Iraq has made us less safe, end of story

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
AEON said:


Of course it is red meat - it is a response to writers and posters like yourself that apparently do not understand that the global jihad against Americans was already underway.

BTW - isn't it about time the NY Times stops publishing classified material. I am pretty sure there is a law or two about printing such documents.



no freaking way.

i have said, repeatedly, that i do not underestimate the lethality of the individual jihadist.

where we disagree is how we propose to battle said jihadists.

wake up: we are less safe because of Bush. and what, pray tell, did Bush do in his 8 months in office? nothing. nada. and his response to 9-11 has been the biggest American foreign policy since Vietnam.

as for the classified material ... please. no laws were broken. there is nothing in here no one already knew.

Dana Priest of the Washington Post spoke about this on Meet the Press, July 2, 2006 (she broke the story of the secret CIA torture chambers in Eastern Europe):

[q]MS. PRIEST: Every time there’s a national security story they don’t want published, they say it will damage national security. But they—for one thing, they’ve never given us any proof. They say it will stop cooperation, but the fact is that the countries of the world understand that they have to cooperate on counterterrorism. And just like the banks that did not pull out of the system, other countries continue to cooperate, because it’s a common problem.

MS. MITCHELL: But, Dana...

MR. HARWOOD: Have you heard...(unintelligible)...are pulling out from this system? I don’t think so.

MS. MITCHELL: Dana, let me point out that The Washington Post, your newspaper, was behind the others but also did publish this story. And a story you wrote last year disclosing the secret CIA prisons won the Pulitzer Prize, but it also led to William Bennett, sitting here, saying that three reporters who won the Pulitzer Prize—you for that story and Jim Risen and others for another story—were, “not worthy of an award but rather worthy of jail.” Dana, how do you plead?

MS. PRIEST: Well, it’s not a crime to publish classified information. And this is one of the things Mr. Bennett keeps telling people that it is. But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it not a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight, and you can’t do that. Look at the criticism that the press got after Iraq that we did not do our job on WMD. And that was all in a classified arena. To do a better job—and I believe that we should’ve done a better job—we would’ve again, found ourselves in the arena of...

MS. MITCHELL: But, we’ve now had a steady drum beat from the White House all week about this, as you’ve pointed out. Here’s what the president and the vice president have been saying on the stump at campaign events.

(Videotape, Wednesday):

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Last week, the details of this program appeared in the press. There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it, and no excuse for any newspaper to print it.

(End videotape)

(Videotape, Monday):

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging.

What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they’ve been rewarded for it—for example, in the case of the terrorist surveillance program—by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalist. I think that is a disgrace.

(End videotape)

MS. MITCHELL: John, is this policy of trying to use the press as a whipping boy going to work to excite the conservative base and to turn voters out in the midterm elections?

MR. HARWOOD: Well, Republicans certainly think so. They—if you’re a Republican in the White House or in Congress, would you rather talk about immigration, gas prices, the estate tax, all the things that you can’t get done right now, or would you rather go after The New York Times, the Supreme Court on the Guantanamo ruling—we’ll talk about that later—and make hay and say “They’re tying our hands in the war on terrorism”? It’s obvious they’d rather do the latter, and they love this discussion. They’re going to love it even more if Congress takes up legislation on Guantanamo.

MS. MITCHELL: This is, this is clearly not something new. Let me show you a tape from 1992.

(Videotape, October 22, 1992):

PRES. GEORGE BUSH: Here’s my favorite bumper sticker of all, “Annoy the media, re-elect Bush.”

(End videotape)


MS. MITCHELL: And the Democrats, of course, also do this. This is how the Boston Globe covered a Howard Dean-for-president campaign rally back in 2004. “Dean ... told a crowd of supporters [that his campaign] was ‘a struggle between us and the Washington politicians and the established press.’” Bill Safire, what does this remind you of?

MR. SAFIRE: It reminds me of a piece that I did back in the Carter administration where I wrote that Billy Carter, the president’s brother, was overheard talking many times with the Libyan Embassy, and the White House got very excited about that. Why? Because they said the Libyans didn’t know that we had a tap on their embassy. Now, that struck everybody in Washington as totally foolish because for the last 50 years, every single embassy in this town is bugged. Now here’s the president saying, “Who knew that—the details of this program?”

MS. MITCHELL: Let me refresh all of our memories about something else that happened. Take a look at this piece of film.

(Videotape, September 16, 1970):

VICE PRES. SPIRO AGNEW: In the United States today we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.

(End videotape)

MS. MITCHELL: OK. Now whose alliterative phrase was “nattering nabobs of negativism,” Mr. Safire?

MR. SAFIRE: Well, Mr. Agnew was kind enough to credit me with that afterwards because I’m an alliteration nut.

MS. MITCHELL: This was when you were the speechwriter in the White House.

MR. SAFIRE: Right. And I was on loan to Agnew for that speech. I didn’t write the Des Moines speech, Pat Buchanan did that, where he really zapped the press. And again, the Nixon administration in that case got a leg up. And people said, “Hey, yeah, we’re angry at not just Nixon. We’re angry at the Congress and we’re angry at the media.”

MR. BENNETT: Can—may I—can I, can I...

MS. PRIEST: Still, the point is the tension between the media and the government is long-standing. And that’s to be expected. And in fact, all these—many of the people getting up to lambaste the media now are also people that we talk to with our stories, to vet our stories, to say, “What is it in this story that you’re most concerned about?”

MS. MITCHELL: You mean, to hold things back?

MS. PRIEST: To hold things back. In the prison story, we talked with the administration. No one in the administration asked us not to publish the story. In fact, people said, “We know you have your job to do, but please don’t publish the names of the countries where the prisons are located.” So there is a reasoned dialogue that often goes on between the media and the government behind, behind all this.[/q]


(and i'd link, but my compter is being screwy)
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFwVzbPUJ0

I didn't know Nancy Pelosi uploads videos to YouTube, I would think she wouldn't have time for that. YouTube is becoming a real factor in politics.

And I for one have no objection to Tim Ryan videos :wink:

Does Bush upload videos there? Now THAT I would love to see.

I would like to see the youtube video of Nancy Pelosi saying this:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

That would be so cool :) It is amazing she is saying this 4 YEARS before Bush deceived her and the rest of us into going to war.

Man, that would be great to see.
 
AEON said:


I would like to see the youtube video of Nancy Pelosi saying this:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

That would be so cool :) It is amazing she is saying this 4 YEARS before Bush deceived her and the rest of us into going to war.

Man, that would be great to see.



where does she say, "and this situation can ONLY be remedied through a unilateral invasion!"

where?
 
Irvine511 said:




where does she say, "and this situation can ONLY be remedied through a unilateral invasion!"

where?

No, I think Hillary took up that mantle -

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
 
AEON said:


No, I think Hillary took up that mantle -

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



you said Pelosi. Hilary still supports the war (and gets hell from the Left, and no credit from the Right), she just doesn't support how the war has been conducted. does anyone? do you? do you really feel as if the war and post-war have been waged competently by competent, serious men?
 
Irvine511 said:




you said Pelosi. Hilary still supports the war (and gets hell from the Left, and no credit from the Right), she just doesn't support how the war has been conducted. does anyone? do you? do you really feel as if the war and post-war have been waged competently by competent, serious men?

The initial mission – taking out Saddam and his ruling party – was indeed a success. I do believe that mistakes were made in the occupation – and that is obvious. However, it doesn’t mean the entire war was a mistake.

Yes, there are extremely competent and serious men making difficult decisions every day regarding Iraq. Our military is already adapting to a quickly changing battlefield.

Our biggest obstacle in Iraq isn’t the Iraqi insurgents or the imported terrorists. Our biggest obstacles are the defeatists here in America. I cannot believe there are politicians who are openly asking American men and women to die for a mistake. They say “the war was a mistake” in the very same sentence that they say “but we must keep the troops in Iraq.” What a horrible way to try and win a war.

Both parties agreed that we should go knock out Saddam. Mission accomplished. Now both parties need to agree on how to win the peace - and then stick to it until the end.
 
This is a quote from Tom Barnett - a Democrat and brilliant strategist

September 27, 2006
How low do we go?

EDITORIAL: "No longer a secret: Iraq war breeds terror threat," USA Today 27 September 2006, p. 12A.

Quoting the NIE report, "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

You want to know what this estimate would say if Saddam was still in power?

It would read, "The Afghan conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

You want to know what this estimate would say if the Taliban were still in power?

It would read, "America's support for the Musharref regime in Pakistan has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.

And if Musharref was gone?

It would read, "America's military assistance to Israel in its conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

And if Israel was gone?

It would read, "America's emergency support to the Mubarek regime has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

And if the Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egypt?

It would read, "America's rescue of the House of Saud has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

And if the Salafi jihadists got control of Saudi Arabia?

It would read, "America's support to Iran in the emerging conflict with the Salafi jihadist front of Arab states has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

Is there anyone out there naive enough to believe the Salafi jihadist movement has ever been without a 'cause celebre'?

How low would we need to go to avoid pissing off the Salafi jihadists? To stop their women-hating, bloodthirsty reign of terror desired to enslave as much of the world as possible?

I'm with Hitchens on this one. Let's give 'em a 'cause celebre' every day of the week.
 
Irvine511 said:
the Iraq War has endangered the US (and everyone else):


[/q]

Its a bit curious to see you bringing up the NIE report when you totally ignore what the NIE said about Iraq in 2002.

In any event, the report only estimates that the Jihad movement has spread and admits it cannot show with precision that this is indeed the case.

It goes on to say that "Should Jihadist leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

That shows that Democratic party plans to abandon Iraq are indeed a step in the direction that would help the Jihad movement as opposed to hindering it.


The report does NOT say that invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power has made the United States "less safe". It says the that the Jihad movement has spread and Iraq is one of the underlining factors, but it cannot measure that this is the case with precision.

But Afghanistan, is just as much a rallying point for extremist Muslims as Iraq is, and if the United States were not in Iraq at the moment, you can be sure that these extremist elements would be focused on Afghanistan just as they did in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was there.

The United States and its allies had important and necessary reasons for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and removing their regimes. Saddam's actions in 1990-1991 caused the single largest deployment of US troops at any time since World War II! No other leader in the region had invaded and attacked four different countries or used WMD as many times as Saddam had. Leaving an un-contained, un-verifiably disarmed Saddam in power would have been a disasterous mistake. Al Quada and the insurgents in Iraq are currently in no position to invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia as Saddam was, or to cut of the planets energy supply from these vital area's. Saddam and the Taliban were both threats that had to be removed despite the obvious recruitment advertisment it would give the extremist elements in the region.

The United States today and through out its history has often faced a multitude of simultaneous threats and it does not have the luxury of simply ignoring all of them so it can just focus in on one threat. Its as absurd as those who only wanted to go to war with Japan and not Germany back in World War II.
 
Irvine511 said:
this does beg the question: what do we do next?

and there needs to be more than schadenfreude on the parts of Democrats, and all those around the world who opposed iraq from the beginning.

though, given all the dick swinging and flag waving and flight suit stuffing that went on in 2003 by the administration, at least a little Schadenfreude is understandable.

but what do we do?

i'm thinking the three state solution might be the only way out.

The solution is to continue to build on the progress that has already been made. Its going to take another 4 and half years before the Iraqi military will be ready to independently stand on its own without the support of coalition troops. Once that is accomplished though, coalition troops will be able to start coming home in large numbers. The main security problems the country has continue to be in the 4 Sunni dominated provinces while the other 14 are remain relatively calm.

The first elected Iraqi government has only been in place since June 2006, to short of a time for many of the wild expectations people have placed on it. Nation Building is a process that takes years and will involve success and accomplishments as well as setbacks. Keeping the leaders of the various regions together and talking and working to unify the country will yield better results in the long run than dividing them.

The Sunni insurgents and other extremist in the country are not going to stop fighting if the coalition leaves or someone attempts to split the country into three parts. Thats a recipe for increased warfare perhaps on scale of what was seen in Bosnia.

Many people in the Foreign Policy community tried to bring about a 3 state solution in Bosnia and it failed. Ultimately what succeeded in bringing the conflict to an end unfortunately was the immense slaughter after only 3 years in which nearly 10% of the population was wiped out and then the sudden entry of the United States and NATO into the conflict in 1995. Keeping Bosnia together, rather than carving it up proved to be the solution. Muslims, Croats and Serbs filled Kosovo Stadium in Sarajevo 9 years ago this month for U2 POPMART. Only two years earlier these three ethnic groups were involved in one of the bloodiest Civil Wars anyone had ever seen in history.

Division of Iraq is not a longterm solution. Iraqi's will be less likely to engage in war and be able to better resist the unwanted influence of neighbors if they remain united. Dividing Iraq will not end the Sunni insurgents quest to re-conquer the country and will not remove Al Quada from the country.

Building the Iraqi military, continuing the political process that has been started, and funding reconstruction and economic efforts through out the country is the solution, but its going to take years to succeed. Division and withdrawal of the coalition will only push the country toward a real Civil War with casaulty levels similar to the war in Bosnia, about 40 times greater than what is being seen in Iraq at the moment.
 
AEON said:
This is a quote from Tom Barnett - a Democrat and brilliant strategist
I understand the logic here, but if you take it to its fullest extreme, then why not go ahead and invade Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia while we're at it, because what the hell, either way they'll frame it as a "cause celebre" (I think he really means "casus belli") anyhow. There are only so many fronts we can effectively fight on at once, and that requires long-term judicious foresight about which trouble spots warrant (military) priority.

As for people who sincerely believe invading Iraq was the wrong "cause celebre" venture to prioritize, but feel we're morally obligated to stay and prevent the country from descending into chaos nonetheless, what would you prefer them to say? Is protecting Iraq from the insurgents' agenda not a worthy cause?
 
yolland said:

Is protecting Iraq from the insurgents' agenda not a worthy cause?

It absolutely is - and the war should probably be "re-packaged" in this light.
 
If you don't think the world is in a tailspin at the moment, you must be in a coma. Where you can aim the direct blame for that, not sure.
 
yolland said:


As for people who sincerely believe invading Iraq was the wrong "cause celebre" venture to prioritize, but feel we're morally obligated to stay and prevent the country from descending into chaos nonetheless, what would you prefer them to say?

How about recognizing how important the region just to the south of Iraq is to the economic survival of the planet and making the connection that instability in Iraq and the return of a threatening regime to power there is obviously not in the best interest of the United States or the rest of the world.
 
the war in iraq was just for oil and for the beneficiaries of war like halliburton etc...thats the truth!
all the other outcomes was just an alibi for the ignoramus. the acting of devil bush and his criminals is hypocritical and bigoted.
no power for the misguided religious fanatics over the whole planet.
 
(AP)Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday major policy changes are needed because the Iraq war has divided the nation "almost as much as Vietnam."

"So there's no doubt that our country is in much more danger now from terrorism than it would have been if we would have done what we should have done and stayed in Afghanistan," he said on the campaign trail with his son, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Jack Carter.

The former president said the Bush administration made a "terrible mistake" by invading Iraq and diverting troops from Afghanistan.

Jack Carter criticized his opponent, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., for supporting the Iraq war. Both Carters also said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should go.

"I think he's one of the worst secretaries of defense we've ever had," the former president said of Rumsfeld. "Almost every decision he has made has aggravated his military subordinates and has also proved to be a mistake."
 
LPU2 said:
The bombings certainly weren't thwarted by the US occupation of Iraq. Republicans need to stop kissing Bush's ass long enough to wake up and realize how dangerous terrorism really is, and that every minute, dollar and life we waste in Iraq is a minute, dollar and life we should be using to fight terrorism.
Do you support the Patriot Act?
If so, I don't see what your problem with Bush is.
If not, what is a more effective way to legislate policies for counter-terrorism?
 
jacobus said:
the war in iraq was just for oil and for the beneficiaries of war like halliburton etc...thats the truth!
all the other outcomes was just an alibi for the ignoramus. the acting of devil bush and his criminals is hypocritical and bigoted.
no power for the misguided religious fanatics over the whole planet.
:lmao:

Gas prices went UP as a result of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But go on, spew out everything you learned from Hugo Chavez.
 
STING2 said:
How about recognizing how important the region just to the south of Iraq is to the economic survival of the planet and making the connection that instability in Iraq and the return of a threatening regime to power there is obviously not in the best interest of the United States or the rest of the world.

Ah now we're getting somewhere real. Please expand on this with your usual level of analysis and detail so that people CAN recognize this importance so we can transcend the ideological and religious BS smokescreen.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
wake up: we are less safe because of Bush. and what, pray tell, did Bush do in his 8 months in office? nothing. nada. and his response to 9-11 has been the biggest American foreign policy since Vietnam.
And what did Clinton do his EIGHT YEARS in office to prevent further terrorist attacks after the '93 WTC attack?

He talked.
Obviously, it didn't enlighten our enemies.

And we can talk about Vietnam all we want. Not because we lost, but how we lost it. If you can't explain how we lost it, than it's fair to say that you learned nothing from it.

Lyndon Johnson - a man who put more dollars into his "War on Poverty" than the Vietnam War - thought it was a more righteous policy to fill the jungles with US troops in guerilla warfare than to withdrawl 80% of the troops and bomb military targets, as Nixon effectively did. That's why 49 states out of 50 re-elected him. He was well on his way to winning the war in honor, as he promised. Of course, Watergate was a curse like no other, but the Democrats saw it as golden. They used it to hammer Nixon's reputation - to some degree justified, if used properly, but it was wrongfully misused to dishonor the war in Vietnam by putting MILLIONS of lives at risk.

Under a Democratic Congress, they used Watergate as an excuse to turn their backs on a faithful ally - South Vietnam. The Democratic Congress demanded that the president had their approval before the bombings were resumed in Vietnam. After the North Vietnamese invaded the South, the Democrats refused to provide humanitarian aid for the South Vietnamese. The Democrats ignored Gerald Ford when he pled for more aid. Thanks to them, we had the worst military defeat in American History, the Fall of Saigon.

For the first time in American History, a war was not lost on the battlefied, but on Capitol Hill. The Peace Movement turned out to be a complete fraud, as it produced death camps, slaughter, and political prisoners. The Communists flooded Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in one of the greatest massacres in history - Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his followers were estimated murdering 1 million to 4 million in Cambodia - out of a population of 7 million.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


There's quite a bit of info out there, plus how many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq and how many from SA?
ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Was 9/11 funded by the Saudi government?

If so, can you back it up?
 
Re: Re: Iraq has made us less safe, end of story

STING2 said:


Its a bit curious to see you bringing up the NIE report when you totally ignore what the NIE said about Iraq in 2002.



yes, because nothing has changed in 4 years? so you believe it in 2002, but ignore it in 2006 because you don't want to fess up to a massive failure?


[q]That shows that Democratic party plans to abandon Iraq are indeed a step in the direction that would help the Jihad movement as opposed to hindering it. [/q]

you're taking a step here that i'm not taking. i haven't advocated a withdrawal from Iraq. i think there are several options to consider, from the "three state" solution to the moving of all American troops to the Kurdish north where they can make tactical strikes akin to how they got Zarqawi. and only some Democrats are advocating full withdrawal. what everyone IS advocating is that the present strategy, or, more accurately, non-strategy, is clearly not working. that going into Iraq in the way that we did, and with the lack of postwar plan, has spurred the cause of Jihadism and given us very little in return. very little.


[q]The report does NOT say that invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power has made the United States "less safe". It says the that the Jihad movement has spread and Iraq is one of the underlining factors, but it cannot measure that this is the case with precision.[/q]

wow, you're really splitting hairs here. what more do you need for the report to say? does it say that the removal of Saddam Hussein has made us more safe? does it say that the removal of SH has lessened the Jihadist movement (the only true threat to the US mainland, as SH was NEVER a threat to new yorkers or washingtonians going to work on a Tuesday morning)?


[q]But Afghanistan, is just as much a rallying point for extremist Muslims as Iraq is, and if the United States were not in Iraq at the moment, you can be sure that these extremist elements would be focused on Afghanistan just as they did in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was there.[/q]

and? so give them TWO rallying points? give them TWO muslim countries under American/Western occupation? why didn't we actually stop and deal with Afghanistan and get the job done there?


[q]Saddam and the Taliban were both threats that had to be removed despite the obvious recruitment advertisment it would give the extremist elements in the region.[/q]

and around and around and around we go. i'm so sick of hashing out the same arguments and you giving off the same lines with the obligatory exclamation points.

Saddam is gone, but violence and, more importantly, TORTURE in Iraq is as bad as it ever was under SH and Iran wields far more influence than it did, and it is in the process of becoming nuclearized. the Taliban is not gone, in fact, it is resurgant.

so until we actually deal with these problems, you should stop listing them as accomplishments.


The United States today and through out its history has often faced a multitude of simultaneous threats and it does not have the luxury of simply ignoring all of them so it can just focus in on one threat. Its as absurd as those who only wanted to go to war with Japan and not Germany back in World War II.

almost as absurd as the gratiutious World War 2 comparisons.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
And we can talk about Vietnam all we want. Not because we lost, but how we lost it. If you can't explain how we lost it, than it's fair to say that you learned nothing from it.

It was lost because the rationale for war and objectives were not clear and there was no clear exit strategy before military action was initiated. Pretty basic stuff.

Sound familiar?

The political manoeuvering and finger-pointing in Washington only served to drag out the process for many years while American troops died in the thousands, carried out atrocities on civilians because they were almost indistinguishable from the enemy and anti-war sentiment grew steadily in the US and the west.

Sound familiar?

What have you learned?

How can you possibly win?
 
STING2 said:
Building the Iraqi military, continuing the political process that has been started, and funding reconstruction and economic efforts through out the country is the solution, but its going to take years to succeed. Division and withdrawal of the coalition will only push the country toward a real Civil War with casaulty levels similar to the war in Bosnia, about 40 times greater than what is being seen in Iraq at the moment.



and if you sincerely believed this, i'd expect to hear you chanting for Rumsfeld's resignation and Bush's impeachment. even if you think Bush got the big thing right (remove Saddam) how can you stand there and think that the "big thing" has even been executed with any sort of competence?

nothing the administration has done is going to lead you to your goal.

you have a choice: send 500,000 troops and raise taxes to pay for the war, or retreat.
 
AEON said:
Our biggest obstacle in Iraq isn’t the Iraqi insurgents or the imported terrorists. Our biggest obstacles are the defeatists here in America. I cannot believe there are politicians who are openly asking American men and women to die for a mistake. They say “the war was a mistake” in the very same sentence that they say “but we must keep the troops in Iraq.” What a horrible way to try and win a war.



defeatist? people who demand competence from their leaders are defeatists? people who don't think that American troops should be used to make a point or send a message -- George Bush has a really big dick and we can knock out any leader on earth if we want and only use a few troops to do so and then we'll get out and install someone we little a little bit better who'll sell us cheaper oil -- are defeatists?

let's get this clear: we are losing the war on terror. this is what the NIE says. no, it doesn't say, as STING would like, "Iraq has made the Jihadists movement worse." it does say that Iraq is one of many factors that has made the Jihadists movement into a vastly greater threat than it was a short while ago.

under Bush and Rumsfeld, we've lost ground strategically, ideologically and politically. much of this is because the war in Iraq has been badly, badly mismanaged by people who were never serious about following through (on STING's prediction of 8 years of occupation!) to begin with. an ineffective occupation that doesn't bring democracy. the Rumsfeld-led military that promotes torture and utilizes interrogation techniques made popular by the USSR, the Strasi, and the Viet Cong has turned the image of the American military into Abu Ghraib, and all this has in turn inspired Jihadists across the globe.

we agree on the lethality of the individual Jihadist. we do. i live directly in the line of fire (though i'm still at far more danger from, say, 2nd hand cigarette smoke than i am from any Jihadist).

so why would we support a foreign policy that creates, incubates, nutures, and inspires precisely the kind of enemy you've said you've enlisted in the National Guard to combat?
 
AliEnvy said:
It was lost because the rationale for war and objectives were not clear and there was no clear exit strategy before military action was initiated. Pretty basic stuff.
Okay, you ignored pretty much every point I made.

AliEnvy said:
The political manoeuvering and finger-pointing in Washington only served to drag out the process for many years while American troops died in the thousands, carried out atrocities on civilians because they were almost indistinguishable from the enemy and anti-war sentiment grew steadily in the US and the west.
The anti-war sentiment was bred in media, academia, and eventually Capitol Hill. Unless you can prove otherwise, the "peace" movement has NEVER resulted in peace.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
The anti-war sentiment was bred in media, academia, and eventually Capitol Hill. Unless you can prove otherwise, the "peace" movement has NEVER resulted in peace.


and the "war" movement has never resulted in peace either.

war is good for business.
 
Back
Top Bottom