awesome speech! On one hand, I could see that happening, then, reality steps in and the other hand waves frantically and goes "Hello? Do you REALLY want to roll the cosmic dice that the Dem's will screw up the country sooo bad by Nov '08 that the voters will come to their senses and vote Fred Thompson in? Do you REALLY wanna risk TEOTWAWKI?"
Sometimes, I agree, you wonder if there was a big, red "RESET" button somewhere you could push to fix all the ills in this country...but at what cost?
That's the speech our President would give if he was a defeatist. But he's not; he's hanging in there for the few of us who truly realize what the stakes are, both domestic and foreign.
Has anyone here truly reflected on the utter pounding this man has taken during the last six years from the media, the world and our own so-called countrymen? Nothing, absolutely nothing this man does is ever complimented or praised. Everything is not enough, not quite, not at all, too late, too soon, stupid or just plain wrong. I don't know how he endures it. But he is weakening, the juices are drying up, and he looks just plain tired.
Maybe your right, Kevin. Maybe this country needs a good solid dose of Democratic one-worlder leftist ideology to snap people to their senses. But we'll endure not because of it, but in spite of it.
OK, I haven't made any comments for awhile but I really can't believe what I am reading here. What planet are you people living on?
George Bush is taking a pounding because he is doing a piss poor job of running this country. Kevin, you know I have a lot of respect for you but that speech you put up is a rose colored view of a reality that simply does not exist. Bush does not have our country's best interest at heart.
He is only concerned with his and his pals business interests. Ask yourselves these questions:
1. Why does President Bush continually support a country that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers?
2. Why would President Bush sell the management of our ports to Dubai, a country that had produced 2 of the 19 hijackers?
3. Why would President Bush say that Osama bin Laden, the man who carried out the 9-11 attacks, "doesn't matter? Why is he still at large? Why is Ayman el Zawahari still at large?
The worst attack in our country's history occurred on HIS watch and the men behind it are still out there? And this is OK with all of you? He spent the entire month of August of 2001 on vacation and he, along with his staff, ignored every report about the threat of Al Qaeda including the one title "Al Qaeda determined to attack in the US."
He sat there for SEVEN MINTUES AND DID NOTHING after Andrew Card told him that the nation was under attack. If a Democrat had done any of these things, all of you (and me) would have called for his head. But no...oh no...not Saint George. He gets a free pass on everything because of the "stakes." What a load of shit.
Fact: World Wide Terrorism went up 25 percent. This is from the US State Departement. Two thirds of those attacks occurred inside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush Co has made our country less safe, not more safe, by using the absolutely wrong tool for the job. Our armed forces are only a small part of what is needed to defeat the people who would do us harm.
We need to focus more effort on intelligence, specifically human inteligence, and infiltrate the various cells around the world. We need to beef up our Arabic speaking inteligence gathering units and start learning more about the various factions witin the Muslim world. We need to reach out to the moderates of each country in the Middle East and start to learn. Being smarter about your enemy defeats your enemey.
We need to start being better detectives, like the Brits who have foiled two major terrorist plots in the last year simply by using their investigative skills. We need to train elite special forces units, in conjunction with the Pakistani government, to raid Al Qaeda strongholds on the Afghan-Pakistani border. This is where the problem is.
Read this:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/agosta/
Guess where these subs are? Less than 100 miles away the Afghan-Pakistani border. That means that four nuclear submarines are sitting in a hotbed of anti American sentiment (Karachi) less than two hours away from the men who carried out the worst attack on our nation's soil. And where are we?
Refereeing a cival war, which according to General David Patreus (top man in Iraq) cannot be won militarily and has to be won...how? Diplomatically. So, what?....is he a wuss too now like all the liberals you people continully rip on here?
All of you are making the mistake in thinking that taking a stand in Iraq is what is going to show our enemy our resolve. In fact, what we are doing there is having the opposite effect. Bush Co has created a giant terrorist training ground in which young recruits can ply their trade and then take it on the road.
Bush has lost the faith of the people because he is incompetent not because of the "liberal" media or weak willed people. He, like many of you, can't admit when they are wrong and instead
shift the blame to your favorite whipping boy....Democrats.
Bush had the faith of the world behind him after 9-11. There were candlelight vigils in Tehran for crying out loud! He had the support of the world to liquidate terrorism. We could have been much farther along in our struggle. Instead, he chose to squander that by invading a country, that had nothing to do with 9-11, to prove to all of his daddy's pals that he could sit at the grown ups table and make them rich.
Even though I am conservative on some issues, I could never be a part of a group that calls so loudly for more personal responsibilty and yet accepts none, even the face of the glaringly obvious.
Markadelphia, you're a twit. I'll only address one of your silly remarks. The Pakistani's ordered 3, not 4, SSK Agosta 90B submarines from France. They are SSKs, not SSNs, so just from the name you should've realized they're not nuclear, as is made clear in the article you referenced. Did you even read it? And just what's a submarine in the Arabian going to do to our troops in Afghanistan, pray tell? Which, by the way, is a lot further than 100 miles from Afghanistan, as even a brief look at any map would tell you. What are they going to do, truck them over the Hindu Kush mountains and then slip stealthily down the mountain streams to fire torpedoes and Exocet anti-ship missiles at our troops?
The original order called for four but they changed it to three subs when they couldn't afford to pay for the last one.
While the specs for the Agosta 90B subs say it is equipped to fire Exocet missiles and torpedoes, at a press briefing following the annual naval exercise Seaspark-2001, Rear Adm. Mohammad Afzal Tahir, the deputy chief of naval staff for operations, announced that the Pakistan navy was considering equipping its submarines with nuclear missiles. He suggested the Agosta 90B submarine, with its air independent propulsion system, can deliver nuclear weapons.
I double checked this with my friend Matt, who has served on a nuclear sub (also just back from Iraq) and he says they can deliver nuclear warheads up to a range of around 10,000 miles. Go to this site and read "Dodging the Nuclear 9-11"
http://howardbloom.net/
I think you will find that much of what Howard says about Al Qaeda is line with how many people here feel. I don't agree with all of it but the threat is very real and after their track record, I do not trust President Bush and his administration to pay attention to this.
Concur. Markadelphia holds positions highly indicative of twittery.
It is said that name calling effectively checks one out of the debate.
Sometimes that is true.
Other times, it simply shorthand for "the time spent refuting the flaws of the presented assertions is better spent doing something else, like eating lunch."
-------------
This is however, not to be construed as taking the position that Bush is flawless, above reproach, and has done a masterful job.
He has not.
Far from it, in fact.
What he has done is a mediocre job.
What he has done, however, is the CORRECT job, and for mostly the correct reasons.
Unfortunately, the terms of the national debate tend to polarize to unreasonable extremes that either approximate Markadelphia's position, or the Bush as saint position.
To put it another way, where the terms of the national debate to be productive, it wouldn't be about whether to do this job or not, but rather, how to more effectively go about it.
Spastic assertions such as "Bu$hitler isn't interested in the welfare of the country, only his pals wallets" rings of no truth, is unproductive, and really has no place in the debate.
Or rather, it has no place in the debate that's taking place at the grownup table.
Assertions like that are meritless shiny red herrings designed to hold the attention of the distractible masses.
Hmm. That's funny..."They always employ the same stock words and phrases in chanting about an issue, whenever that issue arises. They always make the presentation as annoying and offensive as possible to the “unbeliever.”
You mean like "Defeatocrat" or "loony liberal" or any of the other myriad of repetive phrases we have heard for the last six years from the neocon propaganda machine?
Interesting that Mr Poretto only allows concurring points of view in his comments.
Refuted? Offensive? I judge my leaders based on their actions and the outcome of those actions. I don't care what party they belong to...
Markadelphia, you're a twit. I'm not into name calling, but goddamnit, Larry is right, and you need to read such more than once.
But, I'll address more than one of your remarks:
He sat there for SEVEN MINTUES AND DID NOTHING after Andrew Card told him that the nation was under attack. If a Democrat had done any of these things, all of you (and me) would have called for his head. But no...oh no...not Saint George. He gets a free pass on everything because of the "stakes." What a load of shit.
When Andrew Card notified President Bush that the nation was under attack, he was reading a story in a classroom full of children. If it had been believed at that time that he was in imminent danger, then the Secret Service would have yanked him from that room in a heartbeat and got him the hell out of there. They didn't. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they knew, at that time, a whole lot more than you know know.
So, what did he do? He did precisely what he should have done, which is finish the story and leave. Why was that the correct thing to do? Because that prevented the panic that would have propagated to the whole country had he scrammed from that room. He was intelligent enough to understand that then, in the heat of the moment, but you're not intelligent enough to undertand it now, with endless time to think about it.
And what did he personally do after those seven minutes that would have been better done seven minutes earlier in the midst of a growing panic? Do you suppose he depends on trained, skilled, professionals to whom he delegates authority, as any competent leader does, or do you think he personally makes everything happen that is of any importance?
We need to start being better detectives, like the Brits who have foiled two major terrorist plots in the last year simply by using their investigative skills.
How many terrorist attacks have been foiled by our intelligence services using their investigative skills? Do they tell you such things, or do they just quietly and invisibly do their jobs? Here's a hint: there haven't been any successful Islamic terrorist attacks committed in this country since 9/11, have there?
All of you are making the mistake in thinking that taking a stand in Iraq is what is going to show our enemy our resolve.
Amazing. Simply amazing. Keeping our committments, finishing the job we started, and helping a new ally until it is a self-supporting democracy does not show our resolve. I have seldom ever read anything more dunderheaded and irrational in my whole life.
You have bought into the notion that George W. Bush is a dunce. It has been the most successful "big lie" ever put out by the dimocrats. You have bought into the notion that he is driven by the notion of making his pals rich. You apparently cannot see that the dimocrats are driven only by getting back into power, regardless of any threats this country faces, and are more than willing to guarantee this country's defeat in a war to do so.
Alright folks, fair is fair...on the subject of name calling...
"...most of you are too damn stupid to realize ..."
"...because a small handful of noisy idiots..."
"...If I was the liar you morons take me for,...
"You idiots need to understand..."
"you actively support those who help the enemy..."
Please....
And DJ, just who exactly is our "new ally"? Is it the Shi'ite? Or the Sunni? Or how about the Kurds? Dunderheaded and Irrational? By your own statements in previous posts, that part of the world is incapable of sustainting a democracy...so now they are? Which is it?
No, DJ, the speech was written for YOU so you can absolve yourself of the responsibility of the largest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country, which is, in fact, making the enemies of our country stronger every day.
Markadelphia, our new ally is IRAQ. It is a country that is populated by minorities, just as this country is. Step back and read the name of this blog again.
Yup, I'll say it again:
All of you are making the mistake in thinking that taking a stand in Iraq is what is going to show our enemy our resolve.
Amazing. Simply amazing. Keeping our committments, finishing the job we started, and helping a new ally until it is a self-supporting democracy does not show our resolve. I have seldom ever read anything more dunderheaded and irrational in my whole life.
No, DJ, the speech was written for YOU so you can absolve yourself of the responsibility of the largest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country, which is, in fact, making the enemies of our country stronger every day.
So, now I am responsible for the largest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country? Mercy sakes -- how did I do that?
You've convinced us long ago, but not of what you might wish. When you reach the bottom of the hole, it's time to stop diggin'.
Keeping our commitments...our original committment was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He is dead and his regime is gone. Then it was to insure they did not receive WMDs. They never had them and they don't have any now. Now, it is about...what exactly? Staying the course? What is our course? Since the "job" has changed at least three times, possibly more, it's hard to define how to finish it. People are being killed their everyday and we bear some of the responsibility for creating the chaos. Don't we?
In the meantime, we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, continue to allow extremists to flourish in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and enabled an enemy with more power than they ever should have, Iran.
Strategically speaking, Iraq is hampering us from disrupting terrorist activities because combat troops should not be used to fight terror. Combat troops should be used for combat and that is NOT what is happening in Iraq.
Make no mistake about it, DJ. I know who our enemies are and what they are capable of doing. I want to stop them. I want to prevent them from launching another attack on our country. So do many people who you look down your nose at as "weak" or "twitish." The days of conservative reframing (i.e. Democrats must be weak because they don't agree with me and I am always right and strong) are over.
The days of "Bush the moron, who can't do anything right" aren't though, yes? Look, the guy isn't perfect, but I honestly think that the welfare of this country is first in his priorities. Whining about the seven minutes he spent reading to kids on 9/11 is just lame. What would you have expected him to do? Run into a phone booth and change into a Superman outfit? You want to prevent terrorist from launching another attack on our country but you don't want us to kill them in Iraq. How do we stop them then? Scold them? Shake our fingers? Or would you rather we fight them here?
If you won't use combat troops to kill terrorists, who would you use? Girl Scouts? Or would you rather treat it as a "police problem" as Kerry suggested? I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that "Iraq is hampering us from disrupting terrorist activities because combat troops should not be used to fight terror". If we're so hampered, why have we not seen another attack on our soil? Our guys in Iraq are drawing them there like moths to flame and killing them.
President Bush has stated, "I've told the prime minister [of Iraq] that our goal in Iraq is to strengthen his government and to support his efforts to build a free Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and is an ally in the war against the terrorists."
That's clear enough for me. I think we should leave once that has been accomplished. The dimocrats appear to think we should leave on Tuesday because it is Tuesday. Yeah, that'll work.
... combat troops should not be used to fight terror.
The people who are fighting to destroy us using terror tactics use military weapons as well as vehicles, airplanes, bombs, and poisons, and they don't use nuclear weapons only because they don't (yet) have one. They use whatever works, they use it without regard for human life (even their own), and (I believe) will be stopped only by being killed.
So, what do you think we should use against them? Harsh language? Subpoenaes? Commercials? Laws?
Combat troops should be used for combat and that is NOT what is happening in Iraq.
What is it called when our troops shoot at the enemy, and vice-versa, using small arms, mortars, missiles, tanks, and JDAM's?
I want to stop them. I want to prevent them from launching another attack on our country.
Yeah, sure you do, provided we don't use combat troops and don't piss off anyone else in the process, right?
In the meantime, we have ... enabled an enemy with more power than they ever should have, Iran.
Hoo boy. Do you think we should have "disabled" Iran so that it couldn't become an imminent threat?
If so, what would we use to do that? A leaflet campaign? A boycott of the World Cup? Or would it require combat troops?
Mark, I'm going to comment on just one small portion of your last comment - that's all:
"Keeping our commitments...our original committment was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He is dead and his regime is gone."
Yes, he is, and it is. We did the job the United Nations would not do against a nation in violation of the terms of the cease-fire from the '91 Gulf War - a nation that had made a corrupt mockery of the UN "Oil for Food" program, and that had suborned the Russian and French governments with money from that program, ensuring that the UN would never do anything.
"Then it was to insure they did not receive WMDs. They never had them and they don't have any now."
Never! Wow. That's a pretty absolute statement. I bet all those dead Iranians and Kurds will be glad to hear that. Oh, wait... And I bet every major Western intelligence service will be glad to know that you, Markadelphia, know for a fact that Saddam never had WMD (you know, poison gas), never had any plans for biological weapons, had no nuclear program in place waiting for the sanctions against his nation to be dropped. I mean, wow! I bet Clinton has a red face over bombing Iraq in 1998 now that you've told him that Iraq never had WMD.
But, just how do you know this?
"Now, it is about...what exactly?"
Now it's about staying to do what we (almost) always do - pick up the nation we broke and put it back together so it's better than it was when we found it. But in this case, it's more than that. Iraq is flypaper for jihadists. They go to Iraq to attack the Great Satan. Only the Great Satans in Iraq carry rifles and drive armored vehicles, and they shoot back. More to the point they use their sights, and hit what they aim at.
We've been at war in Iraq since March 2003. That's a bit over four years. We've had about 3,500 killed so far, and about 24,000 wounded. On D-Day the allies lost about 2,500 dead and another 7,500 wounded. One day. The invasion of Iwo Jima - one month of fighting - cost the U.S. over 8,200 dead and over 19,000 wounded.
Each death is a tragedy, but ridding the world of Saddam and his sons "Dead" and "Deader" required a military intervention. We're Americans. We don't pack up and leave a broken nation behind.
Unless, of course, there's a Democratic Congress eager to cut off funds.
OK, one more comment I'll take on: Is Bush doing a "piss-poor job." Yeah, pretty much. What causes me to lose sleep at night is my absolute conviction that had Al Gore been in the White House on 9/11/2001, we'd be appeasing radical Muslims here in the States today, and what happened in July of 2005 in London or in March of 2004 in Madrid would have been repeated here in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and for all I know, Dubuque, but on a larger scale. Not to mention what happened in Beslan. Had John "Swiftboat" Kerry been elected in 2004, we'd have already pulled out of Iraq, and the slaughter that occurred in Vietnam and Cambodia would pale in comparison to what would be going on today in Iraq.
So, is Bush doing a "piss-poor job"? Yes. But the options we've been given have been far bleaker.
Imagine a man who goes to the hospital because he hasn't been feeling well. The doctors there discover that his heart is failing and he will die if it is not replaced.
So he goes into surgery and the surgeon fairly quickly removes the man's heart. Then he steps away from the table and says, "That's it. The danger is over. His heart can't kill him now. Send him home."
Yeah, like that's gonna happen. His widow would scream bloody murder and sue that doctor and his hospital for everything they had. And she would deserve to own that hospital. Why? Because he didn't finish the job. He removed the immediate danger, but didn't replace the heart so that the patient could live.
Ok, let's say that the doctor has more sense than that. He has a replacement heart available for the patient. The doctor does a good job getting the heart in and properly sewed up. Then the hospital sends the man home 2 hours later. 12 hours later the man is dead of a massive infection.
Once again, the widow would deserve to own the hospital after suing them for massive incompetence. Why? Because they didn't finish the job which is simply keeping an eye on him and giving medications and treatments necessary to fight off the infections and other issues until his body is strong enough to do the job on its own. In other words, they have to keep him in the hospital until the whole job is done.
So what does this have to do with Iraq? Simple, a county is much like a body in many ways AND WE CUT ITS FRICKEN' HEAD OFF!
If we had simply left at that point, the country would have promptly succumbed to Saddam's supporters and related groups such as Al Qaida. They would have immediately asserted their military strength over the country and Iraq would have been right back where they were under Saddam. It would have been the same mess with different faces.
But we didn't leave. We stuck around and gave them a chance to set up their own government; one that represents most of the people of that country and operates under the rule of law. (Contrast that with the whim of the ruler such as under Saddam, the Taliban and what's going on in Iran.) So now that that job is done, why can't we leave?
It's simple: The new government in Iraq is still weak. They're being attacked by forces which want to drag the country back into the darkness (infection). Their natural defenses (police and military = the body's immune system) are still not up to the task of fighting off the assault on their own. Leaving now would allow the infection to overwhelm the defenses, killing the patient.
Yes Mark, there are different phases in the job entailing different tasks, priorities and goals. Do not confuse those phases as being different jobs. There has always been one single job: To remove a diseased government which was threatening and attacking everyone around it and replacing that government with a healthy one that doesn't do those things. In other words, IT'S A HEAD TRANSPLANT.
Any surgeon and hospital would be viewed as horribly incompetent for failing to complete the entire job of a transplant. Our country would be just as incompetent if we fail (not because of lack of ability, but because of lack of backbone) to complete the entire job of replacing a government.
There is an awful lot here to respond to so I think I am just going to keep it to a few things. First of all, do all of you truly believe that if Gore or Kerry were president we would be appeasing terrorists now? If you do, then the word that is bandied about here alot--"sheeple" applies to you as well. At least Karl Rove can say "Mission Accomplished" and actually have it be true.
Kevin, I listed how I would fight terrorism in my first response. I didn't just rip on Bush, I gave several points above that I think would work. This is based on the five people I know, one family member, who have been to Iraq and Afganistan. One of whom is in special forces so that's where I got the idea of the special forces unit...what can I say those guys always want the glory. Look at my other points and tell me how that is "emboldening" terrorists.
Everyone else, clearly you all think I am "twitty liberal" and won't believe anything I say. So, how about people who have actually spent some time in Iraq. Go out and visit some of the blogs of people who are actually there. Don't turn on your blinders if it is a "liberal" blog. I think once you start to hear what is actually going on there...not the sanitized corporate media bullshit or the Guyana-like cult of right wing radio ....you might start to have a different opinion.
Oh, and you know what really got me mad about the fake Bush resignation speech? The part about the economy being in great shape. What in the...!@#!@#? Read this:
I was listening to Laura Ingraham the other day and she said the following:
"People in this country are working harder for less money in worse jobs. If the Republicans don't get the message on this, they are going to be in worse trouble than they are now."
"Between 2001 and 2004, the median income of Americans with college degrees barely budged, rising from $72,300 to $73,000 (after adjusting for inflation), according to a Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances."
Wow. $73,000 a year. In 99% of the countries around the world, that's unimaginable wealth. The overwhelming majority of our "poor" people live in multi-room homes with electricity, indoor plumbing, air-conditioning, cable television, microwave ovens, and own their own automobiles. That's "wealth" in the overwhelming majority of the world.
Now, my question is, do you want our poor to live better than they do now (and make the 3rd world even more jealous than it already is) or do you want to pull down the wealthy to make the world more "fair"?
"I listed how I would fight terrorism in my first response. I didn't just rip on Bush, I gave several points above that I think would work."
I assume you're talking about these points:
"We need to focus more effort on intelligence, specifically human inteligence, and infiltrate the various cells around the world. We need to beef up our Arabic speaking inteligence gathering units and start learning more about the various factions witin the Muslim world. We need to reach out to the moderates of each country in the Middle East and start to learn. Being smarter about your enemy defeats your enemey.
"We need to start being better detectives, like the Brits who have foiled two major terrorist plots in the last year simply by using their investigative skills. We need to train elite special forces units, in conjunction with the Pakistani government, to raid Al Qaeda strongholds on the Afghan-Pakistani border."
I can't imagine any who generally disagrees with these points. Yes, we need to do better in these areas. So why aren't we discussing these? It's simple: Points of agreement don't require nearly the volume of discussion as points of disagreement.
Here's a question for you: What makes you think these intelligence gathering and military techniques and the active fighting in Iraq are mutually exclusive? In other words, what makes you think we have to let the terrorists win in Iraq in order to use these techniques?
Everyone else, clearly you all think I am "twitty liberal" and won't believe anything I say.
Not quite.
I don't believe everything you say, and I don't believe that you believe everything you say. There is too much knee-jerking and schizophrenia involved. I think you often just repeat far-left talking points, and they don't make any more sense here than they did when you first read them elsewhere.
Kevin and Ed are dead on point here, but that point is apparently lost on you, and is certainly lost on the dimocrat leadership. It is that, when the United States wins and finishes a war, it does not simply pack up its tools and go home. It stays and helps its former enemy to recover, rebuild, and become a stable, self-sustaining country again. And, it largely pays the bills to do so.
WW I taught the world how wrong it was to not do that. WW II taught the world how right it was. It is a learned response, and now we're doing it again in Iraq.
Consider Germany after WW II, for example. Germany was divided into four zones of occupation. The Soviet Union plundered its zone, carring away most anything of value. The result was that its zone, which became East Germany, was a poor, economic desert until Germany was finally reunified.
The other three zones were unified into West Germany after a democratic government was set up under a constitution. War crime trials were held and the guilty were imprisoned or executed. The Marshall Plan was instituted (remember General of the Army George Marshall, who became Secretary of State?), under which the United States paid to rebuild much of Europe. Our troops stayed, as a governing and protecting force, until German sovereignty was restored. Our troops stay there to this day, at Germany's request, to help protect Germany from an ever-diminishing threat from the former Communist bloc.
Germany became a peaceful, self-sustaining, prosperous country which doesn't threaten its neighbors any more.
Consider Japan after WW II, for example. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan only a week before it agreed to surrender unconditionally, and so demanded a place in the post-war governance of Japan. General of the Army MacArthur said, "No," and meant it, and so Japan was spared the horrors that befell the Communist bloc.
Japan was occupied by the United States under the military governorship of MacArther. Its head of state, the Emperor Hirohito, was allowed to remain as a figurehead. A democratic government was set up under a constitution. War crimes trials were held and the guilty were imprisoned or executed. Japan was demilitarized and rebuilt, and the United States paid to rebuild it. Our troops stayed, as a governing and protecting force, until Japanese sovereignty was restored. Our troops stay there to this day, at Japan's request, to help protect Japan from the Soviet Union (more so in the past than now) and from China.
Japan became a peaceful, self-sustaining, prosperous country which doesn't threaten its neighbors any more.
Oh, the humanity. Defending and rebuilding those countries and others was truly an awful thing to do, wasn't it? It took years, not months, and wasn't easy, either politically or economically.
Now, consider what we are doing in Iraq. Iraqi sovereignty has been restored. A democratic government has been set up under a constitution. War crime trials have been held (and more will be held) and the guilty were imprisoned or executed. Iraq is being rebuilt, and the United States is paying to rebuild it. Our troops stay, as a protecting force for threats both within and without, and will do so until Iraq can protect and govern itself and Iraq asks us to leave.
Iraq, if we continue, just might became a peaceful, self-sustaining, prosperous country which doesn't threaten its neighbors any more.
Golly, what an awful thing to do again.
Now, consider why I described your writings, at least in part, as schizophrenic. You would have us believe that we should have left Iraq as soon as the Iraqi military was defeated and its gubmint was deposed. On the other hand, you tell us that we have "enabled an enemy with more power than they ever should have, Iran." Leaving a power and military vacuum in Iraq, which Iran could then easily step into, would have made Iran just that much more powerful, wouldn't it?
You haven't really thought this through, have you? If you haven't, it appears as simply a jumble of someone else's talking points. If you have, it resembles schizophrenia.
But, you do have a point. Credibility is earned, and you're not earning it.
I think Bush should give this speech. I've wondered for a long time why he puts up with the bullshit. Let Pelosi become President and the country will beat down the doors to vote Republican.
As far as Markadlephia is concerned, I'll say what everyone is thinking. There are two America's. We live in one, Mark lives in another. Talking to him is like conversing with a brick wall. They want to create a collective, European style Democratic Socialist state that is anathema to everything this country was founded on.
There are two things to understand about the Left.
1.) Everything they say is a lie.
2.) They project onto others their own attributes.
eg.)They call us fascists, but they are the ones attacking those they disagree with, like the ad-hominen attacks on the group that released Al Gore's utility bills.
Kevin, I would like poor people in this country to be paid more money for their work. I don't expect people to get free rides. People will have to work or, even better, find work they enjoy which perhaps benefits this country. Lazy people deserve nothing. Contrary to popular belief, most poor people are not lazy.
If I were an owner of a company and my salary was 5 million a year and my lowest workers made 30k a year, that would be just plain wrong. I think I can "get by" on a million a year or even less and pay my workers 80K a year. I like buying CDs and DVDs but really I don't care what kind of car I drive or how big my house is. Most wealthy people, not all but most, are greedy and want to keep as much as money as they possibly can to wield power. Every culture throughout time has been like that and America is no exception.
Ed, we would not be letting the terrorists "win" in Iraq because the majority of violence there is from the civil war. The situation over there is about as grey as it gets and Bush's predictions on Iraq becoming a terrorist state if we leave make me wonder....isn't it that way already? I have a deep concern that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with most of our resources committed to Iraq. Imagine those resources committed to finding bin Laden, Zawahari, and others.
DJ, sadly, my points are the talking points of people like Paul Eaton, Anthony Zinni, Paul Hackett, and even the current commander in Iraq, General Patreus. These are people that are saying the conflict in Iraq cannot be resolved with combat troops. These are people that know far more than anyone here about the situation in Iraq including me. Check out Zinni's book called Battle For Peace. It just came out in paperback.
I won't argue with your assesment of America's role in post WWII Europe. I will, however, state, that the situation in Iraq is completely different and you are making the same mistakes very eloquently illustrated in The Guns of August, looking to previous conflicts without taking into account the various factors that make this conflict unique.
Your current assesment of Iraq
"Iraqi sovereignty has been restored. A democratic government has been set up under a constitution....Iraq is being rebuilt..
is simply not true. Please go out and read some of the blogs or books from people that have been there or are still there. It's a complete and utter disaster and getting worse everyday.
"If I were an owner of a company and my salary was 5 million a year and my lowest workers made 30k a year, that would be just plain wrong. I think I can "get by" on a million a year or even less and pay my workers 80K a year."
1.) Why is it wrong for an owner of a business to make 5 million and an employee 30k. If the work they do is worth 30K then that is what they should be paid. It is up to the owner of the business to decide.
2.) Who are you to determine what someone else should "get by" on. If I worked, built a business and now make 5 million a year, why is this wrong?
3.) If the owner of a company takes too much from the company as a salary, the company will be hurt and it will go out of business.
As I said, this is pure Euro Socialism and anathema to everything this country was built on.
Even if it is a civil war, then we have to ask the question: What are the sides in this war?
The answer is that on one side, we have the terrorists who want to return Iraq to the way it was before we removed Saddam. On another side (and supporting the terrorists) we have the Iranians who want to make Iraq part of Iran, which would still leave Iraq pretty much as it was under Saddam, just under new management. And finally, we have the legitimately elected government.
The simple fact is that only one of those factions would actually solve the problem that we went in there to fix: the legitimate government. If any other group wins, we wind up right back where we were: with a government that threatens and attacks everyone around them. No matter how you spin it, no matter how much equivocation of terrorists with "freedom fighters" go on (Note: The terrorists are actually the opposite of freedom fighters.), no matter how much you claim that one side is no different than the other, it still boils down to a government of, by and for the people vs. terrorists.
I know who I'm rooting for. Who do you want to win?
Note: Our letting up in Afghanastan has absolutely nothing to do with any perceived need to use those resources in Iraq. In fact, our letting up in Afghanastan coincided with our lightening up in Iraq. It's not an either/or situation.
As for moving on to issues in other countries: Would you ask the surgeon in my example to start operating on another patient before he is finished with the first one?
We have enough resources to do what's necessary in two countries and maybe three if we're willing to deplete our reserves. But without a compelling reason to do so, we would be leaving ourselves unable to respond to situations which may pop up. So for example, lets say we invade Pakistan. What would happen if Iran decided to pick a fight? Or North Korea? If we've committed our reserves to Pakistan, what would be left to deal with those hot spots?
There's no doubt about it, war is an ugly business. So why are you asking us to expand the war faster than we really need to?
What is the typical workforce of a company that employs a $5M CEO? 10,000 or more? If the CEO takes a $4M reduction in his salary and gives it to his employees, each one gets an extra $400 per year. If it makes so little difference, what would be the point of such a gesture?
And while it is true that many poor people are not lazy, many of them are uneducated, unskilled, or have made poor decisions in their lives and/or are suffering because of the poor decisions made by their parents. I know, because I've been there.
In his speech, he could have discussed how he was going to continue his good works in opening our borders with Mexico so the Reconquista can be realized and the "extremist group of folks" aren't hindered in their quest for The American Way.
He could wax poetic about how he needed to unilaterally disregard pesky privacy laws.... so he could preserve our nation and it's character. Kind of like blowing up a house to rid it of cockroaches.
He could talk about his sound military strategy of fighting guerrillas as though they are a standing army. He could expound on how, "winning the hearts and minds" has proven to be a successful tactic throughout time.
Yeah, there are a lot of things he could put in his speech, but none of them should be about portaiting himself as a victim, and how we dopes, "just don't get it."
I won't argue with your assesment of America's role in post WWII Europe. I will, however, state, that the situation in Iraq is completely different and you are making the same mistakes very eloquently illustrated in The Guns of August, looking to previous conflicts without taking into account the various factors that make this conflict unique.
"Completely different," is it? "Unique," is it?
Bullshit.
The end of the war that The Guns of August describes the beginning of resulted in the collapse of the military forces and the gubmint of Germany. It took a while, but malevolent evil stepped into that power vacuum and yet another war ensued only 21 years later.
After WW II, we stayed in Germany for a long time and result was a healthy, prosperous, and peaceful country that threatens no one. Had we simply left Germany after destroying its military forces and deposing its gubmint, likely the Soviet Union would have stepped in and done to the western partitions what it did to the eastern.
We had the same choice to make once we had destroyed the military forces and deposed the gubmint of Iraq. Had we simply left Iraq, likely it would have been overrun by Iran from without, or by al Quaeda from within, or both.
We didn't do that, did we? We learned the lessons of WW I and WW II and we arer applying them properly. You just can't see that, can you?
Your current assesment of Iraq
"Iraqi sovereignty has been restored. A democratic government has been set up under a constitution....Iraq is being rebuilt..
is simply not true.
Bullshit.
Iraqi sovereignty has been restored.
Iraq has written, voted on, and passed a constitution.
Iraq has instituted a democratic form of government under that constitution.
Iraq is being rebuilt. Our troops and our contractors are helping to rebuild it.
Don't you read the papers? Even The New York Times reported these things.
Please go out and read some of the blogs or books from people that have been there or are still there.
I have. I am particularly impressed with Michael Yon's work.
It's a complete and utter disaster and getting worse everyday.
That was an absolutely brilliant post, actually. Oh, Markadelphia? Never had WMDs? Ask those northern Kurds. Oops,wait, you can't. They were gassed to death, my bad. Your talking points are so scripted by the left as to be ludicrous. True, W has some serious faults as regards the southern border. He's gone in 1.5 years. Why the BDS so late? Anything to do with trying to get the White House back through attrition? But he'd do a HELL of a lot better in getting this war finished if you libtards were not so dedicated to seeing the terrorists WIN just so you can blame Bush. If we lose this thing, if we cut and run like Viet Nam, we will be fighting here. We will have ieds in the mall until we all accept pisslam as our one true religion. Atheist? Better be a damn good actor.
DJ, sadly, my points are the talking points of people like ..., and even the current commander in Iraq, General Patreus.
It's obviously false statements like this which completely destroy your credibility in this argument.
Let's go to the tape, shall we?
The Pentagon has a web site where they provide video of various events, including the full press conference with General Petraeus where this falsehood apparently comes from. It's called Pentagon Channel. There aren't any direct links to videos, so you would have to search for the appropriate video. To find this video, search for Petraeus (make sure you get the spelling right). I found 4 videos when I did this search. The relevant video is named "Pentagon Briefing 26, April 2007".
At about 10 minutes and 30 seconds into the video he makes this statement:
"Success in the end will depend on Iraqi actions, as I noted during my confirmation hearing. Military action is necessary, but not sufficient. We can provide the Iraqis an opportunity, but they will have to exploit it."
Did you catch that? General Petraeus is not saying that we don't need military action in Iraq. In fact, he quite clearly says the opposite, that we must have military action in Iraq. (That's what "necessary" means.) He is simply saying that we need both military and diplomatic action to succeed in Iraq.
Taking a statement like this and claiming that Petraeus is saying that we don't need military action in Iraq is akin to claiming that someone describing the ingredients needed for a fire says that we we don't need heat to have fire.
Markadelphia, if you're going to have any traction at all in this debate, you're going to have to be far more accurate with your fact claims and assertions. Using quotes taken out of context to make it seem like the speaker said the opposite of what he actually said and similarly distorted "facts" is a good way to get yourself torn to shreds. Such tactics are illogical, unreasoning, unscientific and unintelligent. You might as well try using an umbrella to reinforce the New Orleans levees.
Yes, I know that is exactly what Patreus said. I interpret that as meaning that more diplomacy need to happen. Other things...besides combat...need to start happening. I don't hear any calls for those things from here or anywhere else in neocon land. Just the same old crap...
DJ, clearly you have no idea what is going on in Iraq, particularly in the government. There are reports of al-Mailiki putting people in key positions with the intent to wipe out the Sunnis while the Sunnis are supposedly allied with us on trying to root out their bad element. I saw a report on Fox news yesteday that over half of the reconstruction projects are back in a shambles again. Take a look at these figures from the state department.
In 2005, worldwide there were 3000 terrorist attacks. In 2006, there were 14000. In 2005, 5800 people were killed in these attacks. In 2006, 20000 people were killed. Of these attacks, 45 percent of the attacks and 65 percent of the deaths occurred in Iraq. Muslims accounted for more than 50 percent of the 58000 total killed or wounded in terrorist attacks in 2006.
DJ, what do YOU see when you read these numbers? I see our policy in Iraq as a failure. I see all of the surges over the last two years as not working. We're talking about four times the number of terrorist attacks world wide and you are trying to tell me that everything is ok and I am an idiot? Good grief...
Most of the people being killed are Muslims, which is probably making most of you happy based on what I have read here. They are killing each other and we are partly responsible for it. The people dying are normal folks like you and I who are just trying to make a living, play with their kids, and live in a safe neighborhood.
They're human beings who are losing their lives because of the one dimensional thinking that has dominated this country's foreign policy for the last six years.
DJ, clearly you have no idea what is going on in Iraq, particularly in the government. There are reports of al-Mailiki putting people in key positions with the intent to wipe out the Sunnis while the Sunnis are supposedly allied with us on trying to root out their bad element.
Do you expect perfect performance in a democracy its first time at bat? It took almost a hundred years and a civil war for our republic to start working reasonably well.
We still have the likes of Hillary Clinton, who is fundamentally dishonest right down to her toes, in the Senate, and she's the darling of a large part of the population. Trying to gain an advantage, for whatever reason, is what politicians do. I don't expect anything different from the politicians in Iraq. But I would not label it a failure simply because, so far, it isn't perfect.
Damn, guy, do you think everything should be accomplished as fast as it happens in a video game?
DJ, what do YOU see when you read these numbers? I see our policy in Iraq as a failure. I see all of the surges over the last two years as not working.
I see what should be expected, and what I expected, as the aftermath of the war to topple the gubmint of Iraq. Religious extremists, particularly those of the Islamic variety, do not give up easily or quickly. Fanaticism is like that. They saw the end of the Hussein dictatorship as an opportunity to gain power, which is what it was, and they haven't yet abandoned the attempt.
We're talking about four times the number of terrorist attacks world wide and you are trying to tell me that everything is ok and I am an idiot?
No, I have never tried to tell you that "everything is OK". You may yet convince me that you are an idiot, given how hard you are trying.
I have tried to tell you that your statement, "It's a complete and utter disaster and getting worse everyday," and other such statements of yours, are nothing more than preconceived hyperbole. I suggest that you follow your own advice and "read some of the blogs or books from people that have been there," as they tell a remarkably different story. I've also talked with a neighbor (a National Guard 30-year veteran) who recently returned from there, and he, too, tells me a remarkably different story.
All you hear from the MSM and the dimocrats is a steady drumbeat of anything negative they can find. That fits their agenda of inflicting political damage on President Bush. It fits your preconceived notions that are based on your dislike of George Bush, and so you echo them like a parrot. Do you think I should believe you in preference to what I read elsewhere? If so, why?
I believe that the great majority of the country is recovering quite well, and that the activities of the terrorists are concentrated in a few ever-decreasing areas. Reports I read say that the current "surge" is producing good results, has since it began, and hasn't yet reached its peak, either in manpower or effectiveness.
You would have us believe we should just abandon all that and go home. If we did, what would happen to all those "normal folks like you and I who are just trying to make a living" and so on?
They're human beings who are losing their lives because of the one dimensional thinking that has dominated this country's foreign policy for the last six years.
I'll ask my question again.
How many people have to die as a result of attacks carried out in this country by Islamic extremists before you will agree that the President, as the Chief Executive Officer of the gubmint, as the Head of State of the country, and as the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the country, should wage war on those extremists and the gubmints who give them help and safe harbor, until the threat they pose no longer exists?
I'll give you the same hint again. Any response that isn't a number also isn't an answer.
To date, no left-leaning person that I've asked has ever answered it.
Yes, I know that is exactly what Patreus said. I interpret that as meaning that more diplomacy need to happen. Other things...besides combat...need to start happening. I don't hear any calls for those things from here or anywhere else in neocon land. Just the same old crap...
Um, what other things?
Oh, yes, what we need is more diplomacy. That's it. How silly of me to not see it before.
My memory was nagging me and I let it gestate a bit. I forget why it sometimes fails me ...
I remember a statement by Margo Howard, the daughter of the late Ann Landers, but I can't find it. As near as I can remember, it was: "If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be no more violence. If Israel laid down its arms, there would be no more Israel."
Fifty nine years of attempts at diplomacy haven't changed that, have they?
Diplomacy. That's the ticket.
I can see it now. After partaking of the usual figs and strong coffee, there ensues a few hours, or perhaps even days of yelling, screaming, gesticulating, and threats to create a "river of blood", in the usual Middle East style. Then Muhammad turns to Abdul and says, "Well, whaddya think?" And Abdul says, "Oh, hell, let's quit fighting. I've had enough, and I'm not ready for my virgins yet."
Yeah, that'll work.
The enemy are followers of a way of life that idolizes death, that sends children into crowded markets with bombs strapped to their bodies, that sends "improperly dressed" school girls back into a burning building to die after they just escaped from the building (yes, that was Saudi Arabia, but Sharia is like that), and that pays rewards to families who send their children off to become suicide bombers (er, I mean "martyrs"). They follow a creed such that they would cheerfully, ecstatically detonate a nuclear device in any city in this country if only they could get their hands on one.
On the other hand, they could have peace, permanently, at any time, even tomorrow, simply by laying down their arms, and they know it.
Trackback message
Title: The Speech, and a Challenge
Excerpt: Please note: I did not write this. It’s one of those things bouncing around in emails, but I though it was worth a reprint here:
“The Speech President Bush Should Give.”
Normally, I start these things out by saying “My Fell...
Blog name: Striderweb
This morning's Washington Post has a column (article?) by Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister. You can read it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301548.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
Captain Ed comments about it, which is how I learned of it, at http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009878.php
The good Cap'n begins:
Perhaps the debate over whether to persevere in Iraq has become too brittle to accept anyone else's opinion, but the foreign minister of Iraq gives it a game try. In today's Washington Post, Hoshyar Zebari implores Americans and the world not to abandon Iraq to the terrorists and sectarian lunatics. Zebari explains that Iraq has changed profoundly since liberation, and the media paint a distorted picture of his country ...
Y'all can read it there as easily as here, so hie thee hence, as Kevin might say. But Captain Ed's closing two paragraphs are on point:
Zebari warns what will come of Iraq and the Middle East in general if the West betrays the Iraqis. It will create a haven for terrorists of all stripes, and will spread chaos and conflict throughout Southwest Asia. It might set off a regional war between Sunni and Shi'ite states, with Baghdad as an Armageddon for Persian and Arab cultures.
The world needs a free, united, and stable Iraq, Zebari warns. It may be difficult, but the alternatives are catastrophic.
"How many people have to die as a result of attacks carried out in this country by Islamic extremists before you will agree that the President, as the Chief Executive Officer of the gubmint, as the Head of State of the country, and as the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the country, should wage war on those extremists and the gubmints who give them help and safe harbor, until the threat they pose no longer exists?"
The problem with this question is that you are posing a black and white question that demands a black and white answer whent he situation is about as deep grey as it gets. I think we will both agree that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11, right? Well, they were based in Afganistan and we started to dismantle their operations but then we went into Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 attacks. Al Qaeda is still operating in Afganistan, agreed? OBL and Zawahari are still in charge, agreed? The Taliban has made a resurgence, agreed?
You are telling me that in order to defeat Al Qaeda we have to stay in Iraq. I am telling you that in order to defeat Al Qaeda and make sure there aren't any attacks on our soil or interests around the world, we need to refocus our efforts, both militarily and otherwise, elsehwere starting with the Afghan-Pakistani border. Then I think we need to focus our attention on the growing Islamic extremism in Europe. That is not a military matter, it is a police matter. I think the Brits have proved far too many times how important intelligence and detective work is.
For some reason, DJ, you misinterpret leaving Iraq as giving up on the fight on terror. Imagine this scenario: we proceed with an orderly withdrawl of comabt forces in Iraq. We leave miminmal forces in the country in the safer areas. We let the Sunnis and the Shi'ite duke it out. We then take those troops and re-deploy them in Afghanistan. We set up a joint Pakistani and US strike teams that capture or kill bin Laden and Zawahari. How, then, would we be perceived as being weak? It's called improved strategy.
We are not in Iraq to protect ourselves from terrorism. If that were the case, why aren't we in the Sudan or Somalia? Those countries have degraded into Islamic fascism and are most definetly terrorist havens at present. So, by your logic we should be there as well and I might tend to agree with that. We are in Iraq for the money, dude, it's just that simple.
The reason why I responded so vehemently to the fake Bush speech is because he quit us...we didn't quit him. He is not protecting this country. It's funny, I asked a very conservative friend of mine if,by 2004, Bush had not captured bin laden, what would happen. He told me that if he didn't, he would be one term president and considered a failure for not protecting America.
DJ, I have answered your question. Now answer mine: How many people have to die in terrorist attacks around the world before you will agree that our president, our commander in chief, our head of state is completely incompetent in the use of our military forces, our intelligence apparatus, and the power that is the United States to effectively prevent extremism from spreading?
Mark:"The problem with this question is that you are posing a black and white question that demands a black and white answer whent he situation is about as deep grey as it gets."
Ed: What's grey about it? We have one group which is actively attacking civilians, the Iraqi government and our troups. And we have those who are being attacked. You would be correct in pointing out that Sunni and Shiites tend to fight each other too, but they are both more alike than they are different. Their only major difference is the question of who was Muhammad's legitimate successor. That's it.
If you want me to accept that there's anything grey about the situation, then you need to do better than a bald assertion that "it's grey."
Mark:"I think we will both agree that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11, right?"
Ed: Agreed
Mark:"Well, they were based in Afganistan and we started to dismantle their operations but then we went into Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 attacks."
Ed: Yes, they had major bases in Afghanistan. However, that is not the only country they've been operating out of. There is also Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and yes, Iraq. Al Qaeda is not a country, it is an organization which exists in many countries.
Even though Iraq was (apparently) not directly involved in 9/11, they were supporting Al Qaeda. We even have documented evidence that Saddam was helping them:
There's plenty more, but these are the first few I found during a quick search.
If a mafia don orders a hit, is he any less guilty of murder than the hit man who actually pulls the trigger? No. Saddam tried to help Al Qaeda attack us so he could hide behind them. That still made him our enemy.
Mark:"Al Qaeda is still operating in Afganistan, agreed?"
Ed: Agreed. They're also operating in several other countries, including Iraq.
Look, I'm pretty sure you won't agree that Saddam was helping Al Qaeda. So let's just set that aside and focus on this question: Who are we fighting in Iraq NOW? I think it's obvious that we're fighting Al Qaeda! Just think about how often we here of yet another Al Qaeda leader killed in Iraq! Even if Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq under Saddam, there's no doubt that they're in Iraq now.
Mark:"OBL and Zawahari are still in charge, agreed?"
Ed: OBL may, or may not be paste under a pile of rocks somewhere. He's certainly not popping his head up to let us take a shot at him. I don't know which Al Qaeda leaders are still alive or dead. I gave up trying to keep track of them long ago with all the "the leader is dead, there's a new leader... this just in, the new leader is dead" stories. I don't particularly care what their names are as long as we get them all.
Mark:"The Taliban has made a resurgence, agreed?"
Ed: Yes they did, when we lightened up on them. What's your point? This just proves that backing off on these guys just allows them to be more active. So you think we should back off the same group of guys in Iraq and expect them to be less active? Their actions in Afghanistan have already proven that they'll just get more active whenever we lighten up!
Mark:"You are telling me that in order to defeat Al Qaeda we have to stay in Iraq."
Ed: Why the heck not? Al Qaeda is perfectly willing to send their people into Iraq where we're killing them at a ratio of 10 of theirs for every 1 of ours. Our enemy is trying to kill us and nothing but death will stop them. If they're so willing to die, why shouldn't we oblige them?
Besides, where should we go to kill Al Qaeda? Should we wait for them to come back here and kill thousands more of us for every 19 they lose?
Mark:"I am telling you that in order to defeat Al Qaeda and make sure there aren't any attacks on our soil or interests around the world, we need to refocus our efforts, both militarily and otherwise, elsehwere starting with the Afghan-Pakistani border."
Ed: And I'm telling you that an Al Qaeda at room temperature is a threat to nobody. And they're willing to assume room temperature in Iraq. Why in the heck should we leave a place where they are to go someplace where they're not.
If you want to hunt deer, you don't do it at your local community swimming pool, even if it is more comfortable. If you want to catch a mouse that's in your house, you don't look for evidence of where the mouse is, then deliberately set your traps somewhere else.
What makes you think we have to leave Iraq to work on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? We are quite capable of increasing the number of troops in both places. In fact, the only thing holding up our ability to do this is the Democrats who think just like you holding up the necessary funds by playing politics!
Mark:"Then I think we need to focus our attention on the growing Islamic extremism in Europe. That is not a military matter, it is a police matter. I think the Brits have proved far too many times how important intelligence and detective work is."
Ed: It's a matter for the populations of each country to deal with. How can we force a country like France to address their growing problem when the people in who are most at risk are also the ones who seem to be the happiest to let the muslims walk all over them? They've been warned over and over and over again, but if they choose to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the warnings, then what can we really do about it?
One place where we really need to start is simple. Half of our country needs to wake up to the fact that we are in a war against a worldview that is completely committed to taking over the entire world, and that they're completely willing, even anxious, to die in the process. That half needs to stop attacking the other half which realizes the truth and is actively taking the war to that enemy.
We have an enemy which has already attacked us! But there is a significant portion of our population which views those fighting back against our attackers as more dangerous than our attackers simply because they're fighting back. As long as these people continue to fight against our efforts to resist the enemy, we will never be as truly effective as we could be.
Mark:"For some reason, DJ, you misinterpret leaving Iraq as giving up on the fight on terror."
Ed: We're fighting and killing terrorists there. How could leaving be seen as anything other that ceasing to fight against terrorist? That's not logical.
Mark:"Imagine this scenario: we proceed with an orderly withdrawl of comabt forces in Iraq. We leave miminmal forces in the country in the safer areas. We let the Sunnis and the Shi'ite duke it out. We then take those troops and re-deploy them in Afghanistan. We set up a joint Pakistani and US strike teams that capture or kill bin Laden and Zawahari. How, then, would we be perceived as being weak? It's called improved strategy."
Ed: I think this one is best answered by Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a man who knows more about the situation in Iraq than all of us combined:
Hoshyar Zebari:"Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain."
Ed: There is a saying that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The lessons of history absolutely support Minister Zebari. There have been many, many instances of an aggressive ruthless assaults on a population like that of the terrorists. Whenever a force which is opposing the assault withdraws, the result is ALWAYS death, destruction and tyranny. Not even once has the result been positive. Do you honestly think we should allow history to repeat itself yet again, especially when we are absolutely capable of preventing it?
Mark:"We are not in Iraq to protect ourselves from terrorism."
Ed: That's a bold assertion. I think it's fundamentally untrue.
Mark: If that were the case, why aren't we in the Sudan or Somalia? Those countries have degraded into Islamic fascism and are most definetly terrorist havens at present."
Ed: Maybe if our country wasn't so divided by people opposing our need to fight back against the terrorists we might actually have the resources to clean up those areas too. As it is, there's too much internal fighting to be able to do everything we should do.
The result is that we have to pick and choose between what we should do and what we must do. Sudan and Somalia's troubles are basically internal. They're not really threatening any other countries.
On the other hand, Iraq was much more of a threat to other countries. They did have and did use WMDs. Saddam was apparently trying to gain nuclear weapons. He did invade other countries. And whether we like it or not, oil is a primary factor in our economy. (If all the oil stopped flowing for some reason, our economy would collapse overnight.) Yes, part of the reason for invading Iraq was protecting the flow of oil, though you'll note that we're not stealing the oil. But while oil is A reason why we invaded Iraq, it's not the ONLY reason. There was also his numerous and repeated violations of the cease fire that ended the first war. His constant thumbing his nose at the UN. His complete disregard for his people. (Building palaces and weapons complexes using Oil For Food money while his people starved.) His active use of WMDs and the threat that he had and was trying to acquire more. Even before 9/11, we had sufficient reason to resume the Gulf War which kicked Saddam back out of Kuwait. Terrorism is just one more reason.
Mark:"So, by your logic we should be there as well and I might tend to agree with that."
Ed: I just explained the logic. Did you understand it?
Mark:"We are in Iraq for the money, dude, it's just that simple."
Ed: We are in Iraq, in part, for the economy. It's not the same thing. It would have been far, far, far cheaper -- both in lives and money -- to simply buy oil from Saddam. This is about issues far larger than money. It's about some nut job in a position of leadership in another country that can put our economy into the tank. Would you be willing to allow you and your family to starve to death just so that nut job could stay in power?
Mark:"The reason why I responded so vehemently to the fake Bush speech is because he quit us...we didn't quit him. He is not protecting this country. It's funny, I asked a very conservative friend of mine if,by 2004, Bush had not captured bin laden, what would happen. He told me that if he didn't, he would be one term president and considered a failure for not protecting America."
Ed: Let's say that we did capture Bin Laden on the first day we invaded Afghanistan. How much would have really changed? Almost nothing. Al Qaeda is not Osama Bin Laden. It's not any other single man. It's a large, quasi-independent group of killers held together by ideology, not a personality. Even if the first bullet fired in the invasion went rattling around inside Bin Laden's skull, we would still have to kill large numbers of Al Qaeda. That's because Al Qaeda is deliberately decentralized so that the death of any one (or more) of their leaders won't slow them down.
DJ, you ask questions in a way that frames the debate in your language. Sorry, pal, but I am not going to fall for the classic conservative manipulation of language to fulfill your half truths. By answering your question with a number, it pre-supposes that I accept the truth of the question. Sean Hannity, Rush and others do this all the time. They asks questions to their liberal whipping boy guests like "Do you support President Bush's plan to save us or do you support the terrorists?"
How are they supposed to answer that? I don't support Bush's plan and I don't support terrorism. If you are the intellect that you claim to be, then you know that the world is not that black and white.
Ed, you make many good points. Some of them I agree with. To answer some of your questions.
"What's grey about it?"
It's grey because you have a government that is split into three groups: Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds. The Sunnis are being aided by the foreign fighters (Al Qaeda) to ethnically cleanse the Shi'a. The Shi'a are being helped by Iran who trying to do the same thing to the Sunnia. We are also supporting the Shi'a led goverment. The Kurds are just trying to defend themselves. There are also foreign fighters (Al Qaeda) who are there just to learn how to ply their trade and are causing general havoc. Most of the deaths are Iraqi civilian deaths, not American. Most of the violence is a result of the Sunni-Shi'a struggle, not Al Qaeda attacks on US soldiers. In other words, the people fighting don't care whether we are there or not.
Adding more to the deep grey, while we are supporting the al Maliki government, we are also helping the Sunni element combat people like Al Sadr. Al Sadr has recently left the country but the Shi'a that are still there have vowed to strike in his name. So, it seems like we aren't really fighting one group. Yes, we carry out raids to root out foreign fighters but for the most part we are trying to referee all the various groups and the groups within groups that hate each other.
You are still clinging to the monlolithic "Us vs. Them" and the "Them" are comprised of a myriad of groups that also hate each other and want to destroy each other.
"Saddam and Al Qaeda"
I have read much about this connection, including the links you sent, and to me it doesn't make sense. Saddam wanted order in his country, not chaos. Al Qaeda would've added an unpredictable element that he could not control. Most of the information that Bush has released about Saddam and Al Qaeda proved to be false.
"Who are we fighting in Iraq NOW?"
This is a great question. I'd like an answer. The one I get from my government is that we are there to maintain stability. Have you noticed they don't say that we are fighting anyone anymore? They just say we can't leave otherwise "they" will take over the government? Who are they? I would assume you think we are fighting Al Qaeda. I think they represent a small portion of the violence and that most of it is secretarian. This is based on reports posted on the Defense Department web site.
"OBL: Alive or Dead"
Actually, captured and forced to build Jewish temples and abused women's shelters for the rest of his life would be preferable. You said it yourself, and I agree, they don't care whether or not they die so we take them alive and immasculate them. Talk about a PR coup...bin Laden in chains...that would be a victory!
And getting bin Laden and Zawahari (the more dangerous imo) would definetly be a serious blow. With bin Laden rotting in prison, where would they get the money? He is the principle financial conduit and you need money to buy weapons.
"Fighting Back"
Again, you misinterpret my criticsm as being detrimental to the terror effort. I don't think people here are fighting back because they want to quit. I think most people want a new strategy that is not the "my way the highway" or "you are either with us or agin us" mentality that Bush co seems to have. People in this country are rebelling to Bush's policies because they are having the opposite effect of what he says he is trying to do.
"Broken Iraq"
To me, I question that Iraq will break down into chaos if we leave. First, it already is in chaos. Second, I am really beginning to wonder if they care that we are there or not. Third, isn't the Iraqi army and police force trained yet? Why not? How long does it take to train a US soldier for a mission like this? Six Months? They have had four years and they still aren't good enough? Hmm...sounds very suspicious to me.
Maybe it's because some of the soldiers we train then use their training to attack a Sunni or a Shi'a they have a grudge against (more grey for the answer above). Maybe it's because we are there to protect the military-industrial complex money flow.
All I am saying Ed is please question what your government is telling you. It is your patriotic duty. I don't care whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in there. I know you do a great job of being a critical thinker when it comes to people like me. Turn it around, look at some of the facts, and tell me...don't you think we can do a whole lot better?
DJ, you ask questions in a way that frames the debate in your language. Sorry, pal, but I am not going to fall for the classic conservative manipulation of language to fulfill your half truths. By answering your question with a number, it pre-supposes that I accept the truth of the question.
You're partly right. If you answer with a number, then you accept the validity of the response by the President to terrorist attacks in this country, in which case the number is merely quibbling about how much you're willing to tolerate before trying to end the threat.
You're partly wrong. The question is real, because every President faces exactly that question. President Bush faced it on the morning of 9/11 and answered it correctly, in my opinion. President Clinton faced it before that and answered it incorrectly, in my opinion.
My answer to my question is "ZERO." The response is not about body counts and it is not about vengeance. It is about defense of the country, which is the President's primary responsibility. The action he should take depends on the nature and strength of the threat, the intelligence which supports it, and the probability that it will come to pass if the defense is not taken. No one need die for that threat to be enough to act on.
The answer to your question is "ZERO." Your question is a false dilemma. I do not measure the competence of a President by the body count in a war that is conducted while he is Commander in Chief. By that measure, I would have conclude that Franklin Roosevelt was utterly incompetent to an unimaginable degree, as about 55 million people died during WW II, many as the result of his orders, and yet he was manifestly competent.
I offer up a hypothetical scenario here, purely for the purpose of illustrating a principle.
Suppose someone bursts into your house, grabs your son, and holds him as a shield while he quickly and methodically shoots the other members of your family, one by one. As they die before your eyes, you have him in your sights, but the only shot you have is through your son's body. Your .44 Mag bullet will, if you shoot, go through your son, kill the shooter, and save what's left of your family. Do you kill your son and save your family, or do you hold your fire and watch them all die? You have seconds to decide.
It's a horrible situation, isn't it? Fortunately, it's hypothetical. It is certainly possible, but the probability of it happening is quite low, and I don't pretend otherwise.
But it serves to illustrate a simple principle. Sometimes in life, a few of us are faced with a decision in which, no matter what choice we make, even if we make no choice at all, people will die who do not deserve to die. Every President has faced this choice. It's part of his job. And, I submit, the measure of his competence is not based the blanket assumption that he will aways make the wrong choice, especially if he is of the "other party".
Consider a couple of choices made by President Clinton.
In the late 1990's, bin Laden had made repeated bloodcurdling televised threats against Americans in general and the United States in particular. In 1996, he was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. That made him fair game for arrest. In 1998, evidence showed that he and his lackeys were responsible for the attacks on U. S. embassies in Africa. That made him a fair target for outright attack by military forces.
In February and March of 1996, President Clinton was made two offers by the gubmint of Sudan to hand over the warm, living body of bin Laden to the United States. He declined the offers. He has admitted this failure.
In August of 1998, the CIA obtained evidence, which turned out later to be true, that bin Laden was in a particular camp in eastern Afghanistan. With the camp in the military's sights and only a very short time to act, President Clinton hemmed and hawed before finally allowing a stike on the camp to proceed. Too late; bin Laden had left only a short time before. He has admitted this failure.
I have a fairly simple method to assess such a situation. I'm a hunter. I prefer to kill the meat I eat, and I eat a lot of meat. I have learned the hard way that, when the game appears, you settle the crosshairs and squeeze the trigger. You don't wait. You don't second guess. It is neither the time nor the place to wonder if it is the right thing to do. That decision should have been made long before taking the field, else you should not be in the field at all.
What would the world be like now if President Clinton had said, "Hell, yes, grab his ass and get him here!" or "Fire!" when he had the chance? We'll never know. Perhaps his head was elsewhere at the time. We'll likely never know the truth, especially from him.
President Bush made a decision. In my opinion, he made the right decision.
I have damned little respect for airmchair quarterbacks who don't have to make the decision but second-guess those who do. When evaluating such a decision, hindsight does not apply. The poor bastard in the Oval Office doesn't have that benefit when he makes his decision, so we don't have that benefit when we evaluate what he did then with what he knew at the time.
What I find so hypocritical of the dimocrat leadership is that they had access to the same data that President Bush had regarding Iraq before 2003, they made their own analysis of that data, they concluded that Hussein was a threat that must be taken out, and they authorized President Bush to send our military forces in to do just that. The internet is a wonderful thing; it makes accessible quote after video of these people supporting and justifying the military action that they authorized. Now, they claim they were "misled" and ignore their own analyses of the same data. Now, some state that they never intended for military force to be used, even though the title of the joint resolution is "Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".
Bullshit. They supported the war when it was proposed because they thought public opinion favored it. Now they oppose it because they think public opinion opposes it. Like President Clinton, they gauge what they say with their wet finger firmly thrust into the winds of the polls. I'm so impressed.
Now, Markadelphia, with that context firmly in mind, let's take a short look at your opinions. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, rather I'm telling you what I understand of your writings.
You appear to think we should not have gone to war in Iraq to take out whatever threat Hussein posed, yet you appear to think we should have gone into Iran to take out whatever threat Iran poses. The latter is a guess because, characteristically, you have said it's a shame we haven't done something in Iran but you haven't said what you think we should have done. Neither threat was, or is, imminent. Why the difference?
You appear to really be disturbed (anguished is probably the better term) by the ongoing loss of life of the innocent in Iraq due to the ongoing fighting there. Such emotions are quite reasonable. But, you appear to believe we should get the hell out, and damned quickly, too, despite the bloodbath that the whole region would likely collapse into if we did. Why do you favor an action now that would greatly increase the loss of life that you deplore?
Why is your thinking so inconsistent?
What is consistent in your ranting is: 1) anything President Bush did do, he should not have done; 2) anything President Bush did not do, he should have done; 3) anything President Bush did, he did very badly; and, 4) everything is just awful, regardless of evidence.
Is that how you measure the performance of a President?
Your version of what happened in 1998 in Afghanistan is not true. It was not "too late"..bin Laden simply went one way instead of the other. This is directly from testimony from a bodyguard that was there. Clinton didn't hem and haw. He did however make errors, no doubt, 4 major ones which are detailed in the 9-11 commission report. The same report also details 6 major errors Bush made in the months before the attacks. I think we can both agree that there were errors made on both sides.
Forget about armchair quaterbacking...what is being done right now about preventing future attacks? What decisions are being made by President Bush in regards to defending this country at present?
It is from my blog a year and a half ago and most of these things have not been done. That is pathetic. That is how I would measure the performance of a president.
Look at this another way....bin Laden wants the Muslim world to wage a holy war against the west. Fortunely for us, not all Muslims think the same so he needs to get his propaganda out there so more people will join his cause. He wants an "US vs. Them" war and President Bush and the people that support him (you) are providing that for him. You are giving him what he wants.
What he doesn't want is for Muslims to become "Americanized" like most of our Islamic citizens are that live here. He doesn't want them to see how great their life can be in this country...how much more comfortable it really is....he wants them to kill the great Satan, not become part of it. What better recruiting tool than Iraq?
Y'know, DJ, you might find this hard to believe but I really wanted Bush to do the right thing. After 9-11, I rallied behind him. I supported him when he said "bin Laden: Dead or Alive." Afghanistan was the right thing to do, no doubt. But then they all started talking about Iraq. Then Tora Bora happened (read Gary Bernsten's book Jawbreaker for more on this. He was the field officer in charge of Tora Bora). Then President Bush said this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o
This is the point where he lost me. I was watching this live and I couldn't believe it. This is when I knew that something was just not right....
It was very clear long before 9-11 that we were going into Iraq. The people that helped elect Bush were tired of being at the little kids table behind Germany, France, and Russia in regards to Iraqi oil. Cheney spent 1993-2000 at Haliburton planning to go to war with Iraq to a)get their oil and b)use KBR (subsidiary of Haliburton) to fleece taxpayers like you and I with overly generous defense contracts. He reset the table and he used 9-11 as a pretext for going there.
They have sold you a bill of goods that just doesn't add up, if you really take a close look at it.
Don't hold your breath, Ed. He usually ignores well-asked questions that he doesn't like the answers to, and he generally ignores well-made points that he doesn't like the truth of.
Look at this another way....bin Laden wants the Muslim world to wage a holy war against the west. Fortunely for us, not all Muslims think the same so he needs to get his propaganda out there so more people will join his cause. He wants an "US vs. Them" war and President Bush and the people that support him (you) are providing that for him. You are giving him what he wants.
So now I'm giving him what he wants? Killing his recruits day after day after day helps his cause? The way to hurt the enemy is to pack up and go home?
I thought I did answer it....you mean th point about the importance of bin laden to Al Qaeda? I want to make sure before I answer it and I do have an answer.
OK, I disagree with you. bin Laden is important to Al Qaeda because he has become a huge figure in the Muslim world. Yes, Al Qaeda would go on. Yes, there would be a continued threat of terror. But we would show any pretenders to the throne what will happen to them. That's why I think we need to capture him alive...a hard thing to do since he has given orders for his men to kill him if he is about to be captured. As I said above, bin Laden provides much of the actual capital needed to fund terrorism as well as the figure to rally around for recruitment which also includes cash donations. If he is gone, money dries up. It's that simple.
Having said all this, equally as dangerous, if not more so, is Ayman Al Zawahari. He is the real genius in Al Qaeda and his capture would be an intelligence coup. He knows much about the day to day operations inside of Al Qaeda. He is the connector...he is the one who has brought together many of these men and with him gone, they would be even more devasted. The FBI has bin Laden in their top ten but it really should be Zawahari.
We look weak for not having captured and/or killed them. They are outlasting us and we look inept and foolish. They have given their followers hope that they, too, can elude the Great Satan. We would be better off with both of them gone. Every time they release a tape or a video, recruitment goes up. The two of them, out of any radical Islamic group, stand the biggest chance of getting a nuclear weapon. They have the connections, the money, the experience, and the propaganda on their side.
So, yes, if President Bush had finished the job by eliminating them immediately and all reminants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, we would be better off now.
Had President Bush also:
2. Immediately enacted ALL of the 9-11 commissions recomendations
3. taken the 1 trillion dollars he spent on Iraq, told the Saudis to fuck off, and sunk the money into solar, wind, and nuclear energy research.
4. aggresively pursued greater intelligence in Iran as well as assisting more moderate voices in that country
5. started a joing Pakistani-American terror task force to quell anti American sentiment in Pakistan as well as gather intelligence on terror cels in that country
6. shown even the slightest intellectual curiosity about the Middle East, understand its peoples, its groups and how intricate they are, and reached out to them in an extreme showing of cross cultural tolerance
then I would think he is a great president and he would have my full support.
DJ and Ed, both of you might find this hard to believe but I spend just as much time arguing with my "liberal" friends as I do debating folks like you guys. They want us out of the Middle East all together, have no concept of the threat of Al Qaeda, hate the fact that I am firm supporter of Israel (have friends in their army), and think that Hillary Clinton is the answer to all of our prayers. She is not.
I understand--believe me I do--that both of you believe that winning this battle means staying in Iraq no matter what. This is a huge mistake and it is giving our enemy the advantage...every single day.
I understand--believe me I do--that both of you believe that winning this battle means staying in Iraq no matter what. This is a huge mistake and it is giving our enemy the advantage...every single day.
The last hundred years have seen the standard of living of the typical resident of the oil-rich middle east desert advance by more than a millenia. They have progressed from boiling camel butt in an iron pot over a dung fire to houses, running water, toilets, electricity, automobiles, microwave ovens, washers and dryers, and the internet, all in about five generations. The sale of that oil to us decadent westerners is the only reason for that advance. We sell products, we buy oil, they sell oil, and they buy products. We need their oil and they need our products. It is called "trade", and it has brought them from into the twenty-first century.
A small minority of the people in the region, a minority known as "Islamic extremists", don't like that. They want a return to the Caliphate and to a way of life only slightly removed from the seventh century. They will, if they can, shut off the trade, reverse the advance, and plunge the whole region back into the Islamic version of the Dark Ages.
Our armed forces are in Iraq defending its people against that effort. If they leave Iraq, then the extremists would have a much higher probability of success. Regardless of success or failure, the sands of the desert would not be enough to absorb the blood they would spill.
You would have us believe that the people of Iraq and of the whole region will rise up and support the extremists if we don't leave, and they thereby support their own plunge into darkness, because we are there defending them against it. You would have us believe that their best hope for the future is for us to abandon them to such a fate. You would have us believe that we would show our resolve and committment to the whole world by abandoning our resolve and committment in the region.
You would further have us believe that the extremists don't want us to leave, don't want us to stop killing them right and left, and don't want us to continue preventing their success. You would further have us believe they they want us to stay there so the people will support them, that our opposition gives them the advantage.
I think "sick" and "twisted" fits such thinking pretty well.
You know, conversing with you is much like conversing with a duck. I've done that a few times, as my in-laws used to raise ducks. Sometimes it's fun, and usually the duck appears to enjoy it. The duck seldom gets ruffled (pardon the pun), but his response is always just a quack. It is the same quack, over and over and over. No matter what he means by the quack, it becomes less and less worthwhile to hear it. After a while, it wears thin, and more important and worthwhile enterprises beckon.
In short, it seems that you disagree because you seem to think that Al Qaeda would either fall apart or become so weakened that it might as well have fallen apart if we had taken Bin Laden out. Is this accurate?
While I could say that Al Qaeda would be weakened if we got Bin Laden (Given how quiet he's been, it's quite likely that he's at least seriously marginalized.) I'm convinced that any weakening of Al Qaeda would be minimal at best.
Think about it. You wrote of Bin Laden as both a money man and an inspiration leader. Let's look at the money many aspect first.
When was the last time Bin Laden went to an ATM to grab some bucks for his buddy's toys? If he ever went to an ATM, he would have stopped by 1996. How about going to a bank in person? That's just as likely as visiting an ATM after '96. So how does his own money get handled? Either electronically (not likely due to its traceability) or via trusted cohorts who he has given authority to conduct these financial dealings, whether with a bank, or more likely, in cash. Whether or not Bin Laden is dead, those other men can continue to exert control over the purse strings.
Furthermore, Bin Laden's personal fortune is clearly not their only source of funding. How many Islamic "charities" in the US have been shut down because they were found to be fronts for terrorists? How many governments, such as Iran and Syria are funneling money to the terrorists? How much oil money gets passed their way by private supporters? In the overall scheme of things, Bin Laden's personal fortune is only a small chunk of their funding picture, even if it is significant. And even then, you have to remember that only a fool would fail to plan to make sure his organization would not have access to the money in the likely event of his death. Bin Laden may be many things, but I don't think "fool" is anywhere on his resume.
As for Bin Laden, the inspirational leader, I can only think that you really don't understand how Islam relates to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda's existence has nothing to do with a particular leader. While an organization may gel around a particular person, that person is not the driving force of the organization, it's their shared ideology.
Consider how clouds are formed. There are two ingredients of cloud formation: water vapor and airborne particles. Clouds form when there is sufficient water vapor in the air to coalesce around the particles.
That's how a group like Al Qaeda forms. Bin Laden is like one of those particles. But it's the ideology of Islam that acts as the water vapor. If it wasn't Bin Laden, it would have been Achmed. If not Achmed, then Mohammed. If not Mohammed, well, you get the picture.
The problem we face is not Bin Laden, or Achmed, or Arafat. It's that there is a pervasive ideology oriented around controlling the world and the need to destroy the west to accomplish that goal. The "leaders" just happen to be the guy within a group of like minded thugs who pipe up and say, "Let's stop talking about this and actually do it."
Of course, by now you should know that I don't like to make mere assertions. This time is no different. Here's some of the vast volumes of evidence that this is all about ideology, not the leader:
The primary thing about these two links is that they both have videos. Even more important, these videos show the Islam ideologues speaking for themselves. With such all pervasive death cult propaganda aimed even at children, it should be obvious, even to you, that there is no shortage of ideology based "water vapor" in the middle east, which is why taking out Bin Laden will (or did) make hardly a dent in their activities.
Kevin, is there any chance of switching to something other than HaloScan to handle comments? It's never been good, but now it's ridiculously bad!
Two more links, then I'm done. These two links deal primarily with how Al Qaeda is organized. Notice that Al Qaeda is deliberately organized loosely into cells. The entire point of that organization is to keep the arrest or death of one person, or even whole cells, from disrupting other cells.
The second article is especially interesting because it notes a change in tactics for Al Qaeda. They're moving to an even more loosely organized setup. Also notice what they're moving from: an "Open Front" organization. Think about it. An open front organization is what's going on in Iraq. In a military conflict, there is one overriding reason to change tactics: when the one you're using isn't working. In other words, we're kicking their butts, so they've having to try something else.
Of course, it goes without saying that we will need to adjust our tactics to match their change in tactics. But that's no reason to stop using effective tactics in places where they're still using the older "open front" tactics as in, say, Iraq!
Kevin, is there any chance of switching to something other than HaloScan to handle comments? It's never been good, but now it's ridiculously bad!
Ed:
I feel your pain, but to answer your question: No.
I've had HaloScan since shortly after I started this blog. It has about 14,000 archived TSM comments. I pay a nominal fee each year so that my intelligent, erudite, and verbose commenters can leave extended comments - but realistically this is a comment page, not the place to post essays or even carry out a debate. That's what blogs are for, and one of the reasons I started my own.
I suggest, then, that the way to address your angst would be to post your pieces at your blog, and put a link to them here in the comments. ;)
HaloScan has been pretty reliable over my history with them. They are adding new functionality, and obviously are having some hardware and/or software problems. I fully expect them to have those problems ironed out in a few days. Bear with them. I intend to.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/04/yes-im-still-alive.html (59 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
awesome speech! On one hand, I could see that happening, then, reality steps in and the other hand waves frantically and goes "Hello? Do you REALLY want to roll the cosmic dice that the Dem's will screw up the country sooo bad by Nov '08 that the voters will come to their senses and vote Fred Thompson in? Do you REALLY wanna risk TEOTWAWKI?"
Sometimes, I agree, you wonder if there was a big, red "RESET" button somewhere you could push to fix all the ills in this country...but at what cost?
That's the speech our President would give if he was a defeatist. But he's not; he's hanging in there for the few of us who truly realize what the stakes are, both domestic and foreign.
Has anyone here truly reflected on the utter pounding this man has taken during the last six years from the media, the world and our own so-called countrymen? Nothing, absolutely nothing this man does is ever complimented or praised. Everything is not enough, not quite, not at all, too late, too soon, stupid or just plain wrong. I don't know how he endures it. But he is weakening, the juices are drying up, and he looks just plain tired.
Maybe your right, Kevin. Maybe this country needs a good solid dose of Democratic one-worlder leftist ideology to snap people to their senses. But we'll endure not because of it, but in spite of it.
OK, I haven't made any comments for awhile but I really can't believe what I am reading here. What planet are you people living on?
George Bush is taking a pounding because he is doing a piss poor job of running this country. Kevin, you know I have a lot of respect for you but that speech you put up is a rose colored view of a reality that simply does not exist. Bush does not have our country's best interest at heart.
He is only concerned with his and his pals business interests. Ask yourselves these questions:
1. Why does President Bush continually support a country that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers?
2. Why would President Bush sell the management of our ports to Dubai, a country that had produced 2 of the 19 hijackers?
3. Why would President Bush say that Osama bin Laden, the man who carried out the 9-11 attacks, "doesn't matter? Why is he still at large? Why is Ayman el Zawahari still at large?
The worst attack in our country's history occurred on HIS watch and the men behind it are still out there? And this is OK with all of you? He spent the entire month of August of 2001 on vacation and he, along with his staff, ignored every report about the threat of Al Qaeda including the one title "Al Qaeda determined to attack in the US."
He sat there for SEVEN MINTUES AND DID NOTHING after Andrew Card told him that the nation was under attack. If a Democrat had done any of these things, all of you (and me) would have called for his head. But no...oh no...not Saint George. He gets a free pass on everything because of the "stakes." What a load of shit.
Fact: World Wide Terrorism went up 25 percent. This is from the US State Departement. Two thirds of those attacks occurred inside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush Co has made our country less safe, not more safe, by using the absolutely wrong tool for the job. Our armed forces are only a small part of what is needed to defeat the people who would do us harm.
We need to focus more effort on intelligence, specifically human inteligence, and infiltrate the various cells around the world. We need to beef up our Arabic speaking inteligence gathering units and start learning more about the various factions witin the Muslim world. We need to reach out to the moderates of each country in the Middle East and start to learn. Being smarter about your enemy defeats your enemey.
We need to start being better detectives, like the Brits who have foiled two major terrorist plots in the last year simply by using their investigative skills. We need to train elite special forces units, in conjunction with the Pakistani government, to raid Al Qaeda strongholds on the Afghan-Pakistani border. This is where the problem is.
Read this:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/agosta/
Guess where these subs are? Less than 100 miles away the Afghan-Pakistani border. That means that four nuclear submarines are sitting in a hotbed of anti American sentiment (Karachi) less than two hours away from the men who carried out the worst attack on our nation's soil. And where are we?
Refereeing a cival war, which according to General David Patreus (top man in Iraq) cannot be won militarily and has to be won...how? Diplomatically. So, what?....is he a wuss too now like all the liberals you people continully rip on here?
All of you are making the mistake in thinking that taking a stand in Iraq is what is going to show our enemy our resolve. In fact, what we are doing there is having the opposite effect. Bush Co has created a giant terrorist training ground in which young recruits can ply their trade and then take it on the road.
Bush has lost the faith of the people because he is incompetent not because of the "liberal" media or weak willed people. He, like many of you, can't admit when they are wrong and instead
shift the blame to your favorite whipping boy....Democrats.
Bush had the faith of the world behind him after 9-11. There were candlelight vigils in Tehran for crying out loud! He had the support of the world to liquidate terrorism. We could have been much farther along in our struggle. Instead, he chose to squander that by invading a country, that had nothing to do with 9-11, to prove to all of his daddy's pals that he could sit at the grown ups table and make them rich.
Even though I am conservative on some issues, I could never be a part of a group that calls so loudly for more personal responsibilty and yet accepts none, even the face of the glaringly obvious.
Markadelphia, you're a twit. I'll only address one of your silly remarks. The Pakistani's ordered 3, not 4, SSK Agosta 90B submarines from France. They are SSKs, not SSNs, so just from the name you should've realized they're not nuclear, as is made clear in the article you referenced. Did you even read it? And just what's a submarine in the Arabian going to do to our troops in Afghanistan, pray tell? Which, by the way, is a lot further than 100 miles from Afghanistan, as even a brief look at any map would tell you. What are they going to do, truck them over the Hindu Kush mountains and then slip stealthily down the mountain streams to fire torpedoes and Exocet anti-ship missiles at our troops?
Larry
Larry,
The original order called for four but they changed it to three subs when they couldn't afford to pay for the last one.
While the specs for the Agosta 90B subs say it is equipped to fire Exocet missiles and torpedoes, at a press briefing following the annual naval exercise Seaspark-2001, Rear Adm. Mohammad Afzal Tahir, the deputy chief of naval staff for operations, announced that the Pakistan navy was considering equipping its submarines with nuclear missiles. He suggested the Agosta 90B submarine, with its air independent propulsion system, can deliver nuclear weapons.
I double checked this with my friend Matt, who has served on a nuclear sub (also just back from Iraq) and he says they can deliver nuclear warheads up to a range of around 10,000 miles. Go to this site and read "Dodging the Nuclear 9-11"
http://howardbloom.net/
I think you will find that much of what Howard says about Al Qaeda is line with how many people here feel. I don't agree with all of it but the threat is very real and after their track record, I do not trust President Bush and his administration to pay attention to this.
Concur. Markadelphia holds positions highly indicative of twittery.
It is said that name calling effectively checks one out of the debate.
Sometimes that is true.
Other times, it simply shorthand for "the time spent refuting the flaws of the presented assertions is better spent doing something else, like eating lunch."
-------------
This is however, not to be construed as taking the position that Bush is flawless, above reproach, and has done a masterful job.
He has not.
Far from it, in fact.
What he has done is a mediocre job.
What he has done, however, is the CORRECT job, and for mostly the correct reasons.
Unfortunately, the terms of the national debate tend to polarize to unreasonable extremes that either approximate Markadelphia's position, or the Bush as saint position.
To put it another way, where the terms of the national debate to be productive, it wouldn't be about whether to do this job or not, but rather, how to more effectively go about it.
Spastic assertions such as "Bu$hitler isn't interested in the welfare of the country, only his pals wallets" rings of no truth, is unproductive, and really has no place in the debate.
Or rather, it has no place in the debate that's taking place at the grownup table.
Assertions like that are meritless shiny red herrings designed to hold the attention of the distractible masses.
And there ya go. No matter how many times the Markadelphia-marketed-meme is refuted, they keep right on repeating it.
See this: http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/are_you_directing_your_own_show/
No wonder some of us are burned out; it's amazing it isn't more.
Hmm. That's funny..."They always employ the same stock words and phrases in chanting about an issue, whenever that issue arises. They always make the presentation as annoying and offensive as possible to the “unbeliever.”
You mean like "Defeatocrat" or "loony liberal" or any of the other myriad of repetive phrases we have heard for the last six years from the neocon propaganda machine?
Interesting that Mr Poretto only allows concurring points of view in his comments.
Refuted? Offensive? I judge my leaders based on their actions and the outcome of those actions. I don't care what party they belong to...
Markadelphia, you're a twit. I'm not into name calling, but goddamnit, Larry is right, and you need to read such more than once.
But, I'll address more than one of your remarks:
He sat there for SEVEN MINTUES AND DID NOTHING after Andrew Card told him that the nation was under attack. If a Democrat had done any of these things, all of you (and me) would have called for his head. But no...oh no...not Saint George. He gets a free pass on everything because of the "stakes." What a load of shit.
When Andrew Card notified President Bush that the nation was under attack, he was reading a story in a classroom full of children. If it had been believed at that time that he was in imminent danger, then the Secret Service would have yanked him from that room in a heartbeat and got him the hell out of there. They didn't. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they knew, at that time, a whole lot more than you know know.
So, what did he do? He did precisely what he should have done, which is finish the story and leave. Why was that the correct thing to do? Because that prevented the panic that would have propagated to the whole country had he scrammed from that room. He was intelligent enough to understand that then, in the heat of the moment, but you're not intelligent enough to undertand it now, with endless time to think about it.
And what did he personally do after those seven minutes that would have been better done seven minutes earlier in the midst of a growing panic? Do you suppose he depends on trained, skilled, professionals to whom he delegates authority, as any competent leader does, or do you think he personally makes everything happen that is of any importance?
We need to start being better detectives, like the Brits who have foiled two major terrorist plots in the last year simply by using their investigative skills.
How many terrorist attacks have been foiled by our intelligence services using their investigative skills? Do they tell you such things, or do they just quietly and invisibly do their jobs? Here's a hint: there haven't been any successful Islamic terrorist attacks committed in this country since 9/11, have there?
All of you are making the mistake in thinking that taking a stand in Iraq is what is going to show our enemy our resolve.
Amazing. Simply amazing. Keeping our committments, finishing the job we started, and helping a new ally until it is a self-supporting democracy does not show our resolve. I have seldom ever read anything more dunderheaded and irrational in my whole life.
You have bought into the notion that George W. Bush is a dunce. It has been the most successful "big lie" ever put out by the dimocrats. You have bought into the notion that he is driven by the notion of making his pals rich. You apparently cannot see that the dimocrats are driven only by getting back into power, regardless of any threats this country faces, and are more than willing to guarantee this country's defeat in a war to do so.
That speech was written for YOU. I like it.
Alright folks, fair is fair...on the subject of name calling...
"...most of you are too damn stupid to realize ..."
"...because a small handful of noisy idiots..."
"...If I was the liar you morons take me for,...
"You idiots need to understand..."
"you actively support those who help the enemy..."
Please....
And DJ, just who exactly is our "new ally"? Is it the Shi'ite? Or the Sunni? Or how about the Kurds? Dunderheaded and Irrational? By your own statements in previous posts, that part of the world is incapable of sustainting a democracy...so now they are? Which is it?
No, DJ, the speech was written for YOU so you can absolve yourself of the responsibility of the largest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country, which is, in fact, making the enemies of our country stronger every day.
Markadelphia, our new ally is IRAQ. It is a country that is populated by minorities, just as this country is. Step back and read the name of this blog again.
Yup, I'll say it again:
All of you are making the mistake in thinking that taking a stand in Iraq is what is going to show our enemy our resolve.
Amazing. Simply amazing. Keeping our committments, finishing the job we started, and helping a new ally until it is a self-supporting democracy does not show our resolve. I have seldom ever read anything more dunderheaded and irrational in my whole life.
No, DJ, the speech was written for YOU so you can absolve yourself of the responsibility of the largest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country, which is, in fact, making the enemies of our country stronger every day.
So, now I am responsible for the largest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country? Mercy sakes -- how did I do that?
You've convinced us long ago, but not of what you might wish. When you reach the bottom of the hole, it's time to stop diggin'.
Who exactly are we fighting in Iraq?
Keeping our commitments...our original committment was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He is dead and his regime is gone. Then it was to insure they did not receive WMDs. They never had them and they don't have any now. Now, it is about...what exactly? Staying the course? What is our course? Since the "job" has changed at least three times, possibly more, it's hard to define how to finish it. People are being killed their everyday and we bear some of the responsibility for creating the chaos. Don't we?
In the meantime, we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, continue to allow extremists to flourish in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and enabled an enemy with more power than they ever should have, Iran.
Strategically speaking, Iraq is hampering us from disrupting terrorist activities because combat troops should not be used to fight terror. Combat troops should be used for combat and that is NOT what is happening in Iraq.
Make no mistake about it, DJ. I know who our enemies are and what they are capable of doing. I want to stop them. I want to prevent them from launching another attack on our country. So do many people who you look down your nose at as "weak" or "twitish." The days of conservative reframing (i.e. Democrats must be weak because they don't agree with me and I am always right and strong) are over.
The days of "Bush the moron, who can't do anything right" aren't though, yes? Look, the guy isn't perfect, but I honestly think that the welfare of this country is first in his priorities. Whining about the seven minutes he spent reading to kids on 9/11 is just lame. What would you have expected him to do? Run into a phone booth and change into a Superman outfit? You want to prevent terrorist from launching another attack on our country but you don't want us to kill them in Iraq. How do we stop them then? Scold them? Shake our fingers? Or would you rather we fight them here?
If you won't use combat troops to kill terrorists, who would you use? Girl Scouts? Or would you rather treat it as a "police problem" as Kerry suggested? I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that "Iraq is hampering us from disrupting terrorist activities because combat troops should not be used to fight terror". If we're so hampered, why have we not seen another attack on our soil? Our guys in Iraq are drawing them there like moths to flame and killing them.
Now, it is about ... what exactly?
President Bush has stated, "I've told the prime minister [of Iraq] that our goal in Iraq is to strengthen his government and to support his efforts to build a free Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and is an ally in the war against the terrorists."
That's clear enough for me. I think we should leave once that has been accomplished. The dimocrats appear to think we should leave on Tuesday because it is Tuesday. Yeah, that'll work.
... combat troops should not be used to fight terror.
The people who are fighting to destroy us using terror tactics use military weapons as well as vehicles, airplanes, bombs, and poisons, and they don't use nuclear weapons only because they don't (yet) have one. They use whatever works, they use it without regard for human life (even their own), and (I believe) will be stopped only by being killed.
So, what do you think we should use against them? Harsh language? Subpoenaes? Commercials? Laws?
Combat troops should be used for combat and that is NOT what is happening in Iraq.
What is it called when our troops shoot at the enemy, and vice-versa, using small arms, mortars, missiles, tanks, and JDAM's?
I want to stop them. I want to prevent them from launching another attack on our country.
Yeah, sure you do, provided we don't use combat troops and don't piss off anyone else in the process, right?
In the meantime, we have ... enabled an enemy with more power than they ever should have, Iran.
Hoo boy. Do you think we should have "disabled" Iran so that it couldn't become an imminent threat?
If so, what would we use to do that? A leaflet campaign? A boycott of the World Cup? Or would it require combat troops?
Kevin.
I just wrote, and deleted a rather dark comment.
Like you, I worry. But then, I say to myself; "hell, bring it. Better we face it now than hand it down to the next generation."
Let 'em bring it.
Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Mark, I'm going to comment on just one small portion of your last comment - that's all:
"Keeping our commitments...our original committment was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He is dead and his regime is gone."
Yes, he is, and it is. We did the job the United Nations would not do against a nation in violation of the terms of the cease-fire from the '91 Gulf War - a nation that had made a corrupt mockery of the UN "Oil for Food" program, and that had suborned the Russian and French governments with money from that program, ensuring that the UN would never do anything.
"Then it was to insure they did not receive WMDs. They never had them and they don't have any now."
Never! Wow. That's a pretty absolute statement. I bet all those dead Iranians and Kurds will be glad to hear that. Oh, wait... And I bet every major Western intelligence service will be glad to know that you, Markadelphia, know for a fact that Saddam never had WMD (you know, poison gas), never had any plans for biological weapons, had no nuclear program in place waiting for the sanctions against his nation to be dropped. I mean, wow! I bet Clinton has a red face over bombing Iraq in 1998 now that you've told him that Iraq never had WMD.
But, just how do you know this?
"Now, it is about...what exactly?"
Now it's about staying to do what we (almost) always do - pick up the nation we broke and put it back together so it's better than it was when we found it. But in this case, it's more than that. Iraq is flypaper for jihadists. They go to Iraq to attack the Great Satan. Only the Great Satans in Iraq carry rifles and drive armored vehicles, and they shoot back. More to the point they use their sights, and hit what they aim at.
We've been at war in Iraq since March 2003. That's a bit over four years. We've had about 3,500 killed so far, and about 24,000 wounded. On D-Day the allies lost about 2,500 dead and another 7,500 wounded. One day. The invasion of Iwo Jima - one month of fighting - cost the U.S. over 8,200 dead and over 19,000 wounded.
Each death is a tragedy, but ridding the world of Saddam and his sons "Dead" and "Deader" required a military intervention. We're Americans. We don't pack up and leave a broken nation behind.
Unless, of course, there's a Democratic Congress eager to cut off funds.
OK, one more comment I'll take on: Is Bush doing a "piss-poor job." Yeah, pretty much. What causes me to lose sleep at night is my absolute conviction that had Al Gore been in the White House on 9/11/2001, we'd be appeasing radical Muslims here in the States today, and what happened in July of 2005 in London or in March of 2004 in Madrid would have been repeated here in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and for all I know, Dubuque, but on a larger scale. Not to mention what happened in Beslan. Had John "Swiftboat" Kerry been elected in 2004, we'd have already pulled out of Iraq, and the slaughter that occurred in Vietnam and Cambodia would pale in comparison to what would be going on today in Iraq.
So, is Bush doing a "piss-poor job"? Yes. But the options we've been given have been far bleaker.
But keep ranting, Mark. Please do.
Markadelphia,
Imagine a man who goes to the hospital because he hasn't been feeling well. The doctors there discover that his heart is failing and he will die if it is not replaced.
So he goes into surgery and the surgeon fairly quickly removes the man's heart. Then he steps away from the table and says, "That's it. The danger is over. His heart can't kill him now. Send him home."
Yeah, like that's gonna happen. His widow would scream bloody murder and sue that doctor and his hospital for everything they had. And she would deserve to own that hospital. Why? Because he didn't finish the job. He removed the immediate danger, but didn't replace the heart so that the patient could live.
Ok, let's say that the doctor has more sense than that. He has a replacement heart available for the patient. The doctor does a good job getting the heart in and properly sewed up. Then the hospital sends the man home 2 hours later. 12 hours later the man is dead of a massive infection.
Once again, the widow would deserve to own the hospital after suing them for massive incompetence. Why? Because they didn't finish the job which is simply keeping an eye on him and giving medications and treatments necessary to fight off the infections and other issues until his body is strong enough to do the job on its own. In other words, they have to keep him in the hospital until the whole job is done.
So what does this have to do with Iraq? Simple, a county is much like a body in many ways AND WE CUT ITS FRICKEN' HEAD OFF!
If we had simply left at that point, the country would have promptly succumbed to Saddam's supporters and related groups such as Al Qaida. They would have immediately asserted their military strength over the country and Iraq would have been right back where they were under Saddam. It would have been the same mess with different faces.
But we didn't leave. We stuck around and gave them a chance to set up their own government; one that represents most of the people of that country and operates under the rule of law. (Contrast that with the whim of the ruler such as under Saddam, the Taliban and what's going on in Iran.) So now that that job is done, why can't we leave?
It's simple: The new government in Iraq is still weak. They're being attacked by forces which want to drag the country back into the darkness (infection). Their natural defenses (police and military = the body's immune system) are still not up to the task of fighting off the assault on their own. Leaving now would allow the infection to overwhelm the defenses, killing the patient.
Yes Mark, there are different phases in the job entailing different tasks, priorities and goals. Do not confuse those phases as being different jobs. There has always been one single job: To remove a diseased government which was threatening and attacking everyone around it and replacing that government with a healthy one that doesn't do those things. In other words, IT'S A HEAD TRANSPLANT.
Any surgeon and hospital would be viewed as horribly incompetent for failing to complete the entire job of a transplant. Our country would be just as incompetent if we fail (not because of lack of ability, but because of lack of backbone) to complete the entire job of replacing a government.
Tobacco Road, brother. I'm ready when you are.
There is an awful lot here to respond to so I think I am just going to keep it to a few things. First of all, do all of you truly believe that if Gore or Kerry were president we would be appeasing terrorists now? If you do, then the word that is bandied about here alot--"sheeple" applies to you as well. At least Karl Rove can say "Mission Accomplished" and actually have it be true.
Kevin, I listed how I would fight terrorism in my first response. I didn't just rip on Bush, I gave several points above that I think would work. This is based on the five people I know, one family member, who have been to Iraq and Afganistan. One of whom is in special forces so that's where I got the idea of the special forces unit...what can I say those guys always want the glory. Look at my other points and tell me how that is "emboldening" terrorists.
Everyone else, clearly you all think I am "twitty liberal" and won't believe anything I say. So, how about people who have actually spent some time in Iraq. Go out and visit some of the blogs of people who are actually there. Don't turn on your blinders if it is a "liberal" blog. I think once you start to hear what is actually going on there...not the sanitized corporate media bullshit or the Guyana-like cult of right wing radio ....you might start to have a different opinion.
Oh, and you know what really got me mad about the fake Bush resignation speech? The part about the economy being in great shape. What in the...!@#!@#? Read this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0803/p03s03-usec.html
I was listening to Laura Ingraham the other day and she said the following:
"People in this country are working harder for less money in worse jobs. If the Republicans don't get the message on this, they are going to be in worse trouble than they are now."
Here's the key quotation from that piece, Mark:
"Between 2001 and 2004, the median income of Americans with college degrees barely budged, rising from $72,300 to $73,000 (after adjusting for inflation), according to a Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances."
Wow. $73,000 a year. In 99% of the countries around the world, that's unimaginable wealth. The overwhelming majority of our "poor" people live in multi-room homes with electricity, indoor plumbing, air-conditioning, cable television, microwave ovens, and own their own automobiles. That's "wealth" in the overwhelming majority of the world.
Now, my question is, do you want our poor to live better than they do now (and make the 3rd world even more jealous than it already is) or do you want to pull down the wealthy to make the world more "fair"?
"I listed how I would fight terrorism in my first response. I didn't just rip on Bush, I gave several points above that I think would work."
I assume you're talking about these points:
"We need to focus more effort on intelligence, specifically human inteligence, and infiltrate the various cells around the world. We need to beef up our Arabic speaking inteligence gathering units and start learning more about the various factions witin the Muslim world. We need to reach out to the moderates of each country in the Middle East and start to learn. Being smarter about your enemy defeats your enemey.
"We need to start being better detectives, like the Brits who have foiled two major terrorist plots in the last year simply by using their investigative skills. We need to train elite special forces units, in conjunction with the Pakistani government, to raid Al Qaeda strongholds on the Afghan-Pakistani border."
I can't imagine any who generally disagrees with these points. Yes, we need to do better in these areas. So why aren't we discussing these? It's simple: Points of agreement don't require nearly the volume of discussion as points of disagreement.
Here's a question for you: What makes you think these intelligence gathering and military techniques and the active fighting in Iraq are mutually exclusive? In other words, what makes you think we have to let the terrorists win in Iraq in order to use these techniques?
Everyone else, clearly you all think I am "twitty liberal" and won't believe anything I say.
Not quite.
I don't believe everything you say, and I don't believe that you believe everything you say. There is too much knee-jerking and schizophrenia involved. I think you often just repeat far-left talking points, and they don't make any more sense here than they did when you first read them elsewhere.
Kevin and Ed are dead on point here, but that point is apparently lost on you, and is certainly lost on the dimocrat leadership. It is that, when the United States wins and finishes a war, it does not simply pack up its tools and go home. It stays and helps its former enemy to recover, rebuild, and become a stable, self-sustaining country again. And, it largely pays the bills to do so.
WW I taught the world how wrong it was to not do that. WW II taught the world how right it was. It is a learned response, and now we're doing it again in Iraq.
Consider Germany after WW II, for example. Germany was divided into four zones of occupation. The Soviet Union plundered its zone, carring away most anything of value. The result was that its zone, which became East Germany, was a poor, economic desert until Germany was finally reunified.
The other three zones were unified into West Germany after a democratic government was set up under a constitution. War crime trials were held and the guilty were imprisoned or executed. The Marshall Plan was instituted (remember General of the Army George Marshall, who became Secretary of State?), under which the United States paid to rebuild much of Europe. Our troops stayed, as a governing and protecting force, until German sovereignty was restored. Our troops stay there to this day, at Germany's request, to help protect Germany from an ever-diminishing threat from the former Communist bloc.
Germany became a peaceful, self-sustaining, prosperous country which doesn't threaten its neighbors any more.
Consider Japan after WW II, for example. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan only a week before it agreed to surrender unconditionally, and so demanded a place in the post-war governance of Japan. General of the Army MacArthur said, "No," and meant it, and so Japan was spared the horrors that befell the Communist bloc.
Japan was occupied by the United States under the military governorship of MacArther. Its head of state, the Emperor Hirohito, was allowed to remain as a figurehead. A democratic government was set up under a constitution. War crimes trials were held and the guilty were imprisoned or executed. Japan was demilitarized and rebuilt, and the United States paid to rebuild it. Our troops stayed, as a governing and protecting force, until Japanese sovereignty was restored. Our troops stay there to this day, at Japan's request, to help protect Japan from the Soviet Union (more so in the past than now) and from China.
Japan became a peaceful, self-sustaining, prosperous country which doesn't threaten its neighbors any more.
Oh, the humanity. Defending and rebuilding those countries and others was truly an awful thing to do, wasn't it? It took years, not months, and wasn't easy, either politically or economically.
Now, consider what we are doing in Iraq. Iraqi sovereignty has been restored. A democratic government has been set up under a constitution. War crime trials have been held (and more will be held) and the guilty were imprisoned or executed. Iraq is being rebuilt, and the United States is paying to rebuild it. Our troops stay, as a protecting force for threats both within and without, and will do so until Iraq can protect and govern itself and Iraq asks us to leave.
Iraq, if we continue, just might became a peaceful, self-sustaining, prosperous country which doesn't threaten its neighbors any more.
Golly, what an awful thing to do again.
Now, consider why I described your writings, at least in part, as schizophrenic. You would have us believe that we should have left Iraq as soon as the Iraqi military was defeated and its gubmint was deposed. On the other hand, you tell us that we have "enabled an enemy with more power than they ever should have, Iran." Leaving a power and military vacuum in Iraq, which Iran could then easily step into, would have made Iran just that much more powerful, wouldn't it?
You haven't really thought this through, have you? If you haven't, it appears as simply a jumble of someone else's talking points. If you have, it resembles schizophrenia.
But, you do have a point. Credibility is earned, and you're not earning it.
I think Bush should give this speech. I've wondered for a long time why he puts up with the bullshit. Let Pelosi become President and the country will beat down the doors to vote Republican.
As far as Markadlephia is concerned, I'll say what everyone is thinking. There are two America's. We live in one, Mark lives in another. Talking to him is like conversing with a brick wall. They want to create a collective, European style Democratic Socialist state that is anathema to everything this country was founded on.
There are two things to understand about the Left.
1.) Everything they say is a lie.
2.) They project onto others their own attributes.
eg.)They call us fascists, but they are the ones attacking those they disagree with, like the ad-hominen attacks on the group that released Al Gore's utility bills.
Kevin, I would like poor people in this country to be paid more money for their work. I don't expect people to get free rides. People will have to work or, even better, find work they enjoy which perhaps benefits this country. Lazy people deserve nothing. Contrary to popular belief, most poor people are not lazy.
If I were an owner of a company and my salary was 5 million a year and my lowest workers made 30k a year, that would be just plain wrong. I think I can "get by" on a million a year or even less and pay my workers 80K a year. I like buying CDs and DVDs but really I don't care what kind of car I drive or how big my house is. Most wealthy people, not all but most, are greedy and want to keep as much as money as they possibly can to wield power. Every culture throughout time has been like that and America is no exception.
Ed, we would not be letting the terrorists "win" in Iraq because the majority of violence there is from the civil war. The situation over there is about as grey as it gets and Bush's predictions on Iraq becoming a terrorist state if we leave make me wonder....isn't it that way already? I have a deep concern that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with most of our resources committed to Iraq. Imagine those resources committed to finding bin Laden, Zawahari, and others.
DJ, sadly, my points are the talking points of people like Paul Eaton, Anthony Zinni, Paul Hackett, and even the current commander in Iraq, General Patreus. These are people that are saying the conflict in Iraq cannot be resolved with combat troops. These are people that know far more than anyone here about the situation in Iraq including me. Check out Zinni's book called Battle For Peace. It just came out in paperback.
I won't argue with your assesment of America's role in post WWII Europe. I will, however, state, that the situation in Iraq is completely different and you are making the same mistakes very eloquently illustrated in The Guns of August, looking to previous conflicts without taking into account the various factors that make this conflict unique.
Your current assesment of Iraq
"Iraqi sovereignty has been restored. A democratic government has been set up under a constitution....Iraq is being rebuilt..
is simply not true. Please go out and read some of the blogs or books from people that have been there or are still there. It's a complete and utter disaster and getting worse everyday.
and Mark comes along and proves my point.
"If I were an owner of a company and my salary was 5 million a year and my lowest workers made 30k a year, that would be just plain wrong. I think I can "get by" on a million a year or even less and pay my workers 80K a year."
1.) Why is it wrong for an owner of a business to make 5 million and an employee 30k. If the work they do is worth 30K then that is what they should be paid. It is up to the owner of the business to decide.
2.) Who are you to determine what someone else should "get by" on. If I worked, built a business and now make 5 million a year, why is this wrong?
3.) If the owner of a company takes too much from the company as a salary, the company will be hurt and it will go out of business.
As I said, this is pure Euro Socialism and anathema to everything this country was built on.
Mark,
Even if it is a civil war, then we have to ask the question: What are the sides in this war?
The answer is that on one side, we have the terrorists who want to return Iraq to the way it was before we removed Saddam. On another side (and supporting the terrorists) we have the Iranians who want to make Iraq part of Iran, which would still leave Iraq pretty much as it was under Saddam, just under new management. And finally, we have the legitimately elected government.
The simple fact is that only one of those factions would actually solve the problem that we went in there to fix: the legitimate government. If any other group wins, we wind up right back where we were: with a government that threatens and attacks everyone around them. No matter how you spin it, no matter how much equivocation of terrorists with "freedom fighters" go on (Note: The terrorists are actually the opposite of freedom fighters.), no matter how much you claim that one side is no different than the other, it still boils down to a government of, by and for the people vs. terrorists.
I know who I'm rooting for. Who do you want to win?
Note: Our letting up in Afghanastan has absolutely nothing to do with any perceived need to use those resources in Iraq. In fact, our letting up in Afghanastan coincided with our lightening up in Iraq. It's not an either/or situation.
As for moving on to issues in other countries: Would you ask the surgeon in my example to start operating on another patient before he is finished with the first one?
We have enough resources to do what's necessary in two countries and maybe three if we're willing to deplete our reserves. But without a compelling reason to do so, we would be leaving ourselves unable to respond to situations which may pop up. So for example, lets say we invade Pakistan. What would happen if Iran decided to pick a fight? Or North Korea? If we've committed our reserves to Pakistan, what would be left to deal with those hot spots?
There's no doubt about it, war is an ugly business. So why are you asking us to expand the war faster than we really need to?
Markadelphia,
What is the typical workforce of a company that employs a $5M CEO? 10,000 or more? If the CEO takes a $4M reduction in his salary and gives it to his employees, each one gets an extra $400 per year. If it makes so little difference, what would be the point of such a gesture?
And while it is true that many poor people are not lazy, many of them are uneducated, unskilled, or have made poor decisions in their lives and/or are suffering because of the poor decisions made by their parents. I know, because I've been there.
I, for one, would gladly accept his resignation.
In his speech, he could have discussed how he was going to continue his good works in opening our borders with Mexico so the Reconquista can be realized and the "extremist group of folks" aren't hindered in their quest for The American Way.
He could wax poetic about how he needed to unilaterally disregard pesky privacy laws.... so he could preserve our nation and it's character. Kind of like blowing up a house to rid it of cockroaches.
He could talk about his sound military strategy of fighting guerrillas as though they are a standing army. He could expound on how, "winning the hearts and minds" has proven to be a successful tactic throughout time.
Yeah, there are a lot of things he could put in his speech, but none of them should be about portaiting himself as a victim, and how we dopes, "just don't get it."
I won't argue with your assesment of America's role in post WWII Europe. I will, however, state, that the situation in Iraq is completely different and you are making the same mistakes very eloquently illustrated in The Guns of August, looking to previous conflicts without taking into account the various factors that make this conflict unique.
"Completely different," is it? "Unique," is it?
Bullshit.
The end of the war that The Guns of August describes the beginning of resulted in the collapse of the military forces and the gubmint of Germany. It took a while, but malevolent evil stepped into that power vacuum and yet another war ensued only 21 years later.
After WW II, we stayed in Germany for a long time and result was a healthy, prosperous, and peaceful country that threatens no one. Had we simply left Germany after destroying its military forces and deposing its gubmint, likely the Soviet Union would have stepped in and done to the western partitions what it did to the eastern.
We had the same choice to make once we had destroyed the military forces and deposed the gubmint of Iraq. Had we simply left Iraq, likely it would have been overrun by Iran from without, or by al Quaeda from within, or both.
We didn't do that, did we? We learned the lessons of WW I and WW II and we arer applying them properly. You just can't see that, can you?
Your current assesment of Iraq
"Iraqi sovereignty has been restored. A democratic government has been set up under a constitution....Iraq is being rebuilt..
is simply not true.
Bullshit.
Iraqi sovereignty has been restored.
Iraq has written, voted on, and passed a constitution.
Iraq has instituted a democratic form of government under that constitution.
Iraq is being rebuilt. Our troops and our contractors are helping to rebuild it.
Don't you read the papers? Even The New York Times reported these things.
Please go out and read some of the blogs or books from people that have been there or are still there.
I have. I am particularly impressed with Michael Yon's work.
It's a complete and utter disaster and getting worse everyday.
Bullshit.
Your cognitive dissonance is getting worse.
great post, don't give up! We need your voice out there. Hey!, you guys take it outside!
That was an absolutely brilliant post, actually. Oh, Markadelphia? Never had WMDs? Ask those northern Kurds. Oops,wait, you can't. They were gassed to death, my bad. Your talking points are so scripted by the left as to be ludicrous. True, W has some serious faults as regards the southern border. He's gone in 1.5 years. Why the BDS so late? Anything to do with trying to get the White House back through attrition? But he'd do a HELL of a lot better in getting this war finished if you libtards were not so dedicated to seeing the terrorists WIN just so you can blame Bush. If we lose this thing, if we cut and run like Viet Nam, we will be fighting here. We will have ieds in the mall until we all accept pisslam as our one true religion. Atheist? Better be a damn good actor.
Markadelphia wrote:
DJ, sadly, my points are the talking points of people like ..., and even the current commander in Iraq, General Patreus.
It's obviously false statements like this which completely destroy your credibility in this argument.
Let's go to the tape, shall we?
The Pentagon has a web site where they provide video of various events, including the full press conference with General Petraeus where this falsehood apparently comes from. It's called Pentagon Channel. There aren't any direct links to videos, so you would have to search for the appropriate video. To find this video, search for Petraeus (make sure you get the spelling right). I found 4 videos when I did this search. The relevant video is named "Pentagon Briefing 26, April 2007".
At about 10 minutes and 30 seconds into the video he makes this statement:
"Success in the end will depend on Iraqi actions, as I noted during my confirmation hearing. Military action is necessary, but not sufficient. We can provide the Iraqis an opportunity, but they will have to exploit it."
Did you catch that? General Petraeus is not saying that we don't need military action in Iraq. In fact, he quite clearly says the opposite, that we must have military action in Iraq. (That's what "necessary" means.) He is simply saying that we need both military and diplomatic action to succeed in Iraq.
Taking a statement like this and claiming that Petraeus is saying that we don't need military action in Iraq is akin to claiming that someone describing the ingredients needed for a fire says that we we don't need heat to have fire.
Markadelphia, if you're going to have any traction at all in this debate, you're going to have to be far more accurate with your fact claims and assertions. Using quotes taken out of context to make it seem like the speaker said the opposite of what he actually said and similarly distorted "facts" is a good way to get yourself torn to shreds. Such tactics are illogical, unreasoning, unscientific and unintelligent. You might as well try using an umbrella to reinforce the New Orleans levees.
Such tactics are illogical, unreasoning, unscientific and unintelligent.
And none of us are stupid enough to fall for them.
Oh, how I love the internet ...
Yes, I know that is exactly what Patreus said. I interpret that as meaning that more diplomacy need to happen. Other things...besides combat...need to start happening. I don't hear any calls for those things from here or anywhere else in neocon land. Just the same old crap...
DJ, clearly you have no idea what is going on in Iraq, particularly in the government. There are reports of al-Mailiki putting people in key positions with the intent to wipe out the Sunnis while the Sunnis are supposedly allied with us on trying to root out their bad element. I saw a report on Fox news yesteday that over half of the reconstruction projects are back in a shambles again. Take a look at these figures from the state department.
In 2005, worldwide there were 3000 terrorist attacks. In 2006, there were 14000. In 2005, 5800 people were killed in these attacks. In 2006, 20000 people were killed. Of these attacks, 45 percent of the attacks and 65 percent of the deaths occurred in Iraq. Muslims accounted for more than 50 percent of the 58000 total killed or wounded in terrorist attacks in 2006.
DJ, what do YOU see when you read these numbers? I see our policy in Iraq as a failure. I see all of the surges over the last two years as not working. We're talking about four times the number of terrorist attacks world wide and you are trying to tell me that everything is ok and I am an idiot? Good grief...
Most of the people being killed are Muslims, which is probably making most of you happy based on what I have read here. They are killing each other and we are partly responsible for it. The people dying are normal folks like you and I who are just trying to make a living, play with their kids, and live in a safe neighborhood.
They're human beings who are losing their lives because of the one dimensional thinking that has dominated this country's foreign policy for the last six years.
DJ, clearly you have no idea what is going on in Iraq, particularly in the government. There are reports of al-Mailiki putting people in key positions with the intent to wipe out the Sunnis while the Sunnis are supposedly allied with us on trying to root out their bad element.
Do you expect perfect performance in a democracy its first time at bat? It took almost a hundred years and a civil war for our republic to start working reasonably well.
We still have the likes of Hillary Clinton, who is fundamentally dishonest right down to her toes, in the Senate, and she's the darling of a large part of the population. Trying to gain an advantage, for whatever reason, is what politicians do. I don't expect anything different from the politicians in Iraq. But I would not label it a failure simply because, so far, it isn't perfect.
Damn, guy, do you think everything should be accomplished as fast as it happens in a video game?
DJ, what do YOU see when you read these numbers? I see our policy in Iraq as a failure. I see all of the surges over the last two years as not working.
I see what should be expected, and what I expected, as the aftermath of the war to topple the gubmint of Iraq. Religious extremists, particularly those of the Islamic variety, do not give up easily or quickly. Fanaticism is like that. They saw the end of the Hussein dictatorship as an opportunity to gain power, which is what it was, and they haven't yet abandoned the attempt.
We're talking about four times the number of terrorist attacks world wide and you are trying to tell me that everything is ok and I am an idiot?
No, I have never tried to tell you that "everything is OK". You may yet convince me that you are an idiot, given how hard you are trying.
I have tried to tell you that your statement, "It's a complete and utter disaster and getting worse everyday," and other such statements of yours, are nothing more than preconceived hyperbole. I suggest that you follow your own advice and "read some of the blogs or books from people that have been there," as they tell a remarkably different story. I've also talked with a neighbor (a National Guard 30-year veteran) who recently returned from there, and he, too, tells me a remarkably different story.
All you hear from the MSM and the dimocrats is a steady drumbeat of anything negative they can find. That fits their agenda of inflicting political damage on President Bush. It fits your preconceived notions that are based on your dislike of George Bush, and so you echo them like a parrot. Do you think I should believe you in preference to what I read elsewhere? If so, why?
I believe that the great majority of the country is recovering quite well, and that the activities of the terrorists are concentrated in a few ever-decreasing areas. Reports I read say that the current "surge" is producing good results, has since it began, and hasn't yet reached its peak, either in manpower or effectiveness.
You would have us believe we should just abandon all that and go home. If we did, what would happen to all those "normal folks like you and I who are just trying to make a living" and so on?
They're human beings who are losing their lives because of the one dimensional thinking that has dominated this country's foreign policy for the last six years.
I'll ask my question again.
How many people have to die as a result of attacks carried out in this country by Islamic extremists before you will agree that the President, as the Chief Executive Officer of the gubmint, as the Head of State of the country, and as the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the country, should wage war on those extremists and the gubmints who give them help and safe harbor, until the threat they pose no longer exists?
I'll give you the same hint again. Any response that isn't a number also isn't an answer.
To date, no left-leaning person that I've asked has ever answered it.
Well?
Yes, I know that is exactly what Patreus said. I interpret that as meaning that more diplomacy need to happen. Other things...besides combat...need to start happening. I don't hear any calls for those things from here or anywhere else in neocon land. Just the same old crap...
Um, what other things?
Oh, yes, what we need is more diplomacy. That's it. How silly of me to not see it before.
My memory was nagging me and I let it gestate a bit. I forget why it sometimes fails me ...
I remember a statement by Margo Howard, the daughter of the late Ann Landers, but I can't find it. As near as I can remember, it was: "If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be no more violence. If Israel laid down its arms, there would be no more Israel."
Fifty nine years of attempts at diplomacy haven't changed that, have they?
Diplomacy. That's the ticket.
I can see it now. After partaking of the usual figs and strong coffee, there ensues a few hours, or perhaps even days of yelling, screaming, gesticulating, and threats to create a "river of blood", in the usual Middle East style. Then Muhammad turns to Abdul and says, "Well, whaddya think?" And Abdul says, "Oh, hell, let's quit fighting. I've had enough, and I'm not ready for my virgins yet."
Yeah, that'll work.
The enemy are followers of a way of life that idolizes death, that sends children into crowded markets with bombs strapped to their bodies, that sends "improperly dressed" school girls back into a burning building to die after they just escaped from the building (yes, that was Saudi Arabia, but Sharia is like that), and that pays rewards to families who send their children off to become suicide bombers (er, I mean "martyrs"). They follow a creed such that they would cheerfully, ecstatically detonate a nuclear device in any city in this country if only they could get their hands on one.
On the other hand, they could have peace, permanently, at any time, even tomorrow, simply by laying down their arms, and they know it.
Yeah, we'll talk 'em into it.
Trackback message
Title: The Speech, and a Challenge
Excerpt: Please note: I did not write this. It’s one of those things bouncing around in emails, but I though it was worth a reprint here:
“The Speech President Bush Should Give.”
Normally, I start these things out by saying “My Fell...
Blog name: Striderweb
This morning's Washington Post has a column (article?) by Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister. You can read it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301548.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
Captain Ed comments about it, which is how I learned of it, at http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009878.php
The good Cap'n begins:
Perhaps the debate over whether to persevere in Iraq has become too brittle to accept anyone else's opinion, but the foreign minister of Iraq gives it a game try. In today's Washington Post, Hoshyar Zebari implores Americans and the world not to abandon Iraq to the terrorists and sectarian lunatics. Zebari explains that Iraq has changed profoundly since liberation, and the media paint a distorted picture of his country ...
Y'all can read it there as easily as here, so hie thee hence, as Kevin might say. But Captain Ed's closing two paragraphs are on point:
Zebari warns what will come of Iraq and the Middle East in general if the West betrays the Iraqis. It will create a haven for terrorists of all stripes, and will spread chaos and conflict throughout Southwest Asia. It might set off a regional war between Sunni and Shi'ite states, with Baghdad as an Armageddon for Persian and Arab cultures.
The world needs a free, united, and stable Iraq, Zebari warns. It may be difficult, but the alternatives are catastrophic.
But, what does Zebari know? He only lives there.
Alright DJ, I will tackle this question:
"How many people have to die as a result of attacks carried out in this country by Islamic extremists before you will agree that the President, as the Chief Executive Officer of the gubmint, as the Head of State of the country, and as the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the country, should wage war on those extremists and the gubmints who give them help and safe harbor, until the threat they pose no longer exists?"
The problem with this question is that you are posing a black and white question that demands a black and white answer whent he situation is about as deep grey as it gets. I think we will both agree that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11, right? Well, they were based in Afganistan and we started to dismantle their operations but then we went into Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 attacks. Al Qaeda is still operating in Afganistan, agreed? OBL and Zawahari are still in charge, agreed? The Taliban has made a resurgence, agreed?
You are telling me that in order to defeat Al Qaeda we have to stay in Iraq. I am telling you that in order to defeat Al Qaeda and make sure there aren't any attacks on our soil or interests around the world, we need to refocus our efforts, both militarily and otherwise, elsehwere starting with the Afghan-Pakistani border. Then I think we need to focus our attention on the growing Islamic extremism in Europe. That is not a military matter, it is a police matter. I think the Brits have proved far too many times how important intelligence and detective work is.
For some reason, DJ, you misinterpret leaving Iraq as giving up on the fight on terror. Imagine this scenario: we proceed with an orderly withdrawl of comabt forces in Iraq. We leave miminmal forces in the country in the safer areas. We let the Sunnis and the Shi'ite duke it out. We then take those troops and re-deploy them in Afghanistan. We set up a joint Pakistani and US strike teams that capture or kill bin Laden and Zawahari. How, then, would we be perceived as being weak? It's called improved strategy.
We are not in Iraq to protect ourselves from terrorism. If that were the case, why aren't we in the Sudan or Somalia? Those countries have degraded into Islamic fascism and are most definetly terrorist havens at present. So, by your logic we should be there as well and I might tend to agree with that. We are in Iraq for the money, dude, it's just that simple.
The reason why I responded so vehemently to the fake Bush speech is because he quit us...we didn't quit him. He is not protecting this country. It's funny, I asked a very conservative friend of mine if,by 2004, Bush had not captured bin laden, what would happen. He told me that if he didn't, he would be one term president and considered a failure for not protecting America.
DJ, I have answered your question. Now answer mine: How many people have to die in terrorist attacks around the world before you will agree that our president, our commander in chief, our head of state is completely incompetent in the use of our military forces, our intelligence apparatus, and the power that is the United States to effectively prevent extremism from spreading?
Alright DJ, I will tackle this question ...
But you did not answer my question. As I pointed out quite clearly, any response that isn't a number also isn't an answer.
Try again. A number, if you please.
How many?
Okay, this one demands a full blown fisking.
Mark: "The problem with this question is that you are posing a black and white question that demands a black and white answer whent he situation is about as deep grey as it gets."
Ed: What's grey about it? We have one group which is actively attacking civilians, the Iraqi government and our troups. And we have those who are being attacked. You would be correct in pointing out that Sunni and Shiites tend to fight each other too, but they are both more alike than they are different. Their only major difference is the question of who was Muhammad's legitimate successor. That's it.
If you want me to accept that there's anything grey about the situation, then you need to do better than a bald assertion that "it's grey."
Mark: "I think we will both agree that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11, right?"
Ed: Agreed
Mark: "Well, they were based in Afganistan and we started to dismantle their operations but then we went into Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 attacks."
Ed: Yes, they had major bases in Afghanistan. However, that is not the only country they've been operating out of. There is also Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and yes, Iraq. Al Qaeda is not a country, it is an organization which exists in many countries.
Even though Iraq was (apparently) not directly involved in 9/11, they were supporting Al Qaeda. We even have documented evidence that Saddam was helping them:
Saddam and Osama: The New Revelations
Saddam and al Qaeda; There's abundant evidence of connections
HaloScan said there were too many links. Why the heck is 4 "too many"?!? So check the following comment.
Strategic relationship between Zarqawi's group and Saddam henchmen
Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection
There's plenty more, but these are the first few I found during a quick search.
If a mafia don orders a hit, is he any less guilty of murder than the hit man who actually pulls the trigger? No. Saddam tried to help Al Qaeda attack us so he could hide behind them. That still made him our enemy.
Mark: "Al Qaeda is still operating in Afganistan, agreed?"
Ed: Agreed. They're also operating in several other countries, including Iraq.
Look, I'm pretty sure you won't agree that Saddam was helping Al Qaeda. So let's just set that aside and focus on this question: Who are we fighting in Iraq NOW? I think it's obvious that we're fighting Al Qaeda! Just think about how often we here of yet another Al Qaeda leader killed in Iraq! Even if Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq under Saddam, there's no doubt that they're in Iraq now.
Mark: "OBL and Zawahari are still in charge, agreed?"
Ed: OBL may, or may not be paste under a pile of rocks somewhere. He's certainly not popping his head up to let us take a shot at him. I don't know which Al Qaeda leaders are still alive or dead. I gave up trying to keep track of them long ago with all the "the leader is dead, there's a new leader... this just in, the new leader is dead" stories. I don't particularly care what their names are as long as we get them all.
Mark: "The Taliban has made a resurgence, agreed?"
Ed: Yes they did, when we lightened up on them. What's your point? This just proves that backing off on these guys just allows them to be more active. So you think we should back off the same group of guys in Iraq and expect them to be less active? Their actions in Afghanistan have already proven that they'll just get more active whenever we lighten up!
Mark: "You are telling me that in order to defeat Al Qaeda we have to stay in Iraq."
Ed: Why the heck not? Al Qaeda is perfectly willing to send their people into Iraq where we're killing them at a ratio of 10 of theirs for every 1 of ours. Our enemy is trying to kill us and nothing but death will stop them. If they're so willing to die, why shouldn't we oblige them?
Besides, where should we go to kill Al Qaeda? Should we wait for them to come back here and kill thousands more of us for every 19 they lose?
Mark: "I am telling you that in order to defeat Al Qaeda and make sure there aren't any attacks on our soil or interests around the world, we need to refocus our efforts, both militarily and otherwise, elsehwere starting with the Afghan-Pakistani border."
Ed: And I'm telling you that an Al Qaeda at room temperature is a threat to nobody. And they're willing to assume room temperature in Iraq. Why in the heck should we leave a place where they are to go someplace where they're not.
If you want to hunt deer, you don't do it at your local community swimming pool, even if it is more comfortable. If you want to catch a mouse that's in your house, you don't look for evidence of where the mouse is, then deliberately set your traps somewhere else.
What makes you think we have to leave Iraq to work on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? We are quite capable of increasing the number of troops in both places. In fact, the only thing holding up our ability to do this is the Democrats who think just like you holding up the necessary funds by playing politics!
Mark: "Then I think we need to focus our attention on the growing Islamic extremism in Europe. That is not a military matter, it is a police matter. I think the Brits have proved far too many times how important intelligence and detective work is."
Ed: It's a matter for the populations of each country to deal with. How can we force a country like France to address their growing problem when the people in who are most at risk are also the ones who seem to be the happiest to let the muslims walk all over them? They've been warned over and over and over again, but if they choose to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the warnings, then what can we really do about it?
One place where we really need to start is simple. Half of our country needs to wake up to the fact that we are in a war against a worldview that is completely committed to taking over the entire world, and that they're completely willing, even anxious, to die in the process. That half needs to stop attacking the other half which realizes the truth and is actively taking the war to that enemy.
We have an enemy which has already attacked us! But there is a significant portion of our population which views those fighting back against our attackers as more dangerous than our attackers simply because they're fighting back. As long as these people continue to fight against our efforts to resist the enemy, we will never be as truly effective as we could be.
Mark: "For some reason, DJ, you misinterpret leaving Iraq as giving up on the fight on terror."
Ed: We're fighting and killing terrorists there. How could leaving be seen as anything other that ceasing to fight against terrorist? That's not logical.
Mark: "Imagine this scenario: we proceed with an orderly withdrawl of comabt forces in Iraq. We leave miminmal forces in the country in the safer areas. We let the Sunnis and the Shi'ite duke it out. We then take those troops and re-deploy them in Afghanistan. We set up a joint Pakistani and US strike teams that capture or kill bin Laden and Zawahari. How, then, would we be perceived as being weak? It's called improved strategy."
Ed: I think this one is best answered by Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a man who knows more about the situation in Iraq than all of us combined:
Hoshyar Zebari: "Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain."
Ed: There is a saying that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The lessons of history absolutely support Minister Zebari. There have been many, many instances of an aggressive ruthless assaults on a population like that of the terrorists. Whenever a force which is opposing the assault withdraws, the result is ALWAYS death, destruction and tyranny. Not even once has the result been positive. Do you honestly think we should allow history to repeat itself yet again, especially when we are absolutely capable of preventing it?
Mark: "We are not in Iraq to protect ourselves from terrorism."
Ed: That's a bold assertion. I think it's fundamentally untrue.
Mark: If that were the case, why aren't we in the Sudan or Somalia? Those countries have degraded into Islamic fascism and are most definetly terrorist havens at present."
Ed: Maybe if our country wasn't so divided by people opposing our need to fight back against the terrorists we might actually have the resources to clean up those areas too. As it is, there's too much internal fighting to be able to do everything we should do.
The result is that we have to pick and choose between what we should do and what we must do. Sudan and Somalia's troubles are basically internal. They're not really threatening any other countries.
On the other hand, Iraq was much more of a threat to other countries. They did have and did use WMDs. Saddam was apparently trying to gain nuclear weapons. He did invade other countries. And whether we like it or not, oil is a primary factor in our economy. (If all the oil stopped flowing for some reason, our economy would collapse overnight.) Yes, part of the reason for invading Iraq was protecting the flow of oil, though you'll note that we're not stealing the oil. But while oil is A reason why we invaded Iraq, it's not the ONLY reason. There was also his numerous and repeated violations of the cease fire that ended the first war. His constant thumbing his nose at the UN. His complete disregard for his people. (Building palaces and weapons complexes using Oil For Food money while his people starved.) His active use of WMDs and the threat that he had and was trying to acquire more. Even before 9/11, we had sufficient reason to resume the Gulf War which kicked Saddam back out of Kuwait. Terrorism is just one more reason.
Mark: "So, by your logic we should be there as well and I might tend to agree with that."
Ed: I just explained the logic. Did you understand it?
Mark: "We are in Iraq for the money, dude, it's just that simple."
Ed: We are in Iraq, in part, for the economy. It's not the same thing. It would have been far, far, far cheaper -- both in lives and money -- to simply buy oil from Saddam. This is about issues far larger than money. It's about some nut job in a position of leadership in another country that can put our economy into the tank. Would you be willing to allow you and your family to starve to death just so that nut job could stay in power?
Mark: "The reason why I responded so vehemently to the fake Bush speech is because he quit us...we didn't quit him. He is not protecting this country. It's funny, I asked a very conservative friend of mine if,by 2004, Bush had not captured bin laden, what would happen. He told me that if he didn't, he would be one term president and considered a failure for not protecting America."
Ed: Let's say that we did capture Bin Laden on the first day we invaded Afghanistan. How much would have really changed? Almost nothing. Al Qaeda is not Osama Bin Laden. It's not any other single man. It's a large, quasi-independent group of killers held together by ideology, not a personality. Even if the first bullet fired in the invasion went rattling around inside Bin Laden's skull, we would still have to kill large numbers of Al Qaeda. That's because Al Qaeda is deliberately decentralized so that the death of any one (or more) of their leaders won't slow them down.
Beats me. Why would he continue to support a country that produced a Lon Horiuchi and a group of cops that kill a 92 year old woman in her bedroom?
Maybe he really does need an "exit strategy". Or to just pull the chain. ;)
I think you're just not... nuanced enough for this discussion, mark.
Jeeze. I'm not even a Bush fan and you've got me going "If markadelphia hates him, he can't be all bad". (o0)
DJ, you ask questions in a way that frames the debate in your language. Sorry, pal, but I am not going to fall for the classic conservative manipulation of language to fulfill your half truths. By answering your question with a number, it pre-supposes that I accept the truth of the question. Sean Hannity, Rush and others do this all the time. They asks questions to their liberal whipping boy guests like "Do you support President Bush's plan to save us or do you support the terrorists?"
How are they supposed to answer that? I don't support Bush's plan and I don't support terrorism. If you are the intellect that you claim to be, then you know that the world is not that black and white.
Ed, you make many good points. Some of them I agree with. To answer some of your questions.
"What's grey about it?"
It's grey because you have a government that is split into three groups: Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds. The Sunnis are being aided by the foreign fighters (Al Qaeda) to ethnically cleanse the Shi'a. The Shi'a are being helped by Iran who trying to do the same thing to the Sunnia. We are also supporting the Shi'a led goverment. The Kurds are just trying to defend themselves. There are also foreign fighters (Al Qaeda) who are there just to learn how to ply their trade and are causing general havoc. Most of the deaths are Iraqi civilian deaths, not American. Most of the violence is a result of the Sunni-Shi'a struggle, not Al Qaeda attacks on US soldiers. In other words, the people fighting don't care whether we are there or not.
Adding more to the deep grey, while we are supporting the al Maliki government, we are also helping the Sunni element combat people like Al Sadr. Al Sadr has recently left the country but the Shi'a that are still there have vowed to strike in his name. So, it seems like we aren't really fighting one group. Yes, we carry out raids to root out foreign fighters but for the most part we are trying to referee all the various groups and the groups within groups that hate each other.
You are still clinging to the monlolithic "Us vs. Them" and the "Them" are comprised of a myriad of groups that also hate each other and want to destroy each other.
"Saddam and Al Qaeda"
I have read much about this connection, including the links you sent, and to me it doesn't make sense. Saddam wanted order in his country, not chaos. Al Qaeda would've added an unpredictable element that he could not control. Most of the information that Bush has released about Saddam and Al Qaeda proved to be false.
"Who are we fighting in Iraq NOW?"
This is a great question. I'd like an answer. The one I get from my government is that we are there to maintain stability. Have you noticed they don't say that we are fighting anyone anymore? They just say we can't leave otherwise "they" will take over the government? Who are they? I would assume you think we are fighting Al Qaeda. I think they represent a small portion of the violence and that most of it is secretarian. This is based on reports posted on the Defense Department web site.
"OBL: Alive or Dead"
Actually, captured and forced to build Jewish temples and abused women's shelters for the rest of his life would be preferable. You said it yourself, and I agree, they don't care whether or not they die so we take them alive and immasculate them. Talk about a PR coup...bin Laden in chains...that would be a victory!
And getting bin Laden and Zawahari (the more dangerous imo) would definetly be a serious blow. With bin Laden rotting in prison, where would they get the money? He is the principle financial conduit and you need money to buy weapons.
"Fighting Back"
Again, you misinterpret my criticsm as being detrimental to the terror effort. I don't think people here are fighting back because they want to quit. I think most people want a new strategy that is not the "my way the highway" or "you are either with us or agin us" mentality that Bush co seems to have. People in this country are rebelling to Bush's policies because they are having the opposite effect of what he says he is trying to do.
"Broken Iraq"
To me, I question that Iraq will break down into chaos if we leave. First, it already is in chaos. Second, I am really beginning to wonder if they care that we are there or not. Third, isn't the Iraqi army and police force trained yet? Why not? How long does it take to train a US soldier for a mission like this? Six Months? They have had four years and they still aren't good enough? Hmm...sounds very suspicious to me.
Maybe it's because some of the soldiers we train then use their training to attack a Sunni or a Shi'a they have a grudge against (more grey for the answer above). Maybe it's because we are there to protect the military-industrial complex money flow.
All I am saying Ed is please question what your government is telling you. It is your patriotic duty. I don't care whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in there. I know you do a great job of being a critical thinker when it comes to people like me. Turn it around, look at some of the facts, and tell me...don't you think we can do a whole lot better?
DJ, you ask questions in a way that frames the debate in your language. Sorry, pal, but I am not going to fall for the classic conservative manipulation of language to fulfill your half truths. By answering your question with a number, it pre-supposes that I accept the truth of the question.
You're partly right. If you answer with a number, then you accept the validity of the response by the President to terrorist attacks in this country, in which case the number is merely quibbling about how much you're willing to tolerate before trying to end the threat.
You're partly wrong. The question is real, because every President faces exactly that question. President Bush faced it on the morning of 9/11 and answered it correctly, in my opinion. President Clinton faced it before that and answered it incorrectly, in my opinion.
My answer to my question is "ZERO." The response is not about body counts and it is not about vengeance. It is about defense of the country, which is the President's primary responsibility. The action he should take depends on the nature and strength of the threat, the intelligence which supports it, and the probability that it will come to pass if the defense is not taken. No one need die for that threat to be enough to act on.
The answer to your question is "ZERO." Your question is a false dilemma. I do not measure the competence of a President by the body count in a war that is conducted while he is Commander in Chief. By that measure, I would have conclude that Franklin Roosevelt was utterly incompetent to an unimaginable degree, as about 55 million people died during WW II, many as the result of his orders, and yet he was manifestly competent.
I offer up a hypothetical scenario here, purely for the purpose of illustrating a principle.
Suppose someone bursts into your house, grabs your son, and holds him as a shield while he quickly and methodically shoots the other members of your family, one by one. As they die before your eyes, you have him in your sights, but the only shot you have is through your son's body. Your .44 Mag bullet will, if you shoot, go through your son, kill the shooter, and save what's left of your family. Do you kill your son and save your family, or do you hold your fire and watch them all die? You have seconds to decide.
It's a horrible situation, isn't it? Fortunately, it's hypothetical. It is certainly possible, but the probability of it happening is quite low, and I don't pretend otherwise.
But it serves to illustrate a simple principle. Sometimes in life, a few of us are faced with a decision in which, no matter what choice we make, even if we make no choice at all, people will die who do not deserve to die. Every President has faced this choice. It's part of his job. And, I submit, the measure of his competence is not based the blanket assumption that he will aways make the wrong choice, especially if he is of the "other party".
Consider a couple of choices made by President Clinton.
In the late 1990's, bin Laden had made repeated bloodcurdling televised threats against Americans in general and the United States in particular. In 1996, he was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. That made him fair game for arrest. In 1998, evidence showed that he and his lackeys were responsible for the attacks on U. S. embassies in Africa. That made him a fair target for outright attack by military forces.
In February and March of 1996, President Clinton was made two offers by the gubmint of Sudan to hand over the warm, living body of bin Laden to the United States. He declined the offers. He has admitted this failure.
In August of 1998, the CIA obtained evidence, which turned out later to be true, that bin Laden was in a particular camp in eastern Afghanistan. With the camp in the military's sights and only a very short time to act, President Clinton hemmed and hawed before finally allowing a stike on the camp to proceed. Too late; bin Laden had left only a short time before. He has admitted this failure.
I have a fairly simple method to assess such a situation. I'm a hunter. I prefer to kill the meat I eat, and I eat a lot of meat. I have learned the hard way that, when the game appears, you settle the crosshairs and squeeze the trigger. You don't wait. You don't second guess. It is neither the time nor the place to wonder if it is the right thing to do. That decision should have been made long before taking the field, else you should not be in the field at all.
What would the world be like now if President Clinton had said, "Hell, yes, grab his ass and get him here!" or "Fire!" when he had the chance? We'll never know. Perhaps his head was elsewhere at the time. We'll likely never know the truth, especially from him.
President Bush made a decision. In my opinion, he made the right decision.
I have damned little respect for airmchair quarterbacks who don't have to make the decision but second-guess those who do. When evaluating such a decision, hindsight does not apply. The poor bastard in the Oval Office doesn't have that benefit when he makes his decision, so we don't have that benefit when we evaluate what he did then with what he knew at the time.
What I find so hypocritical of the dimocrat leadership is that they had access to the same data that President Bush had regarding Iraq before 2003, they made their own analysis of that data, they concluded that Hussein was a threat that must be taken out, and they authorized President Bush to send our military forces in to do just that. The internet is a wonderful thing; it makes accessible quote after video of these people supporting and justifying the military action that they authorized. Now, they claim they were "misled" and ignore their own analyses of the same data. Now, some state that they never intended for military force to be used, even though the title of the joint resolution is "Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".
Bullshit. They supported the war when it was proposed because they thought public opinion favored it. Now they oppose it because they think public opinion opposes it. Like President Clinton, they gauge what they say with their wet finger firmly thrust into the winds of the polls. I'm so impressed.
Now, Markadelphia, with that context firmly in mind, let's take a short look at your opinions. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, rather I'm telling you what I understand of your writings.
You appear to think we should not have gone to war in Iraq to take out whatever threat Hussein posed, yet you appear to think we should have gone into Iran to take out whatever threat Iran poses. The latter is a guess because, characteristically, you have said it's a shame we haven't done something in Iran but you haven't said what you think we should have done. Neither threat was, or is, imminent. Why the difference?
You appear to really be disturbed (anguished is probably the better term) by the ongoing loss of life of the innocent in Iraq due to the ongoing fighting there. Such emotions are quite reasonable. But, you appear to believe we should get the hell out, and damned quickly, too, despite the bloodbath that the whole region would likely collapse into if we did. Why do you favor an action now that would greatly increase the loss of life that you deplore?
Why is your thinking so inconsistent?
What is consistent in your ranting is: 1) anything President Bush did do, he should not have done; 2) anything President Bush did not do, he should have done; 3) anything President Bush did, he did very badly; and, 4) everything is just awful, regardless of evidence.
Is that how you measure the performance of a President?
Your version of what happened in 1998 in Afghanistan is not true. It was not "too late"..bin Laden simply went one way instead of the other. This is directly from testimony from a bodyguard that was there. Clinton didn't hem and haw. He did however make errors, no doubt, 4 major ones which are detailed in the 9-11 commission report. The same report also details 6 major errors Bush made in the months before the attacks. I think we can both agree that there were errors made on both sides.
Forget about armchair quaterbacking...what is being done right now about preventing future attacks? What decisions are being made by President Bush in regards to defending this country at present?
Read this:
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2005/12/flunk-you.html
It is from my blog a year and a half ago and most of these things have not been done. That is pathetic. That is how I would measure the performance of a president.
Look at this another way....bin Laden wants the Muslim world to wage a holy war against the west. Fortunely for us, not all Muslims think the same so he needs to get his propaganda out there so more people will join his cause. He wants an "US vs. Them" war and President Bush and the people that support him (you) are providing that for him. You are giving him what he wants.
What he doesn't want is for Muslims to become "Americanized" like most of our Islamic citizens are that live here. He doesn't want them to see how great their life can be in this country...how much more comfortable it really is....he wants them to kill the great Satan, not become part of it. What better recruiting tool than Iraq?
Y'know, DJ, you might find this hard to believe but I really wanted Bush to do the right thing. After 9-11, I rallied behind him. I supported him when he said "bin Laden: Dead or Alive." Afghanistan was the right thing to do, no doubt. But then they all started talking about Iraq. Then Tora Bora happened (read Gary Bernsten's book Jawbreaker for more on this. He was the field officer in charge of Tora Bora). Then President Bush said this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o
This is the point where he lost me. I was watching this live and I couldn't believe it. This is when I knew that something was just not right....
It was very clear long before 9-11 that we were going into Iraq. The people that helped elect Bush were tired of being at the little kids table behind Germany, France, and Russia in regards to Iraqi oil. Cheney spent 1993-2000 at Haliburton planning to go to war with Iraq to a)get their oil and b)use KBR (subsidiary of Haliburton) to fleece taxpayers like you and I with overly generous defense contracts. He reset the table and he used 9-11 as a pretext for going there.
They have sold you a bill of goods that just doesn't add up, if you really take a close look at it.
Mark, do you agree or disagree with the last point I made in my last set of comments?
Don't hold your breath, Ed. He usually ignores well-asked questions that he doesn't like the answers to, and he generally ignores well-made points that he doesn't like the truth of.
Look at this another way....bin Laden wants the Muslim world to wage a holy war against the west. Fortunely for us, not all Muslims think the same so he needs to get his propaganda out there so more people will join his cause. He wants an "US vs. Them" war and President Bush and the people that support him (you) are providing that for him. You are giving him what he wants.
So now I'm giving him what he wants? Killing his recruits day after day after day helps his cause? The way to hurt the enemy is to pack up and go home?
You have a sick, twisted mentality, dude.
Ed,
I thought I did answer it....you mean th point about the importance of bin laden to Al Qaeda? I want to make sure before I answer it and I do have an answer.
That's the one.
OK, I disagree with you. bin Laden is important to Al Qaeda because he has become a huge figure in the Muslim world. Yes, Al Qaeda would go on. Yes, there would be a continued threat of terror. But we would show any pretenders to the throne what will happen to them. That's why I think we need to capture him alive...a hard thing to do since he has given orders for his men to kill him if he is about to be captured. As I said above, bin Laden provides much of the actual capital needed to fund terrorism as well as the figure to rally around for recruitment which also includes cash donations. If he is gone, money dries up. It's that simple.
Having said all this, equally as dangerous, if not more so, is Ayman Al Zawahari. He is the real genius in Al Qaeda and his capture would be an intelligence coup. He knows much about the day to day operations inside of Al Qaeda. He is the connector...he is the one who has brought together many of these men and with him gone, they would be even more devasted. The FBI has bin Laden in their top ten but it really should be Zawahari.
We look weak for not having captured and/or killed them. They are outlasting us and we look inept and foolish. They have given their followers hope that they, too, can elude the Great Satan. We would be better off with both of them gone. Every time they release a tape or a video, recruitment goes up. The two of them, out of any radical Islamic group, stand the biggest chance of getting a nuclear weapon. They have the connections, the money, the experience, and the propaganda on their side.
So, yes, if President Bush had finished the job by eliminating them immediately and all reminants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, we would be better off now.
Had President Bush also:
2. Immediately enacted ALL of the 9-11 commissions recomendations
3. taken the 1 trillion dollars he spent on Iraq, told the Saudis to fuck off, and sunk the money into solar, wind, and nuclear energy research.
4. aggresively pursued greater intelligence in Iran as well as assisting more moderate voices in that country
5. started a joing Pakistani-American terror task force to quell anti American sentiment in Pakistan as well as gather intelligence on terror cels in that country
6. shown even the slightest intellectual curiosity about the Middle East, understand its peoples, its groups and how intricate they are, and reached out to them in an extreme showing of cross cultural tolerance
then I would think he is a great president and he would have my full support.
DJ and Ed, both of you might find this hard to believe but I spend just as much time arguing with my "liberal" friends as I do debating folks like you guys. They want us out of the Middle East all together, have no concept of the threat of Al Qaeda, hate the fact that I am firm supporter of Israel (have friends in their army), and think that Hillary Clinton is the answer to all of our prayers. She is not.
I understand--believe me I do--that both of you believe that winning this battle means staying in Iraq no matter what. This is a huge mistake and it is giving our enemy the advantage...every single day.
I understand--believe me I do--that both of you believe that winning this battle means staying in Iraq no matter what. This is a huge mistake and it is giving our enemy the advantage...every single day.
The last hundred years have seen the standard of living of the typical resident of the oil-rich middle east desert advance by more than a millenia. They have progressed from boiling camel butt in an iron pot over a dung fire to houses, running water, toilets, electricity, automobiles, microwave ovens, washers and dryers, and the internet, all in about five generations. The sale of that oil to us decadent westerners is the only reason for that advance. We sell products, we buy oil, they sell oil, and they buy products. We need their oil and they need our products. It is called "trade", and it has brought them from into the twenty-first century.
A small minority of the people in the region, a minority known as "Islamic extremists", don't like that. They want a return to the Caliphate and to a way of life only slightly removed from the seventh century. They will, if they can, shut off the trade, reverse the advance, and plunge the whole region back into the Islamic version of the Dark Ages.
Our armed forces are in Iraq defending its people against that effort. If they leave Iraq, then the extremists would have a much higher probability of success. Regardless of success or failure, the sands of the desert would not be enough to absorb the blood they would spill.
You would have us believe that the people of Iraq and of the whole region will rise up and support the extremists if we don't leave, and they thereby support their own plunge into darkness, because we are there defending them against it. You would have us believe that their best hope for the future is for us to abandon them to such a fate. You would have us believe that we would show our resolve and committment to the whole world by abandoning our resolve and committment in the region.
You would further have us believe that the extremists don't want us to leave, don't want us to stop killing them right and left, and don't want us to continue preventing their success. You would further have us believe they they want us to stay there so the people will support them, that our opposition gives them the advantage.
I think "sick" and "twisted" fits such thinking pretty well.
You know, conversing with you is much like conversing with a duck. I've done that a few times, as my in-laws used to raise ducks. Sometimes it's fun, and usually the duck appears to enjoy it. The duck seldom gets ruffled (pardon the pun), but his response is always just a quack. It is the same quack, over and over and over. No matter what he means by the quack, it becomes less and less worthwhile to hear it. After a while, it wears thin, and more important and worthwhile enterprises beckon.
I think I'll go rearrange my sock drawer.
Mark,
In short, it seems that you disagree because you seem to think that Al Qaeda would either fall apart or become so weakened that it might as well have fallen apart if we had taken Bin Laden out. Is this accurate?
While I could say that Al Qaeda would be weakened if we got Bin Laden (Given how quiet he's been, it's quite likely that he's at least seriously marginalized.) I'm convinced that any weakening of Al Qaeda would be minimal at best.
Think about it. You wrote of Bin Laden as both a money man and an inspiration leader. Let's look at the money many aspect first.
When was the last time Bin Laden went to an ATM to grab some bucks for his buddy's toys? If he ever went to an ATM, he would have stopped by 1996. How about going to a bank in person? That's just as likely as visiting an ATM after '96. So how does his own money get handled? Either electronically (not likely due to its traceability) or via trusted cohorts who he has given authority to conduct these financial dealings, whether with a bank, or more likely, in cash. Whether or not Bin Laden is dead, those other men can continue to exert control over the purse strings.
Furthermore, Bin Laden's personal fortune is clearly not their only source of funding. How many Islamic "charities" in the US have been shut down because they were found to be fronts for terrorists? How many governments, such as Iran and Syria are funneling money to the terrorists? How much oil money gets passed their way by private supporters? In the overall scheme of things, Bin Laden's personal fortune is only a small chunk of their funding picture, even if it is significant. And even then, you have to remember that only a fool would fail to plan to make sure his organization would not have access to the money in the likely event of his death. Bin Laden may be many things, but I don't think "fool" is anywhere on his resume.
As for Bin Laden, the inspirational leader, I can only think that you really don't understand how Islam relates to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda's existence has nothing to do with a particular leader. While an organization may gel around a particular person, that person is not the driving force of the organization, it's their shared ideology.
Consider how clouds are formed. There are two ingredients of cloud formation: water vapor and airborne particles. Clouds form when there is sufficient water vapor in the air to coalesce around the particles.
That's how a group like Al Qaeda forms. Bin Laden is like one of those particles. But it's the ideology of Islam that acts as the water vapor. If it wasn't Bin Laden, it would have been Achmed. If not Achmed, then Mohammed. If not Mohammed, well, you get the picture.
The problem we face is not Bin Laden, or Achmed, or Arafat. It's that there is a pervasive ideology oriented around controlling the world and the need to destroy the west to accomplish that goal. The "leaders" just happen to be the guy within a group of like minded thugs who pipe up and say, "Let's stop talking about this and actually do it."
Of course, by now you should know that I don't like to make mere assertions. This time is no different. Here's some of the vast volumes of evidence that this is all about ideology, not the leader:
Obsession, The Movie
Death Cult Mickey Still on the Air
The primary thing about these two links is that they both have videos. Even more important, these videos show the Islam ideologues speaking for themselves. With such all pervasive death cult propaganda aimed even at children, it should be obvious, even to you, that there is no shortage of ideology based "water vapor" in the middle east, which is why taking out Bin Laden will (or did) make hardly a dent in their activities.
Kevin, is there any chance of switching to something other than HaloScan to handle comments? It's never been good, but now it's ridiculously bad!
Two more links, then I'm done. These two links deal primarily with how Al Qaeda is organized. Notice that Al Qaeda is deliberately organized loosely into cells. The entire point of that organization is to keep the arrest or death of one person, or even whole cells, from disrupting other cells.
Fort Dix Jihad: The Media Misses the Point: It’s not about the organization, it’s the ideology.
The Terrorist Roadmap for the Future: Part 1: Individual and Small Group Terrorism
This link only takes you to the homepage. You will need to scroll down to this particular article, though you should probably notice the propaganda aimed at children just above this article.
The second article is especially interesting because it notes a change in tactics for Al Qaeda. They're moving to an even more loosely organized setup. Also notice what they're moving from: an "Open Front" organization. Think about it. An open front organization is what's going on in Iraq. In a military conflict, there is one overriding reason to change tactics: when the one you're using isn't working. In other words, we're kicking their butts, so they've having to try something else.
Of course, it goes without saying that we will need to adjust our tactics to match their change in tactics. But that's no reason to stop using effective tactics in places where they're still using the older "open front" tactics as in, say, Iraq!
Kevin, is there any chance of switching to something other than HaloScan to handle comments? It's never been good, but now it's ridiculously bad!
Ed:
I feel your pain, but to answer your question: No.
I've had HaloScan since shortly after I started this blog. It has about 14,000 archived TSM comments. I pay a nominal fee each year so that my intelligent, erudite, and verbose commenters can leave extended comments - but realistically this is a comment page, not the place to post essays or even carry out a debate. That's what blogs are for, and one of the reasons I started my own.
I suggest, then, that the way to address your angst would be to post your pieces at your blog, and put a link to them here in the comments. ;)
HaloScan has been pretty reliable over my history with them. They are adding new functionality, and obviously are having some hardware and/or software problems. I fully expect them to have those problems ironed out in a few days. Bear with them. I intend to.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>