the heat - in Iraq but also internationally. Closing Gitmo would help a great deal. In Iraq I would let Petraeus follow the counterinsurgency manual that he coauthored with the goal being to deescalate the civil war while not allowing or at least not encouraging more de facto partition. I would also give Petraeus a "slush fund" of reconstruction dollars that he could control directly.
That is called appeasement and it has NEVER worked in the history of the world. :banghead; :banghead;
Appeasement didn't work with Hitler, it didn't work with Saddam for over 12 years and it didn't work with Osama, so to even suggest that it would work now is not only absurd it is repugnant and borders on insulting.
Those in Gitmo are there for a reason.
The fact of the matter is since the SC reversed itself and gave these guys GC's means we get to keep them in jail indefinitely without trial until this war is over as is specified by the GC. In reality they are very lucky because by the GC we could start executing those that we caught fighting without a uniform.
"The war with Iraq was accomplished. "
We are not suppose to have ever been at war with Iraq. Remember: we just went into Iraq to help the Iraqis achieve the universal human desire for democracy. Right? All we have to do is let people vote and everything else will sort itself out. :banghead;
Please tell me you are smart enough to comprehend the difference between war with Iraq, not meaning the people of Iraq. I really do not know what to say if you cannot understand the difference...... and actually feel embarrassed for you if you do not see what the difference is in it. :o :o
-
You throw the word appeasement around like an epithet without explaining why a strategy of calming things down could be aptly called appeasement. However, I am encouraged that it took until the 31st post to bring up Hitler. The question on the table is the surge and how in the world it could be expected to do anything usefull.
Beyond that I don't think this country is safer because we went into Iraq something you think is manifest. Did you read Christopher Hitchens today? He pointed out that the situation in Iraq makes one believe in jinxes because our policy left no opportunity unbungled. You can knock down all the strawmen in the world but we will be dealing with this mess for generations. Avoidable consequences will plague today's children and they will never understand how this fiasco was allowed to happen.
-
Appeasement--to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles.
I do believe what you are saying fits that to a T.
Safer? Terrorism is always going to be a threat. However we have all seen the numerous attacks by terrorists on the mainland alone in the 90's culminating in 9/11. Notice how many attacks on the mainland have occurred since then? Evidently we must be doing something right.
Terrorism is going to be fought for generations no matter what.
The more terrorists we kill the better off we will be. Reason being is that there will never be a war in the US to the point that we are fighting terrorists in the streets. The most they will do in this country are covert attacks like 9/11, 93 WTC, CIA killings etc. etc. The more terrorists that are alive the bigger the chance they can infiltrate the US and commit these type of attacks.
Really, what does it take? For a mushroom cloud to appear over a US city before this is realized?
Avoidable consequences? Are you kidding? Maybe you can explain how appeasement in the 90's never worked for the following and how it culminated in 9/11? Evidently we didnt bend over backwards enough for the terrorists during that time. ???
Kohbar Tower bombing
Cole bombing
93 WTC bombing
CIA killings
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Embassy bombing
Nairobi, Kenya, Embassy bombing
Bojinka plot
Appeasement has never worked in fighting terrorism in the past, it has only lead to more and more violent attacks on the US.
You may have bought in Osama's offer of standing down but considering his history I didn't.
-
Why stop in 1993? Why not go back to Beirut - oh wait that's right the President was not a Dem. It must have been Congress's fault in the '80s. Iraq has been a force multiplier for our actual enemies which is why it is so hard for me to understand your point of view. Send more troops to Afghanistan? Absolutely. But if we had kept our eye on the ball and finished our work there we'd be in a much better position with regard to protecting the US from terrorists. You asked "Notice how many attacks on the mainland have occurred since then" yes zero. The same number of attacks "on the mainland" that occurred during the eight years between '93 and '01 unless you're counting McVeigh.
And McVeigh brings up the obvious point that all the people who want to nuke NY are not Muslims. The pathological evil that is at work in the minds of the terrorists is also at work in the minds of others. Which is why improving overall security - the recommendations of the 9/11 commission around port security for instance - should be a higher priority. I would feel much better if we had spent some fraction of what is going to the Iraq war on improving security at nuclear plants and chemical depots. The New York Times had an interesting article today asking what 1.2 Trillion Dollars could buy. 1.2 Trillion is what the Iraq war is costing us (at the low end of the cost range).
So tell me: its 2002, you have a 1.2 Trillion Dollar budget (beyond the huge existing homeland defense budget) to fight terrorism what would you do? Invade Iraq?I believe that no one would do that. But that's just me. Do you think that the Iraq war was a smart tactic in the War on Terror? Knowing what you know now. Also I'm not clear on your postion with regard to the current plan? as the President has laid it out. What is your take on the surge? Or is it that I am just not crediting a link between the surge and 9/11?
-
“Avoidable consequences? Are you kidding?”
No. Actually this is serious stuff. Avoidable consequences flowing from our new found willingness to torture. Avoidable consequences flowing from degrading the US military. Avoidable consequences flowing from a lack of trust in the Presidency. Avoidable consequences flowing from a go it alone foreign policy. Avoidable consequences flowing from saddling every American with a mountain of debt.
If we had kept to our previous standard of a bipartisan foreign policy supported through a constitutional system of checks and balances we would be stronger; our options would be better. There is no reason to think we would have lost an inch that has been gained and I think it should be clear that we would have kept so much that we have lost.
-
Why stop in 1993? Why not go back to Beirut - oh wait that's right the President was not a Dem. It must have been Congress's fault in the '80s. Iraq has been a force multiplier for our actual enemies which is why it is so hard for me to understand your point of view. Send more troops to Afghanistan? Absolutely. But if we had kept our eye on the ball and finished our work there we'd be in a much better position with regard to protecting the US from terrorists. You asked "Notice how many attacks on the mainland have occurred since then" yes zero. The same number of attacks "on the mainland" that occurred during the eight years between '93 and '01 unless you're counting McVeigh.
Evidently Beirut is just a word for you. Seems you forget that the troops were there as a multinational peacekeeping mission to see the withdrawal of the PLO from Lebanon. After the bombing Reagan denounced it and said we would say and help finish trying to help with getting the withdrawal of the PLO. After the 85 bombing Reagan succumbed to the dems to pull troops out. Seems you forget the huge stink the dems made when Reagan bombed terrorists as our troops were leaving. The only problem he should have bombed them more in spite of the objection from the other party.
You are wrong about terrorists attacks on the mainland in 93-01. My how you forget. No wonder you are out of the loop in this war on terrorism.
CIA shootings and the 93 WTC. Ohh and I wasn't including OKC because the links to Al-Qaeda are not for sure known since the FBI and the government were in some sort of cover up, mainly Joe Doe 2, numerous eye witness' that said they saw ME looking people running from the building before the explosion and the fact that Nicholes visited Al-Qaeda members in the Philippines as was relayed to the Clinton administration by the Philippine government after the fact. Yes I say cover up because the first time in history before trials are complete the US government destroyed the evidence by blowing the building down and trucking away the evidence without letting anyone else examine it. Also I never included WACO where Reno violated numerous laws and the US Constitution when she burned them out or the fact they again destroyed evidence and refused to let it be examined. Interesting how even the Texas Rangers stopped short of blurting the government agents were liars.
So tell me: its 2002, you have a 1.2 Trillion Dollar budget (beyond the huge existing homeland defense budget) to fight terrorism what would you do? Invade Iraq?I believe that no one would do that. But that's just me. Do you think that the Iraq war was a smart tactic in the War on Terror? Knowing what you know now. Also I'm not clear on your postion with regard to the current plan? as the President has laid it out. What is your take on the surge? Or is it that I am just not crediting a link between the surge and 9/11?
We have done more to fight terrorism and killed more terrorists in one year than we did in the entire 8 years prior to Bush taking office. It really doesn't matter about you not crediting a link or not, because you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not know the reasons listed for action in Iraq before this war started.
Considering Saddam refusal to quit funding terrorism and the resources he had at his disposal and the fact that he had planned attacks on the US and carried some out that were failures, I say yes.
What would you have us do? Wait till Saddam got lucky with his own 9/11 style attack before we did something?
Actually this is serious stuff. Avoidable consequences flowing from our new found willingness to torture. Avoidable consequences flowing from degrading the US military. Avoidable consequences flowing from a lack of trust in the Presidency. Avoidable consequences flowing from a go it alone foreign policy. Avoidable consequences flowing from saddling every American with a mountain of debt.
If we had kept to our previous standard of a bipartisan foreign policy supported through a constitutional system of checks and balances we would be stronger; our options would be better. There is no reason to think we would have lost an inch that has been gained and I think it should be clear that we would have kept so much that we have lost.
The US has not tortured anyone as it is not our policy. Even the commander at Gitmo stated to the affect that the things done in Gitmo are not torture as because if they were done to our captured troops we would not consider it torture. But you might notice we have yet to cut civilians heads off and broadcast it on the web and tv like terrorists do.
The military is hardly degraded. The byproduct of war teaches troops to be better prepared and the fact is enlistment goals are still being met.
It is the people who maintain the checks and balances by election. If the people didn't like the Iraq action they could have brought it to a screeching halt in 2004 by not only electing a democrat majority but electing a democrat president. Even in the last election it was hardly a mandate to cut and run in this war on terror.
As to trust of the President. Hmm considering your type have made a huge stink since Bush took office in 2001 that statement plays little into anything for me.
At least Bush didn't commit adultery and then lie in court about his actions on several things and have a law license revoked and then have the Supreme Court bar him from EVER appearing in front of them, nor did he refuse to take Bin Laden when offered up to him.
Mountain of debt? You got to be kidding. We were in a mountain of debt long before Bush took office. Clinton left office with a deficit of almost 6 TRILLION dollars. :banghead; So don't feign concern to me about saddling Americans in a mountain of debt.
-
The real question here is after the terrorism attacks on our country what would the liberals have done about it? They say we should not be in war so i guess I'd like to hear what the solution from the war haters would have been.
So we should just allow the terrorist to come here blow up a bldg or two maybe train them to fly planes so the can kill a couple of thousand citizens in the USA and then what? Whats your solution? Turn the other cheek? Face reality.
-
Let's charge the terrorists lots of money for training voer here. If we find them int he country, they should have to pay a tax on everything they do in our country. Wait a minute...doesn't the government already do that to me?
-
The real question here is after the terrorism attacks on our country what would the liberals have done about it? They say we should not be in war so i guess I'd like to hear what the solution from the war haters would have been.
If the liberals had any solutions, they would be in office. We voted in the Republicans because they at least say they have a solution. Personally, I don't think either party has any real solution - it's just that the Republicans lie about it better.
-
Wow that’s one way to avoid giving your opinion on the current Iraq strategy. I seem to have two options quit the field and let your polemic stand, or rebut it point by point from the point of view of "my type". Well since you've taken the time to write a provocative account I will step up (in the new White House vernacular - a couple months ago I would have needed to stand up) and offer "my type's" take on your post.
Get comfortable and settle in you’ve covered a lot of ground; this is going to take some thought and writing. Let’s take your last point first:
"Mountain of debt? You got to be kidding. We were in a mountain of debt long before Bush took office. Clinton left office with a deficit of almost 6 TRILLION dollars. So don't feign concern to me about saddling Americans in a mountain of debt.
On 09/30/1993 the national debt was $4,411,488,883,139.38 (give or take); On 09/28/2001 the total national debt was up to $5,807,463,412,200.06 . So Clinton budgets increased our debt 1.4 trillion dollars for the eight year period he was president but the real story is the state of our finances during the last few years of his presidency. This thread has not referenced much published data but here are a few links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/411973.stm
US to buy back national debt (August 4, 1999)
“For the first time in 25 years, the US Government plans to reduce the size of the national debt.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/
Clinton announces record payment on national debt (May 1, 2000)
“President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/
National Debt Clock stops, despite trillions of dollars of red ink
Some found clock's change of direction confusing (September 7, 2000)
“The plug was pulled on the National Debt Clock, which has kept track of the federal government's red ink since the electronic billboard near Times Square was erected in 1989.
In its final moments Thursday, the sign read: ‘Our national debt: $5,676,989,904,887. Your family share: $73,733.’"
From that point what happened? The Outstanding Public Debt as of 18 Jan 2007 at 05:51:14 PM GMT is $8,671,083,127,647.41 On average this administration has added 500 billion dollars a year to the national debt and much of the spending commitments in this administration’s budget busting programs are back end loaded, i.e. the costs will increase dramatically once he leaves office in two years, by which time the Debt will have more than doubled!! Yes, we will be paying off this fiscal folly for generations. Truly a mountain of debt has accumulated under Bush.
As to trust of the President. Hmm considering your type have made a huge stink since Bush took office in 2001 that statement plays little into anything for me.
At least Bush didn't commit adultery and then lie in court about his actions on several things and have a law license revoked and then have the Supreme Court bar him from EVER appearing in front of them, nor did he refuse to take Bin Laden when offered up to him.
My type. I admit my type had a complete failure of imagination. In 2001 when I said I would vote for a ham sandwich before I would vote for Bush it was for the reasons that I thought he would point us in the wrong direction: set back environmental progress, and pull back internationally. I had no idea his plan was to be Raptured out of office.
In your mind is the Lewinsky kerfuffle the worst thing that has happened to the presidency in the last several decades? That sort of moral tisk, tisking is comical in light of what a truly incompetent president can inflict on our great nation. It is interesting that leaders often have less than puritanical personal lives but it would seem it has always been the case. For a more illuminating look at the diminishing trust in the office of the president just look at the change in perception between 10/01 and today. It isn’t the Dems who’s mind has changed it is independents and true conservatives (like WF Buckley) who are waking up to the disaster this presidency has wrought.
It is the people who maintain the checks and balances
by election. If the people didn't like the Iraq action they could have brought it to a screeching halt in 2004 by not only electing a democrat majority but
electing a democrat president.
Actually the Constitution is pretty clear that the responsibility for checking Executive authority lies with the Congress and the Judiciary. The rubber stamp Republican Congress from 2001 to just a couple weeks ago, completely abdicated their oversight responsibilities. In return the president abdicated his responsibility of checking Congressional power by refusing to use his veto power. Bills such as the Energy Boondoggle or the equally grievous Transportation porkfest slid through in quid pro quo of looking the other way.
The military is hardly degraded. The byproduct of war teaches troops to be better prepared and the fact is enlistment goals are still being met.
I do not see the fiasco in Iraq as an elaborate training exercise. Let’s look at what The National Security Advisory Group concluded in August 2006 “the U.S. administration’s under funding of the army represents a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.” And “The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army’s readiness been so degraded.”
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,107179,00.html (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,107179,00.html)
Army's Readiness Questioned (July 27, 2006)
In a statement released late Wednesday, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, said much has been asked of the Army during the nearly five years the U.S. has been at war. ... "I have testified to the facts about our readiness and I remain concerned about the serious demands we face," said Schoomaker, adding that the Army needs more than $17 billion in 2007 and up to $13 billion a year until two or three years after the war ends.
We are meeting our recruitment and readiness goals by extending people's commitment - the backdoor draft - and lowering our standards. Today, the U.S. military is, in the words of the Pentagon, stretched "to the breaking point." Almost 30 percent of the 1.5 million U.S. service members who have been deployed since September 11, 2001 have been deployed more than once. Thousands of members of Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) have been called up. Military recruiters are struggling to meet their goals; the Pentagon is considering greatly increasing the number of noncitizens in the U.S. military; more than 16,000 single mothers who are in the U.S. military have been deployed.
The US has not tortured anyone. Even the commander at Gitmo stated to the affect that the things done in Gitmo are not torture as because if they were done to our captured troops we would not consider it torture. But you might notice we have yet to cut civilians heads off and broadcast it on the web and tv like terrorists do.
Come on. Now our standard of behavior is to be set by comparing it to some pre-renaissance Muslim fiend’s behavior? Jose Padilla is an American citizen and a schmuck but for that you get locked up without trial, held in complete solitary and mentally crippled? Dahlia Lithwick reviewed the charges against the Guantanamo detainees here: http://www.slate.com/id/2136422/ Our acceptance of torture and the ongoing behavior of this administration will continue to cause avoidable consequences for generations. We must restore habeas corpus, undo the Military Commissions Act, and return the rule of law.
Evidently Beirut is just a word for you. Seems you forget that the troops were there as a multinational peacekeeping mission to see the withdrawal of the PLO from Lebanon. After the bombing Reagan denounced it and said we would say and help finish trying to help with getting the withdrawal of the PLO. After the 85 bombing Reagan succumbed to the dems to pull troops out. Seems you forget the huge stink the dems made when Reagan bombed terrorists as our troops were leaving. The only problem he should have bombed them more in spite of the objection from the other party.
See I thought it was the Dem Congress’s fault. You ignored my point that Iraq has been a force multiplier for our enemies. A bit later you wrote:
We have done more to fight terrorism and killed more terrorists in one year than we did in the entire 8 years prior to Bush taking office. It really doesn't matter about you not crediting a link or not, because you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not know the reasons listed for action in Iraq before this war started.”
Again the important number is the net impact. Including all the people who have been killed our policies have increased the total number of people fighting against us. Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote a memo to his colleagues in the Pentagon posing a critical question in the “long war’’ against terrorism: Is Washington’s strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created?
The National Intelligence Estimate declassified last September stated “While the spread of self-described jihadists is hard to measure, the report says, the terrorists “are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.” In other words they are able to recruit them faster than we can kill them. Remember the Sorcerer's Apprentice?
The tale begins as an old sorcerer departs his workshop, leaving his apprentice with chores to perform. The apprentice tires of fetching water for a bath or tank, and enchants a broomstick to do the work for him, using magic he is not yet fully trained in. However, soon the floor is awash with water, and he realizes that he cannot stop the broom because he does not know the magic word to make it stop. Despairing, he splits the broom in two with an axe, but each of the pieces takes up a pail and continues fetching water, now faster than ever. When all seems lost in a massive flood, the old sorcerer returns, quickly breaks the spell and saves the day.
Too bad Bush senior can’t just break the spell. Bush senior did send his man Baker in but you can’t help those who will not help themselves. At least Mickey was quick to realize that he was in over his head.
And at last we come to the points you most want to discuss:
You are wrong about terrorists attacks on the mainland in 93-01. My how you forget. No wonder you are out of the loop in this war on terrorism.
CIA shootings and the 93 WTC. Ohh and I wasn't including OKC because the links to Al-Qaeda are not for sure known since the FBI and the government were in some sort of cover up, mainly Joe Doe 2, numerous eye witness' that said they say ME looking people running from the building before the explosion and the fact that Nicholes visited Al-Qaeda members in the Philippines as was relayed to the Clinton administration by the Philippine government after the fact. Yes I say cover up because the first time in history before trials are complete the US government destroyed the evidence by blowing the building down and trucking away the evidence without letting anyone else examine it. Also I never included WACO where Reno violated numerous laws and the US Constitution when she burned them out or the fact they again destroyed evidence.
I did not know that people were suggesting a link between Oklahoma City and al Qaeda but that does help to explain some things. Well if you want to include the CIA shooting why not include the sniper shootings in the DC area? Or more close to our homes the shootings at the Seattle Jewish center last July? Obviously it is question of scale.
Your greater point is to suggest that there was a strong operational link between al Qaeda and Iraq in 2001. It must be very disappointing to you that the President does not assert that point. You must have an explanation as to why Bush would deny that link. Sure the 9/ 11 commission reported that it found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq but now with all that Stephen Hayes is writing why wont Bush make the case you are making? I'd say it is because he knows Hayes' assertion of a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam is not true.
Which really gets back to the point of what was the justification for the Iraq war? as stated by this administration in 2003: Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the US. In retrospect it clear that this was not the case.
The United States has had a Middle East policy since the beginning. George Washington had a Mideast policy. Thomas Jefferson had a Mideast policy. Lincoln had a Mideast policy. This situation did not start in 1993, 1983 or with the Iranian revolution, but this administration's world view seems to start in 1991 at the end of the first Persian Gulf war. The opera version of this era will tell a story not unlike Hamlet. Like Hamlet, Bush's biggest mystery concerns his character, his psychology, and his real motivations. Can we make any sense of Bush at all? I can't.
It must be tough to maintain your point of view in the face of its crumbling support among Republicans. Clearly you must feel let down by the President. As Robert Novak wrote in today's WaPost: "This <meaning the Bush policy's reliance on Maliki> hastens the desire of Republicans, who once cheered the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East, to remove U.S. forces from a politically deteriorating condition as soon as possible. "Iraq is a black hole for the Republican Party," a prominent party strategist told me this week. What makes his comments so important is that he is not a maverick Republican in Congress but one of Bush's principal political advisers."
"Iraq is a black hole" that can't be good.
-
The real question here is after the terrorism attacks on our country what would the liberals have done about it? They say we should not be in war so i guess I'd like to hear what the solution from the war haters would have been.
So we should just allow the terrorist to come here blow up a bldg or two maybe train them to fly planes so the can kill a couple of thousand citizens in the USA and then what? Whats your solution? Turn the other cheek? Face reality.
Look the issue is Iraq. Of course we had to clean out Afghanistan. You make it out that we had two choices - invade Iraq or surrender. Come on. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we didn't attack Mexico. Why was that? Because that would have been a bad idea even though the Axis had approached Mexico, had contact in today's vernacular. However, if Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" was in effect we would have had to fight Mexico and the whole world, as opposed to joining an alliance and fighting together. When you are in a fight you have to pick your battles. This administration has made bad choices; picked the wrong battles.
Clearly the smart thing to do is to focus and attack those who are actually threatening you and to fight as part of a larger alliance. The idea behind the Iraq project seems to be that by teaching Iraq a lesson the rest of the mideast would fall into line. That really never had a chance of working - going into Iraq was a terrible mistake that we are compounding. We are in a hole so I would hope that a change in leadership would, as a first step, Stop Digging.
How can you call bringing troop levels to 12/05 levels is a change in plan? Give the Bush plan a chance? We've been doing that for three years. At what point do you say enough?
-
Epoman breaks out lawnchair. This is getting good.
:popcorn;
-
Wow that’s one way to avoid giving your opinion on the current Iraq strategy. I seem to have two options quit the field and let your polemic stand, or rebut it point by point from the point of view of "my type". Well since you've taken the time to write a provocative account I will step up (in the new White House vernacular - a couple months ago I would have needed to stand up) and offer "my type's" take on your post.
This has never been about my opinion on strategy in Iraq. Its about fact that you have shown time and time again you do not know the reasons that were laid out before this war started or the back history of US and its dealings with terrorism. It is pretty clear your position from your very first posts to this thread.
Your position is shown by the fact you said this about the song by the communist in opposition to a war.
"It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger."
Your messenger had no message because of the fact that the little communist was against the US because it was fighting his fellow party members. The fact that it had nothing to do with the US and actual war was beyond you and shows just why you do not understand what is going on then or now.
It seems you are more intent on sound bytes and little democrat slogans than what is and what has actually happened in our dealings with terrorism worldwide. There is no peace with terrorists and no appeasing them and its mind boggling that you think there is.
Get comfortable and settle in you’ve covered a lot of ground; this is going to take some thought and writing. Let’s take your last point first:
Well if you would stay on one subject there would not be so much ground now would there. Notice how fast you left the defense of your song writer to where we are currently now.
On 09/30/1993 the national debt was $4,411,488,883,139.38 (give or take); On 09/28/2001 the total national debt was up to $5,807,463,412,200.06 . So Clinton budgets increased our debt 1.4 trillion dollars for the eight year period he was president but the real story is the state of our finances during the last few years of his presidency. This thread has not referenced much published data but here are a few links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/411973.stm
US to buy back national debt (August 4, 1999)
“For the first time in 25 years, the US Government plans to reduce the size of the national debt.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/
Clinton announces record payment on national debt (May 1, 2000)
“President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/
National Debt Clock stops, despite trillions of dollars of red ink
Some found clock's change of direction confusing (September 7, 2000)
“The plug was pulled on the National Debt Clock, which has kept track of the federal government's red ink since the electronic billboard near Times Square was erected in 1989.
In its final moments Thursday, the sign read: ‘Our national debt: $5,676,989,904,887. Your family share: $73,733.’"
From that point what happened? The Outstanding Public Debt as of 18 Jan 2007 at 05:51:14 PM GMT is $8,671,083,127,647.41 On average this administration has added 500 billion dollars a year to the national debt and much of the spending commitments in this administration’s budget busting programs are back end loaded, i.e. the costs will increase dramatically once he leaves office in two years, by which time the Debt will have more than doubled!! Yes, we will be paying off this fiscal folly for generations. Truly a mountain of debt has accumulated under Bush.
Americans were long saddled with a mountain of debt before this action started. Also we are nowhere close to having spent 1.2 trillion dollars on this action as you had suggested earlier. In fact the costs of fighting terrorism now are much higher than if Clinton would have actually ought them during his terms instead of relying on it to be a Justice Department matter and not a military issue.
Fact remains Clinton NEVER paid off the national debt did he? Even though the left so often loves to say he did.
The debt rose every single year Clinton was in office. From where it was shortly before he took office to where it was shortly before he left office. You will notice it never dropped a single year he was in office, so much for the beloved claim of the left that he paid of the national debt. It is so laughable because time and time again I hear or read from the left that Clinton paid of the almost 6 trillion debt and that were had a projected 6 trillion surplus.
Lets get back to actual reality in the matter.
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
Did you notice the debt NEVER DROPPED! NEVER! :o
Clinton didn't spend money as fast and that was all. It was done with many failures to keeping the military up to date and this country protected across the world against terrorism which were points being brought up at the time it was occurring. But lets disregard that.
The fact of the matter is that in just about any given year the US takes in roughly 180 to 200 trillion a year in revenue. The US almost always spends just as much if not more depending on events in any given year.
Roughly the last year of Clinton the US was close to 6 trillion in debt by the time he actually left office.
Revenue and spending as from 1999. revenues: $1.828 trillion, expenditures: $1.703 trillion
Now if we were to have kept everything the same in terms of spending to revenue as Clinton had done in office, just how long would you think it would take to pay off almost 6 trillion dollars? It would never have occurred. Why? Because the difference between revenue and expenditures was not even enough to pay off interest on the national debt to keep it from rising as shown by the governments own figures of how the debt continued to rise during that time.
My type. I admit my type had a complete failure of imagination. In 2001 when I said I would vote for a ham sandwich before I would vote for Bush it was for the reasons that I thought he would point us in the wrong direction: set back environmental progress, and pull back internationally. I had no idea his plan was to be Raptured out of office.
In your mind is the Lewinsky kerfuffle the worst thing that has happened to the presidency in the last several decades? That sort of moral tisk, tisking is comical in light of what a truly incompetent president can inflict on our great nation. It is interesting that leaders often have less than puritanical personal lives but it would seem it has always been the case. For a more illuminating look at the diminishing trust in the office of the president just look at the change in perception between 10/01 and today. It isn’t the Dems who’s mind has changed it is independents and true conservatives (like WF Buckley) who are waking up to the disaster this presidency has wrought.
Like I said you have shown your hate for Bush long before this action and that fact alone means no matter what he does or will do you will not approve.
At no point have I suggested the monica thing was the worst of it. It seems kind of weird for you to suggest that the monica thing is the worst thing to happen however.
The Administrations lies and butcher at WACO, failure to accept bin laden when offered up by Sudan, Clintons suppression of 9/11 hijackers named to him by the Philippine government, and failure to fight terrorism are among the far more worrisome things to consider before Monica.
Of course the fact that Clinton lost his license and was FORBIDDEN from every appearing before the Supreme Court really shows the worst shame that has been committed on the office and trust of the Presidency.
Actually the Constitution is pretty clear that the responsibility for checking Executive authority lies with the Congress and the Judiciary. The rubber stamp Republican Congress from 2001 to just a couple weeks ago, completely abdicated their oversight responsibilities. In return the president abdicated his responsibility of checking Congressional power by refusing to use his veto power. Bills such as the Energy Boondoggle or the equally grievous Transportation porkfest slid through in quid pro quo of looking the other way.
And who elects those to Congress to ensure those checks and balances. There is some pork to a degree. But alot of what is considered pork is building those much needed roads, bridges, water treatment plants etc. Granted some true pork slips through but that is the price that has to be paid when a President does not have a line item veto.
I do not see the fiasco in Iraq as an elaborate training exercise. Let’s look at what The National Security Advisory Group concluded in August 2006 “the U.S. administration’s under funding of the army represents a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.” And “The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army’s readiness been so degraded.”
Evidently they never took assessment under Clinton considering the massive cuts he did to the military and the hundreds of billions of dollars in military equipment that sat because he refused to fund them to fix it. When Bush Sr. left office there was no backlog of military equipment to be fixed. When Clinton left office it was in the billions of dollars worth of equipment.
We are meeting our recruitment and readiness goals by extending people's commitment - the backdoor draft - and lowering our standards. Today, the U.S. military is, in the words of the Pentagon, stretched "to the breaking point." Almost 30 percent of the 1.5 million U.S. service members who have been deployed since September 11, 2001 have been deployed more than once. Thousands of members of Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) have been called up. Military recruiters are struggling to meet their goals; the Pentagon is considering greatly increasing the number of noncitizens in the U.S. military; more than 16,000 single mothers who are in the U.S. military have been deployed.
Troops are often deployed more than once and when people join the service they know this can happen. Non Citizens have always been part of the defense and has been used by many as a jumping off point to citizenship, in fact I have know of several that have done this. All people, single mothers included know what is required of them when they join the service. Or is it your point that the military should discriminate against single mothers joining its ranks?
Come on. Now our standard of behavior is to be set by comparing it to some pre-renaissance Muslim fiend’s behavior? Jose Padilla is an American citizen and a schmuck but for that you get locked up without trial, held in complete solitary and mentally crippled? Dahlia Lithwick reviewed the charges against the Guantanamo detainees here: http://www.slate.com/id/2136422/ Our acceptance of torture and the ongoing behavior of this administration will continue to cause avoidable consequences for generations. We must restore habeas corpus, undo the Military Commissions Act, and return the rule of law.
You claim torture yet you do not know what actual torture is.
What is being done at Gitmo is not considered torture because we hold that our own US troops can have the same techniques applied to them.
Jose Padilla-- The reason he can be held like this is because of prior Supreme Court rulings.
Also by GC we can hold enemies to the US indefinitely and not give them a trial until the war is over with them.
Even more to the point by GC we could execute without trial all those that are held in Gitmo that were caught fighting without a uniform as fighting without uniform they are deemed spies. The very fact that we do not should tell you something.
I never said it was dems fault. Interesting how you jumped to that conclusion. Guilty mind perhaps?
Again the important number is the net impact. Including all the people who have been killed our policies have increased the total number of people fighting against us. Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote a memo to his colleagues in the Pentagon posing a critical question in the “long war’’ against terrorism: Is Washington’s strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created?
Vast amount of terrorists created are not occurring because of this action. This action is merely drawing them out into the open. There are several terrorist organizations that have been training hundreds of thousands of terrorists for years long before war in Iraq.
We can only kill them and gather necessary information on them by drawing them out.
I did not know that people were suggesting a link between Oklahoma City and al Qaeda but that does help to explain some things. Well if you want to include the CIA shooting why not include the sniper shootings in the DC area? Or more close to our homes the shootings at the Seattle Jewish center last July? Obviously it is question of scale.
Because they were not done by someone with possible contacts to al-qaeda. :banghead; :banghead;
Your greater point is to suggest that there was a strong operational link between al Qaeda and Iraq in 2001. It must be very disappointing to you that the President does not assert that point. You must have an explanation as to why Bush would deny that link. Sure the 9/ 11 commission reported that it found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq but now with all that Stephen Hayes is writing why wont Bush make the case you are making? I'd say it is because he knows Hayes' assertion of a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam is not true.
Which really gets back to the point of what was the justification for the Iraq war? as stated by this administration in 2003: Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the US. In retrospect it clear that this was not the case.
Actually there were at least 5 reason given. Funny how you do not remember them.
Also the fact Iraq was a danger. I suggest you look the word up as you clearly do not know what it means.
The very fact that Iraq not only planned but committed terrorist attacks and acts of war on the US shows this to be the case.
Just because they may not have worked or they did not occur on the mainland US does not mean they are any less of a danger.
After all if someone shoots at you with a gun and misses, is that person a danger or not? Most people would say that person is a danger. Well all except you evidently.
Iraq and AL-Qaeda were linked. I have said nothing saying that they were in on 9/11 as you are trying to suggest. I said there are questions still to just what was their involvement considering the meeting with Atta and Iraqi Intelligence.
It has never been a point of Bush to link the two on 9/11 so your point is moot and your lame attempt at some sort of innuendo is pointless.
As to the 9/11 commission they could not have caught a cold. Especially considering some of those on the panel were the ones who enabled 9/11 to occur. The idea the two would have nothing to do with each other because of ideology is so asinine it can only come from a commission.
Especially considering the US government had already linked the two in the mid 90's.
In fact the Clinton Administration made at least two official pronouncements of the alliance between Iraq and Al- qaeda.
One came from Bill Cohen, the defense secretary. He cited an Al-qaeda-Iraq link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
You then might remember that Bush cited the same linkage, in part, (remember there were several listed before the war) to justify invading Iraq.
The other official pronouncement came from the Justice Department in a indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, which are a favorite weapon of terrorists btw.
I quote in part what the indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al-qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al-qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Despite the fact you have not read the book by Hayes plays very little into this because as demonstrated above, the link was established long before the publishing of his book.
Also it has nothing to do with crumbling support of Republicans. Presidents come and go, Those in Congress are nothing more than political animals who like feeding, and as with all political animals they are in it for the moment and only the moment to stay on top of the feeding frenzy.
-
BIGSKY? With what all you just said, what are you trying to say ???
-
BIGSKY? With what all you just said, what are you trying to say ???
JP he's pointing out the link between terrorism and iraq and the reason why we are there in the first place. Because all the liberals in this country keep crying about the war in Iraq.
-
Thanks sluff, too much to read.
-
BIGSKY? With what all you just said, what are you trying to say ???
JP he's pointing out the link between terrorism and iraq and the reason why we are there in the first place. Because all the liberals in this country keep crying about the war in Iraq.
True Sluff.
I have no problem if someone is a pacifist and doesn't like war in the first place no matter what. I can respect a position like that even though I do not agree with it.
However to make the suggestion that Iraq was not a danger in light of what he has done not only against the US, his neighbors in the
ME and to his own people and his refusal to disarm and quit harboring and funding terrorism as per what he requested and agreed to do in the cease fire agreement is quite another. Especially when this danger is dismissed because it is being done just because of a hate for Bush. It is quite clear the double standard that is being applied from the left from what Clinton did and what Bush is doing.
-
BIGSKY? With what all you just said, what are you trying to say ???
JP he's pointing out the link between terrorism and iraq and the reason why we are there in the first place. Because all the liberals in this country keep crying about the war in Iraq.
True Sluff.
I have no problem if someone is a pacifist and doesn't like war in the first place no matter what. I can respect a position like that even though I do not agree with it.
However to make the suggestion that Iraq was not a danger in light of what he has done not only against the US, his neighbors in the
ME and to his own people and his refusal to disarm and quit harboring and funding terrorism as per what he requested and agreed to do in the cease fire agreement is quite another.
I'm in 100% agreement with you Big Sky. I just don't know all the facts and figures to back up what I believe.
-
:popcorn;
Your turn Bill Peckham.
;D :beer1;
-
This is getting better and better. Hey, Epoman, I'm gonna go make some fresh lemonade!
-
Yes folks you can get t-shirts and refreshments in the lobby. :popcorn;
-
Yes folks you can get t-shirts and refreshments in the lobby. :popcorn;
Yep, Hats, T-shirts and Jerseys
-
This thread is now about several things. Let’s take the easiest first.
I asserted that one of the avoidable consequences we will be living with for a long time is the mountain of debt the Bush administration is leaving future generations to deal with (which by the way does not mean Bush couldn‘t have had an Iraq war it means he should have paid as he went. Charging the war is the action leading to the avoidable consequence). Big sky responded: “Mountain of debt? You got to be kidding. We were in a mountain of debt long before Bush took office. Clinton left office with a deficit of almost 6 TRILLION dollars. So don't feign concern to me about saddling Americans in a mountain of debt.”
I put aside how BigSky could know if my concern was righteous instead I point out that by looking at the Clinton Budget years it is clear that at the end of Clinton’s last budget he was responsible for about 27% of the national debt and as the diverse news sources I linked to report, the trend was in our favor. The “table was set” budget-wise for the current Bush administration; despite that, Bush has set in place policies that will double the national debt.
BigSky’s most recent comprehensive post does a fine job knocking down a bizarre straw man that the “Left” is always claiming “that he <Clinton> paid of<f> the national debt”. I don’t know anyone who has ever made that claim but apparently BigSky hears it all the time. I will say BigSky does a great job proving beyond all reasonable doubt that you’d need to be a idiot to think “that he paid of<f> the national debt”. Um okay.
But what about what I wrote? Is it really unfair to bemoan the mountain of debt accumulated under Bush if his share is only a slightly over half of total debt at the end of the 2010/2011 budget year? If Bush supplies 51+% of the mountain doesn’t he get the right to name the Peak? That 13 Trillion dollars of debt will be Mount Bushmore.
BigSky also asserts “The fact of the matter is that in just about any given year the US takes in roughly 180 to 200 trillion a year in revenue. The US almost always spends just as much if not more depending on events in any given year.” That seems high. BigSky these statements would have more credibility if you included some link or source. Including links would clarify, or quote sources. For instance I quote a National Security Estimate showing a net increase in the number of terrorists due to our policies, and then BigSky responds: “Vast amount of terrorists created are not occurring because of this action.” Which I think is meant to say “nut uh, I disagree with the National Intelligence Estimate.” but what are your sources? How do you know more than the NIE?
You do provide a source for one of your assertions “The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, which are a favorite weapon of terrorists btw.”
The source follows (thank you this is helpful) “I quote in part what the indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al-qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al-qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
So you’re taking: “al Qaeda reached an understanding” "would" and from that you read “a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime”. The indictment describes agreements and understandings, would, and you seem to read actions and events, is.
Another common thread to BigSky’s posts is the blame Clinton in every case meme. I think this is borderline thread-jacking. I started the thread, I picked the title: “Iraq Troop Surge”, my initial post was the lyrics to a Pete Seger song. It should be clear that I was suggesting that Iraq is like the Big Muddy of the Pete Seger song and the troop surge was taking us in deeper. BigSky is trying to change the discussion to: is Pete Seger a communist? or did Clinton policies before or after Waco break the law? I think that is an attempted thread-jacking and I am under no obligation to engage these provocations.
BigSky, sluff et al. if you want to start a thread “How can Clinton supporters live with themselves” or “Why do does the Liberals and the Left love al Qaeda?“, go ahead but you do injury only to yourself when you ascribe points of view to me that aren’t part of anything I have written. I agree that “This has never been about my opinion on strategy in Iraq” but it should have been since that was the topic of the thread. And you should not be surprised when asked for your opinion of our Iraq strategy.
Which now gets to the second point of your posts - that I don’t know anything about past historical facts that you are certain of, to an astounding degree. You will need to post some supporting detail because I disagree. Since I sign my posts I am at a disadvantage but please explain why I should take your unsupported assertions? Provide the links (or the CV).
Please link/reference the section(s) of Powel’s speech at the UN in 2003 that your five reasons for military force against Iraq correspond to or please quote a Bush speech, from the prewar period, where he lays out those reasons that you believe are as clear as day or link to any Weekly Standard article published in 2002/3 that puts forth your five clear reasons for going into Iraq.
BigSky to make a point set up yet another straw man - Iraq was a danger,. Um yeah. A danger, the world is full of them. I wrote that in retrospect Iraq was not “a clear and present danger” - the implication was that the summarized position of those for the war was, at the time, “Iraq is a clear and present danger”. I ripped that phrase from the headlines of the period. Here is a prewar link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/746piwrd.asp
And here is a quote from the article in case you’re click phobic (capitals are the author‘s) “YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW the debate over war against Iraq for long without noticing the recurrence of a certain term: "clear and present danger." In fact, if you do a Nexis search for the past six months for "clear and present danger" and "Iraq," you'll find more than 600 mentions. Do the same search on Google and you'll get more than 4,600.”
BigSky you wrote “ It seems you are more intent on sound bytes and little democrat slogans than what is and what has actually happened in our dealings with terrorism worldwide. There is no peace with terrorists and no appeasing them and its mind boggling that you think there is.” How about giving examples comparing my writing with your sources. Suggesting my writing is little more than repeating democratic sloganeering is a slander. My stuff is timely and original. I reference news articles that appeared that day. I’m tying the thread to the news of the day. If you don’t like the NY Times figures for the war cost then you have a beef with them not me but why would I take your word over the New York Times?
BTW I found the link between the Stephen Hayes’ 2004 book and your assertions by Googling sections of your post. That sounds like sloganeering.
I wrote: “Like Hamlet, Bush's biggest mystery concerns his character, his psychology, and his real motivations. Can we make any sense of Bush at all? I can't.” I came up with this Hamlet/Bush thought while I was responding, while typing. It’s a new thought that sums up my feeling about what is going on - the answer all depends on what Bush’s motives are and like Hamlet ones interpretation of his motives says more about the interpreter than it does about Hamlet/Bush.
That thought only occurred to me because of this thread and it is an interesting thing to puzzle over. That alone makes the thread worth my time. I'm enjoying myself.Saying what I write is democratic sloganeering is unfair, these posts are from me to you. In fact dismissing people who have thought Bush was a mistake ever since South Carolina in 2000 is unfair and simplistic. By dismissing everyone who has been horrified every step of the way, you dismiss those who were right for the right reasons.
These next twenty two months are going to be a wild ride. I have a feeling that just about any headline will have us lining up on opposing sides of the partisan divide. One thing is certain: CKD5 is an equal opportunity disease, all political affiliations are welcome.
-
This thread is now about several things. Let’s take the easiest first.
Of course it is, because you could not defend the false message and reason for the song by the commie singer.
I asserted that one of the avoidable consequences we will be living with for a long time is the mountain of debt the Bush administration
is leaving future generations to deal with (which by the way does not mean Bush couldn‘t have had an Iraq war it means he should have paid as he went. Charging the war is the action leading to the avoidable consequence). Big sky responded: “Mountain of debt? You got to be kidding. We were in a mountain of debt long before Bush took office. Clinton left office with a deficit of almost 6 TRILLION dollars. So don't feign concern to me about saddling Americans in a mountain of debt.”
I put aside how BigSky could know if my concern was righteous instead I point out that by looking at the Clinton Budget years it is clear that at the end of Clinton’s last budget he was responsible for about 27% of the national debt and as the diverse news sources I linked to report, the trend was in our favor. The “table was set” budget-wise for the current Bush administration; despite that, Bush has set in place policies that will double the national debt.
BigSky’s most recent comprehensive post does a fine job knocking down a bizarre straw man that the “Left” is always claiming “that he <Clinton> paid of<f> the national debt”. I don’t know anyone who has ever made that claim but apparently BigSky hears it all the time. I will say BigSky does a great job proving beyond all reasonable doubt that you’d need to be a idiot to think “that he paid of<f> the national debt”. Um okay.
But what about what I wrote? Is it really unfair to bemoan the mountain of debt accumulated under Bush if his share is only a slightly over half of total debt at the end of the 2010/2011 budget year? If Bush supplies 51+% of the mountain doesn’t he get the right to name the Peak? That 13 Trillion dollars of debt will be Mount Bushmore.
Clinton's debt alone will never be paid in your lifetime, my lifetime nor the next generations lifetime. Nor will the debt prior to Clinton. So the fact that you try and hold Bush to a double standard on debt is absurd to say the least. The fact that you do, shows this double standard, and once again shows just how deep your hate goes towards this man.
BigSky also asserts “The fact of the matter is that in just about any given year the US takes in roughly 180 to 200 trillion a year in revenue. The US almost always spends just as much if not more depending on events in any given year.” That seems high. BigSky these statements would have more credibility if you included some link or source. Including links would clarify, or quote sources. For instance I quote a National Security Estimate showing a net increase in the number of terrorists due to our policies, and then BigSky responds: “Vast amount of terrorists created are not occurring because of this action.” Which I think is meant to say “nut uh, I disagree with the National Intelligence Estimate.” but what are your sources? How do you know more than the NIE?
You do provide a source for one of your assertions “The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, which are a favorite weapon of terrorists btw.”
The source follows (thank you this is helpful) “I quote in part what the indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al-qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al-qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
So you’re taking: “al Qaeda reached an understanding” "would" and from that you read “a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime”. The indictment describes agreements and understandings, would, and you seem to read actions and events, is.
Hmm include a source or link.
When most talk about debt of this country they already know about the very basics of revenue and expenditures of this country. This is why I say you are repeating talking points because in fact you do not know about the revenue and expenditures thus asking for a link.
If you are going to talk about debt of this country it bemoans you to at least know a few of the basics as to revenue and expenditures.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
Better watch it though they might be watching you if you go to their site. ;D
Yes we all know just how accurate estimates are. ::) We know how well estimates on terrorism worked in the 90's ;)
Why don't you tell us in hard figures just how much the terrorists ranks swelled from Kohbar Towers, 93 WTC, Somalia, Cole, 2 african embassy bombings, 9/11 and Afghanistan.
Even a link was made because of government people who defected from Iraq in the 90's told the US Intelligence that Iraq was harboring such members and training them.
I never said anything about close relationship. I said there was a link. People can work together and not be close. The indictment is one of many things that proves Saddam had a link to Al-Qaeda. You do remember Saddam was FORBIDDEN from even talking with ANY terrorist or terrorist group. Do you not understand what the word FORBIDDEN means? ???
Another common thread to BigSky’s posts is the blame Clinton in every case meme. I think this is borderline thread-jacking. I started the thread, I picked the title: “Iraq Troop Surge”, my initial post was the lyrics to a Pete Seger song. It should be clear that I was suggesting that Iraq is like the Big Muddy of the Pete Seger song and the troop surge was taking us in deeper. BigSky is trying to change the discussion to: is Pete Seger a communist? or did Clinton policies before or after Waco break the law? I think that is an attempted thread-jacking and I am under no obligation to engage these provocations.
LOL
Good grief, it is still beyond you on the reasons he did that song. :banghead; :banghead;
Knowing the motives of why he did that song makes it highly disrespectful and repugnant that it even be used let alone use it as some moral authority on the issue of war. :banghead;
BigSky, sluff et al. if you want to start a thread “How can Clinton supporters live with themselves” or “Why do does the Liberals and the Left love al Qaeda?“, go ahead but you do injury only to yourself when you ascribe points of view to me that aren’t part of anything I have written. I agree that “This has never been about my opinion on strategy in Iraq” but it should have been since that was the topic of the thread. And you should not be surprised when asked for your opinion of our Iraq strategy.
Which now gets to the second point of your posts - that I don’t know anything about past historical facts that you are certain of, to an astounding degree. You will need to post some supporting detail because I disagree. Since I sign my posts I am at a disadvantage but please explain why I should take your unsupported assertions? Provide the links (or the CV).
You had best look what you wrote in the subject line because that was not the topic of this thread. You didn't think so either it because you did not lay out your opinion on strategy in Iraq in your first post.
Please link/reference the section(s) of Powel’s speech at the UN in 2003 that your five reasons for military force against Iraq correspond to or please quote a Bush speech, from the prewar period, where he lays out those reasons that you believe are as clear as day or link to any Weekly Standard article published in 2002/3 that puts forth your five clear reasons for going into Iraq.
Its truly a shame your hate for Bush blinds you so much. Saddam was to meet these in order for war not to occur.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
BigSky to make a point set up yet another straw man - Iraq was a danger,. Um yeah. A danger, the world is full of them. I wrote that in retrospect Iraq was not “a clear and present danger” - the implication was that the summarized position of those for the war was, at the time, “Iraq is a clear and present danger”. I ripped that phrase from the headlines of the period. Here is a prewar link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/746piwrd.asp
And here is a quote from the article in case you’re click phobic (capitals are the author‘s) “YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW the debate over war against Iraq for long without noticing the recurrence of a certain term: "clear and present danger." In fact, if you do a Nexis search for the past six months for "clear and present danger" and "Iraq," you'll find more than 600 mentions. Do the same search on Google and you'll get more than 4,600.”
Hmm I do believe it was that same foolish logic that was applied to Osama Bin Laden and what did that logic get us?.......9/11! :banghead;
What did Russia say?
"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." -- Russian President Vladimir Putin on CNN on June 18, 2004
Russia was on somewhat friendly terms with Iraq because of oil contracts being awarded to them and millions of dollars owed to them. So did Russia make that up?
If I didn't know better I would think you are trying to suggest there has been a conspiracy since 1993 by the world against Saddam in this matter.
BigSky you wrote “ It seems you are more intent on sound bytes and little democrat slogans than what is and what has actually happened in our dealings with terrorism worldwide. There is no peace with terrorists and no appeasing them and its mind boggling that you think there is.” How about giving examples comparing my writing with your sources. Suggesting my writing is little more than repeating democratic sloganeering is a slander. My stuff is timely and original. I reference news articles that appeared that day. I’m tying the thread to the news of the day. If you don’t like the NY Times figures for the war cost then you have a beef with them not me but why would I take your word over the New York Times?
::) Hmm so you are saying that it was your idea and your idea alone to talk about debt? It was yours and yours alone to Monday morning quarterback and talk about missed opportunities in this war?
Sorry but you are saying the same talking points dems have brought up day in and day out in the media. Do you really think because you may reword it that it is original and different? I think not.
Oh my yes the NYT puts the fear into people with its authority and reputation...... oh what shall I do ??? :o(I think this is where the running and screaming in fear emoticon is suppose to go.)
I think the name Jayson Blair says enough about the creditability of the NYT and my opinion of them. :rofl;
BTW I found the link between the Stephen Hayes’ 2004 book and your assertions by Googling sections of your post. That sounds like sloganeering.
I wrote: “Like Hamlet, Bush's biggest mystery concerns his character, his psychology, and his real motivations. Can we make any sense of Bush at all? I can't.” I came up with this Hamlet/Bush thought while I was responding, while typing. It’s a new thought that sums up my feeling about what is going on - the answer all depends on what Bush’s motives are and like Hamlet ones interpretation of his motives says more about the interpreter than it does about Hamlet/Bush.
That thought only occurred to me because of this thread and it is an interesting thing to puzzle over. That alone makes the thread worth my time. I'm enjoying myself.Saying what I write is democratic sloganeering is unfair, these posts are from me to you. In fact dismissing people who have thought Bush was a mistake ever since South Carolina in 2000 is unfair and simplistic. By dismissing everyone who has been horrified every step of the way, you dismiss those who were right for the right reasons.
These next twenty two months are going to be a wild ride. I have a feeling that just about any headline will have us lining up on opposing sides of the partisan divide. One thing is certain: CKD5 is an equal opportunity disease, all political affiliations are welcome.
Its pretty clear the hate of Bush from the 2000 election in the fact that Gore got beat and that no matter what Bush does most of those of the left will continue that hate no matter what.
One only needs to go to what you put in the subject of this thread. Troop surge in Iraq.
Democrats screamed high and dry to send more troops to Iraq. Now Bush is going to do what they wanted and now they are screaming not to do it. This merely shows just what I said in that no matter what Bush does dems will hate him for it.
More than likely we are on opposing sides because of views on government.
:popcorn;
-
the US takes in roughly 180 to 200 trillion a year in revenue
What are you talking about? I thought I was giving you a chance to correct a typo but apparently you believe that either the US economy is that size or that the US Federal Budget is that size but either way it calls into doubt your other conclusions as well. I think my position on the Surge is made perfectly clear in my first post. I think that this strategy is just going in deeper to a place we ought not to be. Was my first post purposely provocative? Yes. And I am glad to know the touchstones of your world view.
I was, as were many Dems in Congress, willing to support a escalation in the short term if it was part of a larger strategy of regional engagement ala the Iraq Study Group, that is not what this "Plus Up" strategy is and therefor I think it is foolish. The clear historical formula is to unify at home and then push forward abroad. Pushing forward abroad with avoidable dissension at home is simply poor leadership and historically myopic.
There is no way to prove that the President's current Iraq policy is or is not the least worst way to go but it should worry people that this policy is not in line with Army doctrain or historical precedent.
-
the US takes in roughly 180 to 200 trillion a year in revenue
What are you talking about? I thought I was giving you a chance to correct a typo but apparently you believe that either the US economy is that size or that the US Federal Budget is that size but either way it calls into doubt your other conclusions as well. I think my position on the Surge is made perfectly clear in my first post. I think that this strategy is just going in deeper to a place we ought not to be. Was my first post purposely provocative? Yes. And I am glad to know the touchstones of your world view.
I was, as were many Dems in Congress, willing to support a escalation in the short term if it was part of a larger strategy of regional engagement ala the Iraq Study Group, that is not what this "Plus Up" strategy is and therefor I think it is foolish. The clear historical formula is to unify at home and then push forward abroad. Pushing forward abroad with avoidable dissension at home is simply poor leadership and historically myopic.
There is no way to prove that the President's current Iraq policy is or is not the least worst way to go but it should worry people that this policy is not in line with Army doctrain or historical precedent.
Yes there was a typo in that I was at first going to type out the actual amount then stopped. it should be 1.8-2.0 trillion. However the remaining is indeed correct in how it correlates to the budget because what I said was not based on 180 and 200 but 1.8 and 2.0 trillion and this correlation is shown by how the deficit still continued to rise during that time despite the claim by Clinton supporters on that issue, so do not fool yourself because of a typo.
Short term? Bush made it very well known that the war on terror was going to be very long and hard fought. My how some soon forget. :'(
-
:popcorn; :popcorn; :wine; :wine; :beer1; :beer1; :grouphug;
-
Yes there was a typo in that I was at first going to type out the actual amount then stopped. it should be 1.8-2.0 trillion. However the remaining is indeed correct in how it correlates to the budget because what I said was not based on 180 and 200 but 1.8 and 2.0 trillion and this correlation is shown by how the deficit still continued to rise during that time despite the claim by Clinton supporters on that issue, so do not fool yourself because of a typo.(
Typos are fine but your reveling in this idea that the Clinton budget surpluses were less than the intrest payments on the total Debt is baffling. How is that suppose to distract from the decisions made when Congress and the Executive are all Republicans? There has been no attempt to pay as you go and there is no one else to blame. I know now what you wish I had written but if you read what I wrote it is exactly right, baring some typo.
Short term? Bush made it very well known that the war on terror was going to be very long and hard fought. My how some soon forget. :'
Again you conflate the war on Terror (which BTW, how can you declare war on a tactic? Was World War I a war on poison gas?) with our actions in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group vision I believe was a short term escalation combined with regional diplomacy followed by phase redeployment. Even Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates are talking months, so yes short term. Long term I think our presence is causing more problems than it's solving.
-
Typos are fine but your reveling in this idea that the Clinton budget surpluses were less than the intrest payments on the total Debt is baffling. How is that suppose to distract from the decisions made when Congress and the Executive are all Republicans? There has been no attempt to pay as you go and there is no one else to blame. I know now what you wish I had written but if you read what I wrote it is exactly right, baring some typo.
Its not baffling its a fact. Look at the prior posted debt chart to see that the deficit still continued to rise during that period.
I blame no one yet time and time again you with your innuendo and double standard towards Bush on this matter and that you try to use it as a basis to complain about the war in Iraq is repugnant to say the least.
Clinton never paid as he went either even though that seems to be your innuendo in the matter. If he did the deficit would never have risen every single year he was in office. Hmm where was that wonderful suggestion of veto on pork as you mentioned towards Bush. Ahh I detect a double standard again.
You really want to complain about debt? Lets get to the very basis of it and how we ended up where we are today because of debt.
You best look to your own for the creation of the debt of this country because it is they who created it and the system for it.
You do remember history right? How founding father Thomas Jefferson (a republican btw)warned that a national banking system would only create a huge national debt for this country.
Or how about the fact that your beloved party under Wilson and the democratic controlled congress IGNORED the warning of one of the most important founders of the country and went full steam ahead and created the Federal Reserve System of which has put this country into a mountain of debt ever since.
So do not give me your insincere bs and concern about debt in this country when its origins started in your own party.
It does amaze me how time and time again democrats by far and large ignore what the founders said and how the founders said the Constitution is to be read. Yes it does happen with Republicans from time to time but not nearly as much as it does with democrats.
Again you conflate the war on Terror (which BTW, how can you declare war on a tactic? Was World War I a war on poison gas?) with our actions in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group vision I believe was a short term escalation combined with regional diplomacy followed by phase redeployment. Even Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates are talking months, so yes short term. Long term I think our presence is causing more problems than it's solving.
We went to war with Afghanistan because they refused to turn bin laden over. Remember now, they never attacked us, or threatened us.
We went to war with Iraq because Saddam refused to comply with UN resolutions and because of Saddams past, present terrorists ties among other things. However Iraq had committed terrorist attacks on the US and threatened to commit more.
It really is not too hard to comprehend. I would think even a simpleton would get it.
Wars are historically fought against countries. This is a new dawn in terms of warfare. Notice how the majority of terrorists strike civilians and not the military. (Imagine that they are not even fighting according to GC's)
Terrorism is not only committed by countries but it is also committed by terrorist groups. So in fact it is a fight on terror and those that commit it. There has never been a war that has been fought in terms of how and what it takes to fight terrorists.
This battle with terrorism will not be fought in the conventional sense of how most wars are fought and to think it should be is absurd.
History has shown us that if we fail to engage a fight with terrorists that we pay the price in huge civilian murders.
Considering that terrorism most likely will always be part of the future just because of its very nature of how it is constructed.
But hey, in all of this maybe we should not fight terrorists as you are saying.
After all.... why should I really care if we fight them or not. The next time they strike what will I have to worry about?
After all it is highly unlikely they will ever strike anything in my state. It is far more likely they will hit major cities in the US long before they hit some one horse town here.
-
Historical Significance
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.
France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not
an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel.
America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after W.W.I and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could. Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses
and the near decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.
Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly
civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.
All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key
moments in history.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological,
or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs --they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam,
should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and
its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian
economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC-- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. You want gas in your car? You wantheating oil next winter?
You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East
will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing........in Iraq.
Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.
Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million
Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad
people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We als o have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their ownagain .. a 27 year war.
World War II cost the United S tates an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. W.W.II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion,which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.
This is not 60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay.
The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore
it.
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is)
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Remember, perspective is every thing, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young
American mind.
The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The US has taken more than 2,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In W.W.II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles o f W.W.II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.
But the stakes are at least as high . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal
freedoms .. or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
It's difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but
evidently not for Iraqis. "Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most?
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins,
wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.
Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
-
This is interesting sluff it is lays out what most people consider the administration’s thinking at least as Raymond Kraft wrote in Oct 2004. As I wrote comparing Bush to Hamlet we’ll never know what motivated Bush for certain. As was reported in Fiasco there was no effort to secure the Iraqi nuclear and suspected WMD depots in the immediate aftermath of the taking of Baghdad - you would think that if this was a battle to keep terrorists from getting WMD and we thought there were WMD there to protect we would have planned to secure all the WMDs. It was after all the reason for going in but more interesting to be reminded of, in retrospect, is the meat of the piece.
Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.
This was our long shot gamble. I mean it was always a big long shot and only seemed plausible from a distance. We went into Iraq because we were going to shake up the status quo and establish an "England in the Middle East”. That was not ever possible. I mean maybe if -- well a million ifs, but really at the time even the President recognized it was a gamble and the thing about gambling (believe me I know this) you can loose when you gamble. It’s a by definition situation. One of the recurring flaws that has run through the entire War on Terror is no one ever seems to plan for failure. And failure does happen. It happened during WWII but in this administration no one seems to ask: “What do we do if it doesn’t work?”. Ike had a plan if Operation Overlord didn’t work, all we have is “failure is not an option”.
Mr. Kraft did not ask “What if?” and here we are it’s 2007 and there is no talk of creating an England in the Middle East. Right now we are looking at creating a Shiite theocracy in Iraq which points up another flaw in Mr. Kraft’s, and I’d say our administration’s, world view. It aint just the Wahabis, i.e. the Saudis (yes even Mr. Kraft‘s “educated, rational Saudis” are Wahabis), who are out to get us. Iran is the big threat maybe the biggest since they have an actual nuclear program, which they have been working on since 1979. But unlike say Germans & Japanese these groups hate each other. This Shiite/Sunni divide is real and deep. That’s one clear spot where the World War II analogy falls apart. In this case the worst thing you could do is fight them both and unite them, which is of course exactly what we did. I would say our current situation is much more analogist to the cold war. And I think the strategy should be the same. Containment.
I know oil. Tomorrow night the President will again use his State of the Union speech to speak about our addiction to oil. The President will suggest a beefed up ethanol program (an oilman’s methadone) but I ask you what would be our approach to the Mideast if we didn’t need their oil? Our approach would be to build a wall and tell them to go ___K themselves. Sure maybe they can someday have their Enlightenment, Renaissance, Reformation, and their own Vatican II but if we didn’t need their oil we would have some much better options. Much, much better options.
I think this would be another point where we, the American people, should have been asked to sacrifice. World War II is remembered for the unity through sacrifice. All Americans participated in the WWII effort if through nothing else but forgoing things need for the war. What have you given up because of the Iraq war? I haven’t sacrificed anything directly. You want to point to moments in time when history pivots? What about the moments after 9/11?
What if the President had said “I am asking all Americans to sacrifice and join the fight against Terror. Over the next two years the price of oil and oil based products will increase in price several fold. This will mean the price of gas in 2004 will be $5.” Of course certain subsidies would be needed for many groups - farmers/rural areas/maritime - but still the message would be clear. What if he also announced that he would ask other countries - a diplomatic effort - to raise their prices as well (no going to Canada or Mexico to fill the tank). Oil would be below $20 a barrel right now and we’d have a pool of money to continue to work to oil self-sufficiency.
Domestic producers could earn $80 a barrel (for internal use, the gas price would be the same $5) for all I care but we would drive the world oil price down through a change in demand. You want see some bickering watch OPEC try to cut supply in an environment of falling prices. Then we would be in position to form agreements with fundamentalist Muslim governed States. Trade, cultural exchanges, the same summit fodder we had with the Soviets. It isn’t too late that would be a great State of the Union tomorrow night if the President changed the calculus with a single speech. But that just isn’t in the cards with this administration.
I would also like to comment on Mr. Kraft’s four options and his final comment:
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is)
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
…
Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
Come on. That’s it? Those were our four options in 2004? What about the option of treating the various factions seperatey; starting the grand bargain diplomacy the Iraq Study Group imagined. Clearly option one is imaging taking out Iran’s nuclear capability which in the last two years has progressed so does that mean we took option two back in October 2004? I wonder if Mr. Kraft thinks we chose option 3? Do we already “accept its <Jihad> dominance in the Middle East”?
Let’s get real and talk about what we can all do to make the Middle East less important and isolate those countries unable to meet some basic standard of human rights and individual dignity. And this ongoing idea that it is because people opposed the Iraq Englandfication Democracy Project that the adventure in Iraq has failed is just an awful and disappointing point to have to refute. Do you really think that anyone is suggesting surrender? Did the retreat from Dunkirk mean Churchill was surrendering to the Nazis? Oh god, sigh, I’ve mentioned Hitler and the Nazis. Now I know this thread has gone too far.
-
You do know your history, that entire article was excerpt from Raymond Kraft. I found it an outstanding read. You bring up very valid points. You and I can never agree about Iraq but I do agree with some of your perceptions.
It will come down to the football eventually. With your level of intellect and knowledge you know what I'm speaking of right?
Do you think it will come to massive attacks of the nuclear level? How do you see this war ending?
-
How do you see this war ending?
Boom, boom, everywhere, boom!
-
I'm not that pessimistic I guess. I think it is important to acknowledge that this is not a zero sum game. Here is an interesting link:
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=r_wright
Author Robert Wright argues that history has an arrow: That humans have continued to evolve -- if not biologically, than culturally and technologically -- toward greater complexity and intelligence. He also explains the concept behind his book, "Nonzero": That life is a nonzero sum game, where there can be more than one winner, and that civilization evolved thanks to such endeavors, which reward cooperation, rather than competition. His guarded optimism is tinged with a deep worry over the growing prevalence of grass-roots hatred. His hope: that the intelligent pursuit of self-interest will actually be the world's salvation. Robert Wright is author of The Moral Animal and NonZero. He also hosts an excellent interview series called meaningoflife.tv. (Recorded February 2006 in Monterey, CA. Duration: 19:54)
This is good stuff and gives plenty to think about. If you are looking for things to think about (and have a beefy internet connection) check out more Bob Write and a wide range of political commentators at http://bloggingheads.tv/ Blogging Heads TV and for even deeper thoughts check out http://meaningoflife.tv/ a site I go back to again and again. I'll give you an end game scenario but right now I have pink eye or something - my eyeball has a headache. I need to rest with my eyes close but check out that 20 minute Bob Write video - the first link - let me know if it makes any sense to you.
-
Saw this and thought of Bill. . . I thought he might like it. :)
-
Friday night on (here: http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/ ), Bill Maher interviewed retired Army Major General ( bio: http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2004/a061404e.html )Paul D. Eaton who was the original Commander in charge of training Iraqi troops. Eaton is a straightforward man who (sworn Senate testimony http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hearings/hearing38/eaton.pdf) doesn't mince words. He written op-ed pieces: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/19/opinion/edeaton.php pointing to Donald Rumsfeld anmd this administration for the majority of the failures in Iraq (including the current problems at Walter Reed). In this interview General Eaton thanks God for the new Democratic majority and lays down some truth:
We've got this thing that so many military believe that Republican administrations are good for the military. That is rarely the case. And, we have to get a message through to every soldier, every family member, every friend of soldiers that the Republican party, the Republican dominated Congress has absolutely been the worst thing that's happened to the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps.
This is what I find hard to understand. Why does supporting the troops mean you must support this President?
-
After five or six months of the "surge," it looks like the Bush administration may be reconsidering the Iraq Study Group. You'd think the people working in this White House would just be too embarrassed to wake up some mornings. From tomorrow's paper
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001406.html?hpid=topnews
After an initially tepid reception from policymakers, the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group are getting a second look from the White House and Congress, as officials continue to scour for bipartisan solutions to salvage the American engagement in Iraq.
-
... does it make sense that the Wahabi terrorists of 9/11 would partner with the Bathist Sadam? ...
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
-
Black I think you're discounting the Wahabi's sense of religious purity. I just finished "God's Terrorists" by Raj historian Charles Allen; his book follows the Wahabi cult in British India 1800-1853.
Osama is reading from the play book Allen outlines. Even religious nut cases have their "rules".
-
This was originally posted by Okarol in another thread but I thought it was fitting here.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ervaMPt4Ha0&autoplay=1
-
Who in America is against the men and women serving our country? It's the big dick cheese that I can't stand!!!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw8TCCkvnkQ
-
Typical
-
Black I think you're discounting the Wahabi's sense of religious purity. I just finished "God's Terrorists" by Raj historian Charles Allen; his book follows the Wahabi cult in British India 1800-1853.
Osama is reading from the play book Allen outlines. Even religious nut cases have their "rules".
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
Religious purity? Hmm yet al-qaeda members drank and went to strip clubs before they committed the acts of 9/11.
-
I'm sure many things are confusing when you have a superficial world view.
The information is there for anyone who cares to know it - OBL is working from a known play book. Too bad in the current administration watching 24 counts as research.
-
Black I think you're discounting the Wahabi's sense of religious purity. I just finished "God's Terrorists" by Raj historian Charles Allen; his book follows the Wahabi cult in British India 1800-1853.
Osama is reading from the play book Allen outlines. Even religious nut cases have their "rules".
Yes, that should be interesting reading, but there have been many changes since 1853 - as previously mentioned, like the purity of the 9/11 terrorists.
Watch for the reports tomorrow on the contents of declassified material released today which contains Osama's instructions to "The Iraqi". It is likely that it contains information on missions "The Iraqi" is to carry out against the US outside of Iraq. Apparently proof of orders directly from Osama to someone in Iraq for attacks outside of Iraq. Something many liberals have claimed never happened. I look forward to learning the details.
-
Interesting http://www.journalism.org/node/5719
So if the reporting of the entire US news media met the approval of this administration's supporters ... followed Fox News ... we'd just hear a lot less about our activities abroad.
It is hard for me to swallow the implication of the "liberal media is sabotaging the war against terror" meme. Accountability improves results - it's true at my job and it is true in the White House. George Bush was poorly served by the Republican Congress and a more skeptical media could of helped him make better decisions if he had stuck to strategies that were intellectually defensible. Strategies that they were willing to discuss in public.