Thread: Just when you thought Bush couldn't surprise you...

Fatah still caries out its own attacks against Israel, though. Well, they would be doing it if Hamas wasn't kicking their rear at the moment and taking over control. As it stands, they can't get anything happening. Hamas has the reigns of government and they have the backing of a lot of people.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

And Mac, I'm really just curious what the course in Iraq is going to be, namely, how long is it going to take, and why hasn't Iraq been stabilized already?

You won't like my solution, but I believe it would stabilize Iraq.

I ask again, how long will it take (in your guestimate), and why isn't Iraq stabilized already? Namely, why haven't our forces already won? How long will it take to win? It's these unanswerables that hurts the position in favor of this war.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

I ask again, how long will it take (in your guestimate), and why isn't Iraq stabilized already? Namely, why haven't our forces already won? How long will it take to win? It's these unanswerables that hurts the position in favor of this war.

Depends on what you mean by stabilized. When was Germany stabilized after WWII? How about Japan?

It all depends upon what the strategy is, but regardless, time is needed. To be completely honest, if we let the military take these guys down without hampering them so much, we could actually do a better job in a shorter amount of time.

I can't claim professional status with any guesses, but I think the insurgency could be reduced in power in a few months to a year. I have no idea how long the political objectives will last for, and it doesn't bother me that much. Handling the military issues helps the political ones.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

I ask again, how long will it take (in your guestimate), and why isn't Iraq stabilized already? Namely, why haven't our forces already won? How long will it take to win? It's these unanswerables that hurts the position in favor of this war.

Another unanswerable question is how long (if) after pulling out the troops will it take for Iran to annex Iraq, openly breed terrorism and then inevitabely lead to wanton and wide spread terrorist attacks on Western (and any non-radical-Muslim) soil?

You see, there are unanswerables on both sides of the debate, except the only difference being that at least now, we can reasonably predict american troop casualties (I believe the average is 20 KIA per month? damn thats steep), but I'd like to see someone put a casualty estimation 14 years down the road when biochemical weapons (god forbid maybe even nuclear) are released in the heart of NYC by terrorists trained and bred in an Iraq that was left destabalized by american troops because their public could not commit to a solution.

I am neither for nor against the war, what I am against is the fickle nature of the American public. Democracy works in most cases except when it comes to war and conflict, and thats why the greatest military power on earth can still manage to get run over by geurilla units and 3rd world factions as in Vietnam, Mogadishu, Iraq, etc. The split-opinion, 50-50, half-half demographic of the american people is and will betheir downfall. As a result their government (and thus a reflection of themselves) is only ever able to half-start tasks, half-finish them, and through their entirety, only perform them half-assedly. It is analogous to trying to render someone unconscious with a million slaps: either you give them a couple good knocks and put them out for good or you don't provoke them at all. I garauntee you had the american public/government not been so half-ass about the war and began troop surges from the very beginning of the war (and not these measely surges they are attempting as remedies of late), they would have knocked the insurgency out before they even knew what hit them. However the way they are conducting it now, a few troops here, some incompetent Iraqi gaurds there, its just giving the insurgency time to regroup, re-arm and develop new tactics. Now is too late to avoid provocation because the first slap (invation of Iraq) was already delivered, leaving only these other courses of action:
a) Try to apologize for your slap.
b) Try to run away
c) Close your hand, form a fist, and knock them out for good
If you try a, then you'd better prepare yourself for a sucker-punch, and b won't work because they know where you live. In my opinion, take a page from Desert Storm, get yourself a backbone and commit to delivering a knockout punch.
America has created a wound that is too large to suture and to infected to heal, they (we, you, us) must either choose to abandon it, ignore it, and then deal with it ten times worse when it becomes gangrenous, or choose to amputiate it now while we can still reasonably control the outcome.

Depends on what you mean by stabilized. When was Germany stabilized after WWII? How about Japan?

It's difficult to compare the two situations except by proxy. In the WW2 scenario, one could make the argument that as soon as the fighting was over, they 'began' to stabilize, and within several years they 'achieved stability.' Granted, they've both undergone many changes since then, especially Germany what with the fall of the Berlin wall. You could call that type of change a period of instability, but it was nothing like what's going on in Iraq afaik.

I can't claim professional status with any guesses, but I think the insurgency could be reduced in power in a few months to a year.

I apologize, but I'm sort of asking the same question again: why hasn't the insurgency been 'reduced in power' in the years since we've been there? What special sauce are we throwing into the barbecue to work this magic. what is ~160,000 troops going to do that ~130,000 haven't been able to accomplish since 2003? My numbers might be off, but I think you understand the question.

It's interesting that we had a coalition of nearly a million troops to push the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, but a 'transformed' military force purposefully designed to be small and surgical playing the role of what u.n. peacekeeping troops are supposed to be used for. That's why I do not think any strategy of the US will work.

As a result their government (and thus a reflection of themselves) is only ever able to half-start tasks, half-finish them, and through their entirety, only perform them half-assedly

we weren't this fickle about Afghanistan, our 'fickleness' started when we didn't capture Bin Laden.

I believe the average is 20 KIA per month? damn thats steep

Whoa, what? Dude...20 a month? I wish it were that low

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

I apologize, but I'm sort of asking the same question again: why hasn't the insurgency been 'reduced in power' in the years since we've been there? What special sauce are we throwing into the barbecue to work this magic. what is ~160,000 troops going to do that ~130,000 haven't been able to accomplish since 2003? My numbers might be off, but I think you understand the question.

The increased troop levels and new strategy have already been explained in a speech President Bush gave. The points I remember offhand:

1. Troops were restricted in certain actions. The restrictions have either been weakened or removed. I don't remember the details, and I believe it was vague in general. I suspect it might have to do with searching mosques for weapons and such, but that's a guess.
2. There were not enough troops to hold areas already cleaned out. With more troops stationed around, it should harder for the terrorists to gain a foothold, at least not an open one.
3. Not enough effort was being done to motivate the Iraqi people themselves to get involved and keep a watch for operatives in their area. The plan was to get the people in Baghdad comfortable with reporting suspicious activity and such.
   

There were probably more reasons given, but those are just the ones I remember, and my memory may be off on this.

If you want to alleviate the problem with Iraq, consider this strategy: Hit the backers of the terrorists. If another front is started with Iran, this will cause all of the terrorists to get a "return to base" signal ASAP to defend the motherland, because no Iran means no funding, no backing, no weapons, etc. etc.. This means that Iraq and Afghanistan will get a break from Iranian interferance because the terrorists will be too busy fighting in Iran itself. Not only will Iraq and Afghanistan get more of a break, but also other coalition countries should be safer as a result.

So anyway, that's a possible strategy that should scare the liberals. We've got about a year and a half before elections. Could be interesting.

I really hope that this troop surge works out somehow, anything to at least stem the violence for a little while. We've got so much high tech ........ over there but these jackasses, many of them jobless teenagers, can still get away with bombing civilians.

I'm infuriated on two huge points here: I believe Bush wanted to go into Iraq for the right reasons, trying to modify the middle east to get rid of closed, repressive regimes, but I also believe he went about it the wrong way, lying about the justifications for going in in the first place (every debate about Iraq has nothing to do about Hussein's weapons program). I'm also infuriated that even though we've started a mess, other countries aren't offering substantial help in terms of troops, because I think that we need half a million troops to pacify the country.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

I really hope that this troop surge works out somehow, anything to at least stem the violence for a little while. We've got so much high tech ........ over there but these jackasses, many of them jobless teenagers, can still get away with bombing civilians.

The trouble is the enemy is not fighting the type of war the US forces can deal with.

It gets very expensive to use that tech against very small targets. The insurgents do not have tanks, planes or strongpoints, they are indistinguishable from non combatants. The insurgents are forcing the US to fight on thier terms, hit and run.

The end result of this war is a decline in the US reputation.

Not just popularity.

The US is now percieved as weak, ineffective, immoral and stretched almost to breaking point (no political will to continue).

When, apart from now, has the US been SEEN to torture and kidnap in the name of democracy?

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

I'm infuriated on two huge points here: I believe Bush wanted to go into Iraq for the right reasons, trying to modify the middle east to get rid of closed, repressive regimes,

That was not the reason, the US created Sadam as a power in the Middle East. The US knew what Sadam was doing with the US supplied WMD and did not care.

When Sadam refused to do what the US wanted (withdraw from Kuwait) he became a bad guy.

The reason was to control one of the worlds largest remaining reserves of oil, before 'peak oil'.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

but I also believe he went about it the wrong way, lying about the justifications for going in in the first place (every debate about Iraq has nothing to do about Hussein's weapons program). I'm also infuriated that even though we've started a mess, other countries aren't offering substantial help in terms of troops, because I think that we need half a million troops to pacify the country.

The US benifited from the cheap oil, after creating the problems.

The US invaded without UN sanction and based on misinformation.

Why should the rest of the world send our children to die for the US's benifit?

Originally Posted by MacGyver

the US is guilty of creating the Saddam monster, and therefore it's the responsibility of the US to clean it up.

The irony that you want Libby fried for perjury.

There's a word called "context" you might want to look up.

@Mac

I think you got it wrong. The way I see it, the muslims didn't want a global domination. They just fed up with USA's actions. IMHO, there's 2 of these actions that most of the third world countries (especially the one where muslims are the majority) resent.

1. Double standard. Why just condemn Iran for the nuclear whereas they themself have the so called nuclear weapons? Why don't USA condemn themself? Or why don't USA condemn other countries that also have nuclear weapons, eg. Israel and a few other country? IMHO, double standards are an act of hypocrisy. It's like someone who is filthy rich bought a Ferrari and forbid other people to buy the same. To me it's all or nothing, everybody or nobody.

2. Interference in domestic affairs. USA often interfere with other countries affairs even when it's not supposed to be interfered. If a country did something that's not to USA's liking, they just pressured the country and ask the whole world stand with them to press the country. Even if there's a decree that USA didn't like, they'll just vetoed it. Isn't that just great? IMHO, an interference to a country's domestic affairs is an attack to the country itself.

So you see, Osama Bin Laden's word about they are just reacting is not entirely wrong. One more thing that maybe make them resent USA more. Just look at Rulers of The New World. One thing I notice from it was, how come they said they helped when the one they help spend 40% of its annual income to pay the interest of the debts (not the debts itself)?

For Israeli/Palestine issue, I think it's just a matter of point of view. In the Palestinian's eye Hamas is the hero and Israel is the demon. If not, how come the Hamas could win the election? A democratic one that the USA once again do a double standard unto. Likewise in an Israeli's eye the authority of Israel is the hero and Palestine is the demon. In my view they were both wrong. The Israelis is just as guilty as the suicide bombers of th Palestine. The Israeli's act of launching missiles to Palestinian housing, sniping Palestinian kids, etc, is just as wrong as the Palestinian bombing buses or stores.

Sorry if my view is rather leftist. I just enjoy more of the leftist paradigm because IMHO it's closer to the truth. And also I enjoy watching some leftist film makers like Michael Moore or John Pilger.

BTW, in case you are wondering, I'm not an American.

PS: I wonder how does this evolve to Iraq and Israel/Palestine from just discussing about Libby?

Originally Posted by MacGyver

The irony that you want Libby fried for perjury.

There's a word called "context" you might want to look up.

What?

I am sorry you can't see the big picture here. Let me try and explain again.....

It is obvious that Libby (et al) was used by the GWB administration to discredit Wilson (perjury or not).

The strategy was to try and silence Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent (Wilson would have more to worry about than Niger). An feeble attempt was made to try to create the appearance of nepotism, in the choice of Wison for the trip to Niger by his wife (untrue).


Why did the administration risk prosecution to discredit Wilson?

Because Wilson had the gall to report that GWB had 'misinformed' the US public during the 2003 State of the Union address (and later speeches). GWB had already been told that Iraq had NOT purchased uranium from Niger and that the documents he refered to were forged.


Why did GWB lie to the US public?

Because GWB wanted to justify the invasion, the US public was scared into support of the war (a category that you obviously fit into).

So Libby's lies helped protect those who sent the US into a war it can not win based on doctored intel.


But then you think Libby just had a bad memory and GWB can do no wrong....

Originally Posted by g4j31a5

@Mac

I think you got it wrong. The way I see it, the muslims didn't want a global domination. They just fed up with USA's actions. IMHO, there's 2 of these actions that most of the third world countries (especially the one where muslims are the majority) resent.

I am unable to comprehend the twisted logic that leads us to blaming the US for the islamic attacks all over the place. There are muslims attacking Western countries, and they even attacked Egypt I believe in the last few years. The PLO in the 70's tried to overthrow the Jordon government. That's why they had a civil war there. Jordon vs the PLO. Syria wanted to get involved, but Jordon got the US to get Israel to inform the Syrians that they had better back off.

There is an element in islam, (or outside of islam pretending to be islam, I don't care how you categorize it) whether you like it or not, that is interested in global domination. When nobody is around to fight, they fight each other. They are always fighting.

Even if the West has made mistakes, the purposeful attacks on civilians, such as 9/11 make their and your case bizarre. They are angry that the US has done what? What started it all? And what would justify 9/11?

Originally Posted by g4j31a5

1. Double standard. Why just condemn Iran for the nuclear whereas they themself have the so called nuclear weapons? Why don't USA condemn themself? Or why don't USA condemn other countries that also have nuclear weapons, eg. Israel and a few other country? IMHO, double standards are an act of hypocrisy. It's like someone who is filthy rich bought a Ferrari and forbid other people to buy the same. To me it's all or nothing, everybody or nobody.

If you have to ask this question......

Since nuclear weapons were discovered, it's been a mission of the nuclear countries to stop other countries from acquiring them. Ever hear of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

But your argument is stupid. This has nothing to do with why islamofascists have attacked us. They've been fighting in their current form more or less since the 1970's in the form of airplane hijackings and other such forms, and even before that. Anyone remember Munich? The issue wasn't nuclear weapons then.

Also, Iran is not a rational country in the sense that, they are also interested in the domination of the world, or at least of the US and Israel, and I doubt it would stop there. Therefore, nuclear weapons are out of the question, because they have demonstrated that they are a problem in meddling with us.

Incidentally, the US is pretty conservative in how they use nukes, considering they haven't used them in war since they first got them and nobody really understood the implications at the time of the devastation. After that point, even as evil as the Soviet Union was, even they understood that nuclear war was a serious step. I don't think Iran really understands.

Originally Posted by g4j31a5

2. Interference in domestic affairs. USA often interfere with other countries affairs even when it's not supposed to be interfered. If a country did something that's not to USA's liking, they just pressured the country and ask the whole world stand with them to press the country. Even if there's a decree that USA didn't like, they'll just vetoed it. Isn't that just great? IMHO, an interference to a country's domestic affairs is an attack to the country itself.

It's nice how you give no examples. Frankly, I don't think any US interferance with any islamic countries' domestic policies did anything to merit 9/11 or anything like it. If you think otherwise, you should consider marketting whatever it is that you're smoking.

Originally Posted by g4j31a5

So you see, Osama Bin Laden's word about they are just reacting is not entirely wrong.

If you are attempting to justify bin Laden, you're a moron. That's about as close to flaming as I want to get at this point, but seriously, bin Laden is another moron that wants domination of the world. He should content himself with playing Risk in his cave or something.

Originally Posted by g4j31a5

For Israeli/Palestine issue, I think it's just a matter of point of view. In the Palestinian's eye Hamas is the hero and Israel is the demon. If not, how come the Hamas could win the election? A democratic one that the USA once again do a double standard unto. Likewise in an Israeli's eye the authority of Israel is the hero and Palestine is the demon. In my view they were both wrong. The Israelis is just as guilty as the suicide bombers of th Palestine. The Israeli's act of launching missiles to Palestinian housing, sniping Palestinian kids, etc, is just as wrong as the Palestinian bombing buses or stores.

Spoken like a true liberal. How you can say that they are morally equivalent.... There is no sniping of Palestinian kids. Any time there is an accident and Israel kills civilians in an attack, they apologize. They are known to target enemy gunmen.

The Palestinians, however, are the ones purposefully attacking civilians. They avoid the military most of the time, and focus on blowing up regular civilians.

If you think these two sides are morally equivallent, your moral compass is sitting on a giant magnet.

Originally Posted by novacain

What?

I was pointing out you quoted me absolutely out of context. Sorry you can't understand me.

I purely quoted novacain in this response.

The trouble is the enemy is not fighting the type of war the US forces can deal with.

I agree

The reason was to control one of the worlds largest remaining reserves of oil, before 'peak oil'.

'Liberating' the oil reserves is probably one of the best things that could happen to the Middle East. The bad guys in control use the oil money to continue their oppressive regimes without wanting or having to invest in their socieities. Yes, it's a huge fault of the United States for using the Middle East as a giant gas station without caring about what was going on behind the scenes. It's also a fault of every other industrialized society which purchases oil from the Middle East, the E.U. included.

The US benifited from the cheap oil,

What cheap oil? You got any, I sure could use some.

The US invaded without UN sanction and based on misinformation.

I agree.

Why should the rest of the world send our children to die for the US's benifit?

Because if the US wins in Iraq you can theoretically get a progressive arab state in place of what was once there. This would place tremendous pressure on the region to reform, which is what we need the middle east to do in order to halt the production of fanatical muslim suicide bombers. And why is this as black and white as 'US benefit?' I'm disgusted at Bush for going into Iraq, but I'm equally disgusted with the rest of the world for not offering substantial help in the aftermath...they'd rather let the Iraqis get slaughtered than 'help the US.' I know that Bush, the leader of the free world, has no idea about international relations, I apologize for my silly President, but the reality now is that Iraq can go two ways. The US will survive after pulling out of Iraq; Iraq won't, and it's for them that we need the rest of the world to help foot the bill and provide peace keeping troops. I know that won't happen, but that's basically what's needed to turn the tides of the chaos over there.