“I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars”

[DiamondDave]

Terrorism isn't the problem, it is the symptom. So how do we solve the problem? What is the problem? Why do they hate the US? I don't think its our freedom or our sinful ways. Is it that we take advantage of them? We do business with their leaders and their leaders keep them poor. And no doubt their leaders blame us. I'm referring to the Saudi's. The Iranian people and Arab Emerits are westernizing. Iraq, pakistan, palistinians. The more I think, the more I realize each country has their own reasons. Some have different reasons. Iran hates Israel, saudi kings make us the bad guys, iraq because we killed and displaced millions of them, or abandoned them in the first gulf war, we take their oil, etc.

its complicated. we are the superpower and probably think we are bullies, thieves and infedels.

best thing to do is develop alternative energy and they can drink their oil. We need to get off oil. And we ned to arm israel so they know not to fuck with them. then e can butt out.

oh Boo freaking Hoo... it's because they don't do well and we do... wahhhhhhhh... you will not appease or stop terrorists by paying them off or cowering to them... as long as we have a free society that does not go into their lockstep extremism, they will have something against us... and with their mentality they will retaliate with a vengeance

The best thing to do, in terms of oil, is to become more self sufficient WITH it as fast as we can while ALSO researching into the way to get off of it... it is not just drilling and producing without researching into the next generation of power, and it is not only putting our eggs into the basket of the next generation power while neglecting the needs we have now

 

[Article 15]

Typical lib... popularity is not a reason to act or not act... popularity with another nation's thoughts based on a poll, or a current whim of government has no bearing.... I could not possibly care less if Prance thinks our actions are good in their eyes... we are not governed by their whim, Russia's whim, or anything else... we are not even governed (thank God) by the every changing whim of polls within the US... we are a constitutional republic where our leaders have the charge and responsibility to do what has to be done... and elections determine the next set of leadership, but strong leadership takes charge and does what it has to do regardless of electioneering

You are just proving my point for me.

You either don't understand or even worse you do understand but don't care that because of the U.S.' position of power and influence over global affairs, massive undertakings like the war in Iraq have repricussions that reverberate around the world. Millions of refugees, economic turmoil, further unrest when the world's primary energy providing region is kicked like a beehive, arms races, etc.

It's not a matter of winning a popularity contests, it's about listening to, respecting, and considering other nations viewpoints and concerns as opposed to, "you don't do what we say so we don't like you now." You lose credibility for future endeavors or conflicts which may actually be noble or just causes.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

oh Boo freaking Hoo... it's because they don't do well and we do... wahhhhhhhh... you will not appease or stop terrorists by paying them off or cowering to them... as long as we have a free society that does not go into their lockstep extremism, they will have something against us... and with their mentality they will retaliate with a vengeance

You know what's a good way stop terrorism?

Stop committing terrorism.

 

[jreeves]

You know what's a good way stop terrorism?

Stop committing terrorism.

Typical liberalism call the government terrorist....

 

[Article 15]

Typical liberalism call the government terrorist....

you keep right on thinking that's typical liberalism, it only shows your own ignorance ...

 

[editec]

What a load of posturing macho bullshit posts pollute this thread.

I think there's a boatload of fake veterans on this board, folks, I really do.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Typical liberalism call the government terrorist....

Are you saying governments don't commit terrorism?



Note: Uh, I suggest you go look up 'liberalism' in Wikipedia, and you might be a little surprised.

 

[Article 15]

What a load of posturing macho bullshit posts pollute this thread.

I think there's a boatload of fake veterans on this board, folks, I really do.

Diamond D may be blustering like a jackass but I see no reason to doubt his service.

 

[sealybobo]

What a load of posturing macho bullshit posts pollute this thread.

I think there's a boatload of fake veterans on this board, folks, I really do.

Ha! Remember Rush Limbaugh called a vet who called his show and said he disagreed with the war a "phony soldier" and caught all kinds of heat for it?

OMG, last night Diamond Dave responded to my last post and I want to be careful replying to him. I said terrorism isn't the problem, it's a symptom and he said they hate us because we are successful and they aren't.

Well that is partially true. So we need to figure out why they are blaming us. One reason is their filthy rich kings make us out to be the bad guys. And while their rulers are swimming in money (dubai), the citizens are dirt poor. Or, sand poor. So if we do business with kings that treat their citizens like crap, maybe that's a problem?

And he didn't suggest any solutions. I'd like to know what we should do about it. And I don't want to hear, "nuke em". That's not the answer.

 

[sealybobo]

Are you saying governments don't commit terrorism?



Note: Uh, I suggest you go look up 'liberalism' in Wikipedia, and you might be a little surprised.

So lets not let the hot heads get us off topic. If terrorism isn't the problem but it is the symptom, what are the problems and what are the solutions.

I say the Saudi Kings and the Iraqi rulers keep their people dirt poor and they are angry. Angry at the kings and the countries that do business with the kings.

But then there is Iran. Their people seem to be westernizing themselves, yet their leaders are a bit nuts, like Amadenijad. Maybe the citizens of Iran don't follow his wacky beliefs, just like most of us don't approve of Bush. Maybe he's brainwashing them like we were brainwashed. He's making Israel the problem. Maybe only 40% of iranians are wacko like him, just like here, 40% follow Bush. The young generation here and in Iran aren't buying it.

But both Bush and Amadenijad are fanning the flames. I'm so glad the youth in America are showing up to vote. If we don't bomb Iran, then I think Amadenijad is done. He is appealing to the old people, the dumb, the racists. Sound familiar?

 

[Stefan]

We lost Vietnam. We're not doing well in Afghanistan. Iraq is questionable.

I would rather think Afghanistan is questionable than Iraq...can't see many chances down there.

 

[sealybobo]

Isn't our problem in Iraq that we didn't win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people after "mission accomplished"?

Isn't the high unemployment in Afganistan after the war why they are growing opium more than ever before? And the really poor people are considering the Taliban again because there is no other option. We go in and bomb and then abandon the people. We were supposed to reconstruct Afganistan. If the people are working and succeeding, then they don't become terrorists.

Yes, terrorists are angry and not successful and hate us because we are. No one is denying that. So how do we stop or decrease terrorism? That's the question.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

So lets not let the hot heads get us off topic. If terrorism isn't the problem but it is the symptom, what are the problems and what are the solutions.

I say the Saudi Kings and the Iraqi rulers keep their people dirt poor and they are angry. Angry at the kings and the countries that do business with the kings.

Well, yeah, you are correct there. The Saudi Kings have always been propped up by the US, pretty much like Saddam was at the beginning. If they have kept their people poor it has been with the complete compliance of the West... so long as they're on the payroll, of course. So statements like "The Saudi Kings make us the bad guys to their population" are completely outlandish. The Saudi Monarchy is basically the US's only ally in the region, and it's precisely because that monarchy is in power. The people hate the monarchy, and hate even more that the US supports it to the very end. Hence, they hate the US. Sounds reasonable, no?

Likewise, Iraq's former leader, Saddam Hussein was the sweetheart of US foreign policy in West Asia in the 1980s (keep in mind, while he was committing his worst attrocities, like gassing the Kurds, etc. Saddam only became 'the bad guy' once he felt the US betrayed him by selling weapons to the Iranians during the very war they urged him to start and went on to invade Kuwait when he realized he had become totally irrelevant). In fact, even after the war, George I urged the Shia uprisings that might have toppled the Saddam regime from within... and then conviniently decided to NOT enforce the no-fly zone, allowing Saddam to absolutely crush the rebellion. Not very cool to be stabbed in the back, you know? Doesn't get you the hearts and minds of the population.

So what are the problems here? The US gets nice and close to brutal regimes that prevent democracy and development so that they can keep relying on these Rent States to collect their natural resource (oil) surpluses for exploitation by American Interests (See: Early Saddam Iraq, Shah-era Iran, Monarchist Arabia). Once they stop doing this (allowing access), they 'become the bad guys' (See: Saddam after getting cozy with the USSR, Iran after the revolution).

What are some solutions? It gets tricky, but how about not supporting brutal regimes that prevent democracy and development and keep their populations dirt-poor? Well, then you get into the problem that the populations might vote into power leaders who favor natural resource exploitation that directly benefits the majorities of their own countries. That might mean... Oh my god, having to share "OUR" natural resources with the people who live around there. What's another solution? Respect democratically elected governments even if they don't agree with us? Supporting internal democratic movements with soft power?

But then there is Iran. Their people seem to be westernizing themselves, yet their leaders are a bit nuts, like Amadenijad. Maybe the citizens of Iran don't follow his wacky beliefs, just like most of us don't approve of Bush. Maybe he's brainwashing them like we were brainwashed. He's making Israel the problem. Maybe only 40% of iranians are wacko like him, just like here, 40% follow Bush. The young generation here and in Iran aren't buying it.

But both Bush and Amadenijad are fanning the flames. I'm so glad the youth in America are showing up to vote. If we don't bomb Iran, then I think Amadenijad is done. He is appealing to the old people, the dumb, the racists. Sound familiar?

That's probably a good analogy. It does seem that Bush and Ahmedinejad share many similar characteristics like ridiculous rhetoric, low approval, far right conservatives from both sides, etc. The one thing with Iran is that they also have a history with the States and Britain that goes way back. Why are there nutjobs like Ahmedinejad in power, with a very limited 'democracy', in reality a harsh theocracy hardly in disguise? Well, the West might have forgotten about it, but the Iranians probably didn't. As much as they dislike Ahmedinejad and a great big chunk probably dislike the theocracy in general, the fact that is that the Iranian Revolution was by all means a popular revolution 30 years ago. It might have something to do with the fact that some 25 years before the revolution Iran DID have a parliamentary democracy, before it was obliterated by the US and Britain for trying to nationalize the oil industry, and setting up the absolute dictator Reza Pahlavi, whom the Iranians hated but the West drooled over- to the point they wanted him to start developing nuclear power (imagine that, Iran was like a second Israel... until the 'bad guys' took over!). It ties into the history of imperial oppression over West Asia above. And it's just one piece of a long story.

But of course, that history of oppression has nothing to do with radicals who hate the US. It's all about those McDonalds burgers and hollywood stars, and their jealousy over the Great American Way of Life. American foreign policy causing hatred in the middle east? Bah, commie-talk.

 

[doeton]

as long as we have a free society that does not go into their lockstep extremism,

yep that's why they attacked sweden.

it is not just drilling and producing without researching into the next generation of power, and it is not only putting our eggs into the basket of the next generation power while neglecting the needs we have now

and diamond dave finally says sompin the doeton agrees with.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Ok ... good. I do understand your narrative. I get the theory behind what the neo cons were aiming for. And I agree with you that they do put too much stock in democracy. Sometimes it just isn't for a certain region at a certain time because when you let the people pick their leaders you may not like the results.

Now for all the farsighted and well intended plans of a democratized Middle East the planners missed a whole lot of glaring issues in the short run.

- Removing the secular strongman from a minority faction (the Sunni) who have been brutally keeping down the Shia majority.

- Not being at all prepared to deal with any kind of reprisal coming from the majority in their new found position of power on their prior terrorizers.

- The backlash from the Sunnis and refusal to acknowledge or even understand their new role as the "loyal opposition"

- The ties between Iran's and Iraq's Shia leadership and where that relationship may lead.

- A severe underestimation of the political landscape with in the United States and ignorance of the idea that one cannot effectively wage a "long war" in a free society with regular elections. It just doesn't jive well. Vietnam certainly should have taught them that.

- And it loops back to the propaganda campaign to garner the public approval needed to get us into the war in the first place.

The list goes on ...

But I guess that's a good place to start.

Thank you for your response. I would agree with a good deal of the criticism of the prosecution of the war in Iraq. I think the administration was trying to be too cute by half when it insisted on going in light (Rumsfeld). It left the force woefully undermanned when an unexpected contingency occurred (total social collapse including police abandoning their posts).

But, that's why I stopped short of an examination of the prosecution of the war. The question to me was why did we do it. I would agree with those that say Bush "lied us into the war," at least in some measure. Although I think they really did think there were WMD. They just lied that that was the real reason for war.

I know my reasons aren't as sexy as "Blood for oil" or "cuz they tried to kill my daddy," but I don't know that they are less damning against the administration. I do think that the war was strategically necessary and in our interest. I further think that if we didn't set up the Iraq "killing box" for al Qaeda we would be worse off. As it is we were able to kill AQ's best and most dedicated fighters over the course of 5 years.

I would also prefer AQ to try to kill the best armed, best equipped, best fed military in history than unarmed office workers. Their success ratio goes WAY down.

 

[Tech_Esq]

South Vietnam lost in the Vietnam war. The only reason they lost is because our Congress abandoned them. American troops were pulled out and Congress ceased the funding to South Vietnam when the north was financed by Russia and China. The US Congress abandoned an ally.

As far as Afghanistan and Iraq it first must be understood we are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan. Please do not put so much stock in what you see on MSNBC as they have their own agenda and it is not to show any successes. If you speak to the returning troops you will get a much different picture than what you see from the media. Surely you know someone that has been there that you can talk to. Don't tell them what you think just ask them what is going on. We have great successes at both locations.....accept it and don't let it disappoint you so.

When I came back from Vietnam it amazed and disappointed me how the media had lied about us and what went on in Vietnam. Every smelly unbathed unemployed deadbeat thought they knew more than us about where we had just returned. Don't let that happen to the returning troops today. Listen to them. On a rare occassion you will find the John Kerrys in these wars also but listen to all and get the truth.

Hmmm...who controlled the US Congress then?

You are, of course, correct about the media misreporting the entire thing. When my son got back and watched the news, he said that it was just wrong. Not that it was better or worse, it just wasn't accurate.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Yes, thank you for defending our country and no offense but just like us, you were misled into thinking the mission was for something it wasn't. So you can understand why we don't buy thei current explanations.. And after about 5 different stories, and what's going on now, it seems like the only reason was oil.

We need to get thejob done in Afgan and Pakistan. I was on military.com and I read the military moved out of a town and al queda moved in. And things are getting worse for allied forces and the afganistan civilians. wtf! the ppl that did 9 11 are still on the loose? unacceptable.

I wish we did go to Iraq for oil. That's probably one of the best reasons for this country to go to war as it exists now. At least top 5.

Yep, we need to tighten up A-stan. But, we are running into the same problem there that we did in Viet-nam with the opposing force coming out of another country and our inability to go in and get them. Short of orbiting Spectre over the entire border, there is little we can acheive by piling more troops in there. In the case you mention, we are seeing this kind of thing because we are sending troops where their haven't been before. The AQ success will be short lived in that location.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You've displayed the classical arguments of the reasoning and decision to go to war, but whether one believes it was worth allocating the troops, money, and resources to go into Iraq is debatable. You haven't said anything from an armchair general's standpoint that hasn't already been said or known. None of which you wrote PROVES that Iraq was a war of necessity. It's simply a matter of opinion.

"PROVES it was a war of necessity"

I think the point is that is was necessary to make a move like Iraq if we intended to take the offense against Islamic fascism. (taking a narrow view of who was responsible for Iraq is pointless and provides false hope). Whether it was Iraq or someplace else, we had to pick a battlefield in their backyard. In this way, they could easily travel to the killing box to die for their cause.

Unfortunately, old foot in mouth had to telegraph the intention "Bring it on" the F'ing moron.

I know people don't like to think about what they haven't been told, but in my opinion 9/11 signaled the beginning of the WW III. A devestating attack that killed over 3,000 people. In 1941, the attack on Pearl harbor killed 2,400. It was against a military installation(s). We put 12% of the population of the US under arms (16 million men and women). I would argue we should have done the same thing now. That would be 36 million Americans under arms. There is absolutely nothing we could not accomplish in a short period of time with that force.

But Bush has chosen a more low key, don't involve the average American approach. I think he was patently wrong. If we are going to do it, we need to do it and be done. If we put 3 million soldiers in A-stan and told P-stan we were coming to get AQ, what do you think their response would be?

I'll tell you, "Ok, tell us when you're done." That would be the end of it.

 

[Ravi]

Doesn't make a lot of sense to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and AQ.

 

[Ravi]

Yes, terrorists are angry and not successful and hate us because we are. No one is denying that.

I don't buy that. Quite a few of them come from upper and middle class families and extremely wealthy countries. Like Saudi Arabia.