Troop surge in Iraq

[nextnoel]

This is getting better and better.  Hey, Epoman, I'm gonna go make some fresh lemonade!

[BigSky]

Yes folks you can get  t-shirts and refreshments in the lobby.

[Sluff]

Yes folks you can get  t-shirts and refreshments in the lobby.

Yep, Hats, T-shirts and Jerseys

[Bill Peckham]

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.

[BigSky]

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.


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.     

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.

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!

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 (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.

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.

 

[Bill Peckham]

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.

[BigSky]

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.

[kitkatz]

 

[Bill Peckham]

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.

[BigSky]

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.

[Sluff]

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.
 

[Bill Peckham]

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.

[Sluff]

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?

[kitkatz]

How do you see this war ending?

Boom, boom, everywhere, boom!

[Bill Peckham]

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.

[jbeany]

Saw this and thought of Bill. . . I thought he might like it. 

[Bill Peckham]

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?

[Bill Peckham]

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.

[Black]

... 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.

[Bill Peckham]

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".

[Sluff]

This was originally posted by Okarol in another thread but I thought it was fitting here.

http://www.youtube.com/v/ervaMPt4Ha0&autoplay=1

[George Jung]

Who in America is against the men and women serving our country?  It's the big dick cheese that I can't stand!!!

[glitter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw8TCCkvnkQ

[Bill Peckham]

Typical

[BigSky]

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".

 

Religious purity?  Hmm yet al-qaeda members drank and went to strip clubs before they committed the acts of 9/11.