If Iraq is going well, and the 'surge' has been working...

[Diuretic]

The Soviet Union was not controlled by religious fanatics who are willing to kill themselves to take everyone else with them. The mutual desire to continue living kept the US and USSR at bay.

Such is not the case with people who will drive car bombs into markets just to kill as many infidels as possible.

Yep, exactly MAD has been replaced with mad*.



*as in "completely crazy"

 

[Paulie]

The Soviet Union was not controlled by religious fanatics who are willing to kill themselves to take everyone else with them. The mutual desire to continue living kept the US and USSR at bay.

Such is not the case with people who will drive car bombs into markets just to kill as many infidels as possible.

Gunny I have to write off that rationale as ridiculous.

The US government and media portrayed Soviet aggression in the same light as they portray Islamic terrorism. The Soviet Union was not a nation that would have been easily bullied, but the American people were still kept in fear at a level where they were basically taught to accept the fact that an attack on the US may have eventually been inevitable, and an ensuing war would result.

The only difference today, is that somehow a type of fear has been tapped into by the portrayal of Islamic terrorism, to the point where people feel as though it's possible they could walk into a grocery store, or enter a metropolitan city, and be blown up. By NUKES, coincidentally.

There's no difference. Either we're afraid of being completely destroyed by ICBM's (and vice versa, really), or we're afraid of being blown up by suitcase nukes.

A country like Iran has a desire to live. The people of that country are a way more respectable people than the media portrays. That there might be one maverick Muslim who SOMEHOW got a hold of nuclear material, and SOMEHOW managed to smuggle it into what is SUPPOSED to be the most protected country on Earth, has nothing to do with any country's desire to live or die as a WHOLE. Also, Iran is not CONTROLLED by people willing to drive car bombs into markets. The Iranian leadership has never been connected to such an event.

 

[maineman]

Since when was establishing a JEFFERSONIAN democracy a goal? Those are YOUR words, not any I've ever heard from the administration.

"Finding" WMDs was never a goal. Stopping Saddam from producing, owning and/or using them was. I say it's safe to assume he's been "stopped."

We also have a pro-US ally in Iraq ... just because the Kurds are laying low doesn't mean they aren't still pro-US. They're just letting the Islamofascists kill each other off.

do you think that, short of creating a separate kurdistan, that the kurds in Iraq will be able to keep the future shiite dominated Iraqi government from turning their back on Washington and aligning themselves with Tehran?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

well said.
well said

The Soviet Union was not controlled by religious fanatics who are willing to kill themselves to take everyone else with them. The mutual desire to continue living kept the US and USSR at bay.

Such is not the case with people who will drive car bombs into markets just to kill as many infidels as possible.

 

[eots]

The only thing I remember Bush and Cheney saying about a connection between Al-qaeda, and more importantly 9/11, with Iraq was THERE WAS NONE.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l-c8Bf8LWWk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l-c8Bf8LWWk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

its a load of incoherent rambling..how can anyone trust this man

 

[Diuretic]

Gunny I have to write off that rationale as ridiculous.

The US government and media portrayed Soviet aggression in the same light as they portray Islamic terrorism. The Soviet Union was not a nation that would have been easily bullied, but the American people were still kept in fear at a level where they were basically taught to accept the fact that an attack on the US may have eventually been inevitable, and an ensuing war would result.

The only difference today, is that somehow a type of fear has been tapped into by the portrayal of Islamic terrorism, to the point where people feel as though it's possible they could walk into a grocery store, or enter a metropolitan city, and be blown up. By NUKES, coincidentally.

There's no difference. Either we're afraid of being completely destroyed by ICBM's (and vice versa, really), or we're afraid of being blown up by suitcase nukes.

A country like Iran has a desire to live. The people of that country are a way more respectable people than the media portrays. That there might be one maverick Muslim who SOMEHOW got a hold of nuclear material, and SOMEHOW managed to smuggle it into what is SUPPOSED to be the most protected country on Earth, has nothing to do with any country's desire to live or die as a WHOLE. Also, Iran is not CONTROLLED by people willing to drive car bombs into markets. The Iranian leadership has never been connected to such an event.

I think there's a difference between a potential threat from an organised state (the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea etc.) and a bunch of what are essentially religious gangsters. The organised state is more likely to behave in a rational (ie, predictable) manner that the religious gangsters. It's true that in the Cold War the Soviet Union was portrayed as an agressor nation. That's because it was. But it wasn't an irrational nation. The classic example of that, I think, is the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Kruschev and Kennedy were at each other like snarling dogs but away from the theatre things were being worked out rationally. I remember the height of the Crisis very well, the fear of a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union was very real.

The potential threat from religious gangsters is more difficult to predict and to counter. But, I'll say it again, the fact that bin Laden was not captured immediately after 9/11 is one reason that those religious gangsters are still a threat. If only Bush and Cheney had stayed on message and hadn't ordered the attack on Iraq, a non-threatening, rational nation, then the religious gangsters wouldn't have the power they do now.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gunny I have to write off that rationale as ridiculous.

The US government and media portrayed Soviet aggression in the same light as they portray Islamic terrorism. The Soviet Union was not a nation that would have been easily bullied, but the American people were still kept in fear at a level where they were basically taught to accept the fact that an attack on the US may have eventually been inevitable, and an ensuing war would result.

The only difference today, is that somehow a type of fear has been tapped into by the portrayal of Islamic terrorism, to the point where people feel as though it's possible they could walk into a grocery store, or enter a metropolitan city, and be blown up. By NUKES, coincidentally.

There's no difference. Either we're afraid of being completely destroyed by ICBM's (and vice versa, really), or we're afraid of being blown up by suitcase nukes.

A country like Iran has a desire to live. The people of that country are a way more respectable people than the media portrays. That there might be one maverick Muslim who SOMEHOW got a hold of nuclear material, and SOMEHOW managed to smuggle it into what is SUPPOSED to be the most protected country on Earth, has nothing to do with any country's desire to live or die as a WHOLE. Also, Iran is not CONTROLLED by people willing to drive car bombs into markets. The Iranian leadership has never been connected to such an event.

Your insane. They most definately HAVE been connected to JUST that. They arm, pay, train and supply personnel to a terrorist organization that does EXACTLY that. Further they provide explosives and shaped charges to Iraqis to KILL Americans right now. Further they opened up a recruitment center to RECRUIT suicide bombers for use against any nation that they feel threatened by. The Government allows the open recruitment and training of these people. In the Iran/Iraq war they sent unarmed children in human waves through known minefields to clear them for the follow on troops, they sent human waves of teenagers and up to try and over run Iraqi positions.

The only thing you have right is that those leaders would never actually drive the car bomb.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think there's a difference between a potential threat from an organised state (the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea etc.) and a bunch of what are essentially religious gangsters. The organised state is more likely to behave in a rational (ie, predictable) manner that the religious gangsters. It's true that in the Cold War the Soviet Union was portrayed as an agressor nation. That's because it was. But it wasn't an irrational nation. The classic example of that, I think, is the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Kruschev and Kennedy were at each other like snarling dogs but away from the theatre things were being worked out rationally. I remember the height of the Crisis very well, the fear of a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union was very real.

The potential threat from religious gangsters is more difficult to predict and to counter. But, I'll say it again, the fact that bin Laden was not captured immediately after 9/11 is one reason that those religious gangsters are still a threat. If only Bush and Cheney had stayed on message and hadn't ordered the attack on Iraq, a non-threatening, rational nation, then the religious gangsters wouldn't have the power they do now.

We were never going to send more troops to Afghanistan. That is wishful thinking of the highest order. Even absent a war with Iraq there would have been no large troop increase in Afghanistan. The theory being large numbers of non afghans would cause a bigger problem then not catching Osama Bin Laden.

 

[eots]

Tomsen served as President George H.W. Bush's special envoy and ambassador to the Afghan resistance from 1989 to 1992. Here he lays out the historical background of the Taliban's rise to power and its relationship with Pakistani intelligence, known by its acronym ISI. He also explains the two fears driving Pakistan's Afghanistan policy -- India and Pashtun nationalism. Tomsen believes the ISI knows exactly where Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawarhiri are hiding, and that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is not fully cooperating with the U.S. "I don't think we're getting our money's worth, and I think we have to take a tougher line," he tells FRONTLINE. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Aug. 10, 2006.

FRONTLINE: return of the taliban: interviews: peter tomsen | PBSIn fact, you could combine CIA, FBI and military intelligence under the ... I would say that the ISI created the Taliban. Let's always remember that the ISI ...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/tomsen.html - 48k

 

[Diuretic]

We were never going to send more troops to Afghanistan. That is wishful thinking of the highest order. Even absent a war with Iraq there would have been no large troop increase in Afghanistan. The theory being large numbers of non afghans would cause a bigger problem then not catching Osama Bin Laden.

I was thinking of a smaller operation to seize bin Laden and his gang (or kill them if necessary). For sure grabbing them in a hostile environment would have been difficult, but not, I think, impossible. I also wonder if the then government of Afghanistan - yes, the Taleban - may have been persuaded to hand them over. Alas, we'll never know.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was thinking of a smaller operation to seize bin Laden and his gang (or kill them if necessary). For sure grabbing them in a hostile environment would have been difficult, but not, I think, impossible. I also wonder if the then government of Afghanistan - yes, the Taleban - may have been persuaded to hand them over. Alas, we'll never know.

The Taliban went to war rather then "hand" him over, unless you live in candyland it is pretty damn clear they were not going to cave. As for a small force, it was tried and failed on several occasions. In fact you have commented in one thread on how the rules of engagement were just peachy fine that forced our troops to be killed before fighting back.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny I have to write off that rationale as ridiculous.

The US government and media portrayed Soviet aggression in the same light as they portray Islamic terrorism. The Soviet Union was not a nation that would have been easily bullied, but the American people were still kept in fear at a level where they were basically taught to accept the fact that an attack on the US may have eventually been inevitable, and an ensuing war would result.

The only difference today, is that somehow a type of fear has been tapped into by the portrayal of Islamic terrorism, to the point where people feel as though it's possible they could walk into a grocery store, or enter a metropolitan city, and be blown up. By NUKES, coincidentally.

There's no difference. Either we're afraid of being completely destroyed by ICBM's (and vice versa, really), or we're afraid of being blown up by suitcase nukes.

A country like Iran has a desire to live. The people of that country are a way more respectable people than the media portrays. That there might be one maverick Muslim who SOMEHOW got a hold of nuclear material, and SOMEHOW managed to smuggle it into what is SUPPOSED to be the most protected country on Earth, has nothing to do with any country's desire to live or die as a WHOLE. Also, Iran is not CONTROLLED by people willing to drive car bombs into markets. The Iranian leadership has never been connected to such an event.

You can "write off" what you will, but the fact of the matter is, that's EXACTLY how it was with the Soviets, and exactly how it is with the Iranians.

The paranoia now is no different that the paranoia that consumed us throughout the Cold War. I can only assume you aren't old enough to remember.

And speaking of write-offs ... Iran OPENLY supports Hezbollah and Hamas. How much more "connected" need one be?

 

[Gunny]

do you think that, short of creating a separate kurdistan, that the kurds in Iraq will be able to keep the future shiite dominated Iraqi government from turning their back on Washington and aligning themselves with Tehran?

You know as well as I that the Kurds are just sitting back, waiting, and consolidating their position. If and when the shia and sunni get done killing each other, they're next, and they know it.

If the kurds prevail, there WILL be a separate "Kurdistan." Will give Iran something closer than Israel to bitch and whine about.

 

[DiogenesDog]

Then why the fuck was this the deadliest year for US troops?

Simple question.

Absolutely creatively right on target.

The Iranian leadership has never been connected to such an event.

Robert Baer, former CIA, has connected Iran with much of what developed in the Levant in the 80s and 90s. They have the blood of the mass murder of US Marines in Lebanon on their hands as does Ronald Reagan. It may not be the current regime in Iran but the authors of that outrage still draw breath and still may have some influence.

To deal with the complications that face the US in the wide world will not be solved by stiff neck certitude and an inability or refusal to read the world in an intelligent and rational way. Our best weapons are the critical mind, an unpoliticized execution of policy and a renewal of our education system that focuses on geopolitical history and possibilities, learning other's language and social/moral mores. Isolation and ignorance of the world works against even the richest nations.

I AM

 

[CSM]

Absolutely creatively right on target.



Robert Baer, former CIA, has connected Iran with much of what developed in the Levant in the 80s and 90s. They have the blood of the mass murder of US Marines in Lebanon on their hands as does Ronald Reagan. It may not be the current regime in Iran but the authors of that outrage still draw breath and still may have some influence.

You blame Ronald Reagan for the killing of Marines????

To deal with the complications that face the US in the wide world will not be solved by stiff neck certitude and an inability or refusal to read the world in an intelligent and rational way. Our best weapons are the critical mind, an unpoliticized execution of policy and a renewal of our education system that focuses on geopolitical history and possibilities, learning other's language and social/moral mores. Unfortunately, critical minds tend to get splattered all over the countryside when "non critical minds" blow them up. Understanding why some terrorist wants to kill you is great but then comes the hard part...how do you keep them from doing it? Isolation and ignorance of the world works against even the richest nations.

I AM

The point is it will take more than just education, critical thinking and unpoliticized foreign policy and such to enable this country to survive and prosper. A nation's economy and militatry posture make a huge difference in how other nations deal with each other. I would point out that national policy (foreign and domestic) is by its nature "political". Those countries with a strong economy and a strong military have very different foreign policies than those that do not.

Language and understanding of social mores etc is essential but I sure as hell don't want my country's government working to enable some OTHER nations goals and interests. I want them working on this nation's interests based on our language and mores, etc.

Also, isolation and ignorance seems to be the breeding ground for those who want to destroy not just the US but every entity which disagrees with their religious/political/cultural beliefs. It seems to me that those nations where the government keeps the population "ignorant" by controlling education and the media are the worst.

 

[DiogenesDog]

TYou blame Ronald Reagan for the killing of Marines????

Yes, he is complicit. It was an operation that should have been sustained by off shore billeting. His decision to allow the onshore billeting without a greater depth of protection and by not reacting to the red flags that were sprouting in the intelligence stream, are worthy of blame. Ronald Reagan was a construct of an ersatz conservatism that morphed into a cult of personality. He was an amiable but limited buffoon who facilitated the errors of others. He allowed trading with the enemy and negotiations with terrorist organizations to fund secret wars in this hemisphere. That may be acceptable to you as a necessary and expedient tactic but it is unconstitutional and an outrage built on deceit and criminal activity.

That is my take on RR. Yours may be different. To me he was and is the adult version of believing in the Easter Bunny. He has become a faulty myth that will not survive the era.

To deal with the complications that face the US in the wide world will not be solved by stiff neck certitude and an inability or refusal to read the world in an intelligent and rational way. Our best weapons are the critical mind, an unpoliticized execution of policy and a renewal of our education system that focuses on geopolitical history and possibilities, learning other's language and social/moral mores. Unfortunately, critical minds tend to get splattered all over the countryside when "non critical minds" blow them up. Understanding why some terrorist wants to kill you is great but then comes the hard part...how do you keep them from doing it? Isolation and ignorance of the world works against even the richest nations.

I commend your dedication to duty and service that led you into the ranks of "Top Soldier". I must remind you that your service and former rank, not withstanding, we are now fully equal citizens in a complex and idealistically egalitarian society. The introduction of a comment into my words quoted by you are poor form and a bit presumptuous. Yes. You did set them apart a bit by coloring the font. It was a weak "Yes . . . , but" response hardly in tune with your better abilities.

Let's set out a military metaphor. It is absolutely necessary to first create a capable rifleman (a serious student), integrate him into a well working fire team (collaboration with other serious students) and to duplicate those fire teams into larger effective components of combat teams (collaboration in a greater strategy of smart and effective intentions, actions and outcomes). Organization and collaboration are components of accademic efforts and disciplines of mind no less than they are for a military effort. Some part of the mind of Islam is now going down a path of scriptural and intellectual discipline that is bloody and operates in absence of the more noble ideas and actions that Islam has historically displayed in better times. The US armed and supplied the Mujahadeen factions, eg., Northern Alliance and Talliban, and told them to kill the infidels - meaning the Russians. Killing infidels is a lot of fun and a route to paradise for some in Islam. What had been a war of intellect and ideas mixed with direct action has now become a bloody effort that is being directed against the West and the US in particular. What were the operatives of Democracy in conservative mufti thinking? Passive intervention is still intervention. Foreign entanglements and complications are an anathema to true conservatives.

Again our best weapon against our intellectual enemy (radical murderous Islam) is rigid intellectual discipline and critical thinking on our part with a well prepared mailed fist to react as a last resort. We are very capable of blowing things up and taking a country by storm. We have displayed less talent this time around in getting things squared away and creating a workable system of support for the defeated, occupied populous. This is very bad form, faulty thinking and the result of poorly politicized choices. My greatest admiration for how that can be done is the tack that MacArthur took in creating the new Japan. He was the Gaijin Shogun who won the Samurai heart. His legacy lives on there not in some publicly revered statute or temple but in their well crafted constitution. Thank God he was thwarted on nuking the Chinese.

An aside. The Chinese were preparing a Viet Nam move. Those plans were uncovered by some very smart people in my MOS community and overwhelmingly thwarted and shredded by a force of very unconventional riflemen, air power and unremitting long distance HnI artillery. It is one of the victories of the era that will never be acknowledged or widely known. It was smartly outrageous, it was well thought out and expertly executed. The result is that now we have Wal-Marts stocked with Chinese goods instead of a semi tropical southern province of China. The dour Nixonian "Ping Pong" diplomacy not withstanding.

May I point out again. The US is a national child of an effective insurgency in support of a noble but ragtag Army and Navy and their step child the Jars, GodBlessem!

I don't consider our exchange one of winning or losing. I do not wish to one up you or dismiss your point of view. It is my hope that you would cease to rely on jingoism and the bloody rag to make a point and use the abilities that got you to "Top soldier." You have capacities, talent and a poker psyche to see through the BS and to be a component for a smarter future for the Nation, GodblessUS.

This administration is playing Old Maid or Go Fish with a part of a culture that is playing backgammon or chess. It would be to our benefit to alway be able to counter any action on their part by intellect and craft. We have the capability. We need the leadership.


I AM

 

[CSM]

Yes, he is complicit. It was an operation that should have been sustained by off shore billeting. His decision to allow the onshore billeting without a greater depth of protection and by not reacting to the red flags that were sprouting in the intelligence stream, are worthy of blame. Ronald Reagan was a construct of an ersatz conservatism that morphed into a cult of personality. He was an amiable but limited buffoon who facilitated the errors of others. He allowed trading with the enemy and negotiations with terrorist organizations to fund secret wars in this hemisphere. That may be acceptable to you as a necessary and expedient tactic but it is unconstitutional and an outrage built on deceit and criminal activity.

That is my take on RR. Yours may be different. To me he was and is the adult version of believing in the Easter Bunny. He has become a faulty myth that will not survive the era.



I commend your dedication to duty and service that led you into the ranks of "Top Soldier". I must remind you that your service and former rank, not withstanding, we are now fully equal citizens in a complex and idealistically egalitarian society. The introduction of a comment into my words quoted by you are poor form and a bit presumptuous. Yes. You did set them apart a bit by coloring the font. It was a weak "Yes . . . , but" response hardly in tune with your better abilities.

Let's set out a military metaphor. It is absolutely necessary to first create a capable rifleman (a serious student), integrate him into a well working fire team (collaboration with other serious students) and to duplicate those fire teams into larger effective components of combat teams (collaboration in a greater strategy of smart and effective intentions, actions and outcomes). Organization and collaboration are components of accademic efforts and disciplines of mind no less than they are for a military effort. Some part of the mind of Islam is now going down a path of scriptural and intellectual discipline that is bloody and operates in absence of the more noble ideas and actions that Islam has historically displayed in better times. The US armed and supplied the Mujahadeen factions, eg., Northern Alliance and Talliban, and told them to kill the infidels - meaning the Russians. Killing infidels is a lot of fun and a route to paradise for some in Islam. What had been a war of intellect and ideas mixed with direct action has now become a bloody effort that is being directed against the West and the US in particular. What were the operatives of Democracy in conservative mufti thinking? Passive intervention is still intervention. Foreign entanglements and complications are an anathema to true conservatives.

Again our best weapon against our intellectual enemy (radical murderous Islam) is rigid intellectual discipline and critical thinking on our part with a well prepared mailed fist to react as a last resort. We are very capable of blowing things up and taking a country by storm. We have displayed less talent this time around in getting things squared away and creating a workable system of support for the defeated, occupied populous. This is very bad form, faulty thinking and the result of poorly politicized choices. My greatest admiration for how that can be done is the tack that MacArthur took in creating the new Japan. He was the Gaijin Shogun who won the Samurai heart. His legacy lives on there not in some publicly revered statute or temple but in their well crafted constitution. Thank God he was thwarted on nuking the Chinese.

An aside. The Chinese were preparing a Viet Nam move. Those plans were uncovered by some very smart people in my MOS community and overwhelmingly thwarted and shredded by a force of very unconventional riflemen, air power and unremitting long distance HnI artillery. It is one of the victories of the era that will never be acknowledged or widely known. It was smartly outrageous, it was well thought out and expertly executed. The result is that now we have Wal-Marts stocked with Chinese goods instead of a semi tropical southern province of China. The dour Nixonian "Ping Pong" diplomacy not withstanding.

May I point out again. The US is a national child of an effective insurgency in support of a noble but ragtag Army and Navy and their step child the Jars, GodBlessem!

I don't consider our exchange one of winning or losing. I do not wish to one up you or dismiss your point of view. It is my hope that you would cease to rely on jingoism and the bloody rag to make a point and use the abilities that got you to "Top soldier." You have capacities, talent and a poker psyche to see through the BS and to be a component for a smarter future for the Nation, GodblessUS.

This administration is playing Old Maid or Go Fish with a part of a culture that is playing backgammon or chess. It would be to our benefit to alway be able to counter any action on their part by intellect and craft. We have the capability. We need the leadership.


I AM

First of all, no insult inteneded by my "adding woords to your post"...I was merely commenting in the appropriate place.

Second, it is obvious that we are going to disagree. I submit that because I do does not make me a "jingoist".

Third, I don't view this discussion a contest and one-upmanship is not my game. I view it as an exchange of ideas.

I am heartened that you added the "mailed fist" part in your commentary. I am convinced that diplomacy alone is inadequate. One can only negotiate effectively if one has some power behind them. In this case, miilitary power.

As an intel guy, you know full well that intelligence alone (both kinds!) is not enough. We may disagree all day long about tactics (and of course the intelligence community always thinks they have the answer!) but in the end it is a coordinated, cooperative effort that succeeds. It takes brains and courage and yes, even craftiness to be successful.

Additionally, I presume from your posts that you are no longer in the intel business. Based on your post here (specifically regaqrding the intelligence on Chinese efforts) you may want to consider that there could possibly be some very good reasons (though not disclosable ones) why the US engaged in Iraq and continues to remain there. Is that not possible in your estimation?

 

[Paulie]

Robert Baer, former CIA, has connected Iran with much of what developed in the Levant in the 80s and 90s. They have the blood of the mass murder of US Marines in Lebanon on their hands as does Ronald Reagan. It may not be the current regime in Iran but the authors of that outrage still draw breath and still may have some influence.

I'm quoting you in this post, but it's aimed at anyone else who has responded to me so far.

I admit I didn't properly elaborate on what I meant by my statement. It was vague, and out of context.

Iran has funded people who eventually ended up blowing up a market. If that's the worst anyone's got on Iran, then what's the problem really? How many other nations have funded people who eventually committed acts of 'terrorism' that we ALLY ourselves with right now? Has the U.S. not funded such things ITSELF? We fund and arm ONE group, to fight ANOTHER group. That's also what Iran has done. You can't create a double standard, just because you have personal feelings towards a country like Iran (by you, i mean everyone in general, by the way). The fact of the matter is, we've probably spent more money, and provided more arms to countries which resulted in senseless, unneccessary, immoral deaths than ANYONE.

Ronald Reagan can be thanked for Saddam obtaining and using chemical weapons on the Kurds. We sold him the weapons to fight the Iranian regime at the time. The same Iranian regime we helped put into power.

I find it amazing that people aren't able to take history into consideration when making present-day decisions on issues. Just about every enemy we portray, was an enemy we were in some way responsible for establishing.

You are absolutely fooling yourself if you think that the U.S. will be safer and more prosperous if we continue to invade and occupy nations, and establish our own 'democratic' puppet governments, out of fear of what they may or may not be pursuing. We will only become more in debt, closer to bankruptcy, and more hated and isolated internationally. All this will do is embolden our enemies to try even HARDER.

You can't fight a war against an ideology. The only one's who benefit from such a thing are the people who loan the money to governments to fight and reconstruct. It's been going on for hundreds of years. The only thing that changes throughout history are the enemies portrayed, to continue the desire to fight the wars.

People love to quote the founding fathers, and say they idolize them, but then those same people advocate everything they stood against.

 

[Bern80]

RGS, we'll talk more about it as the months continue and deaths increase.

Regardless though, the only thing I'll accept as improvement in Iraq is the U.S. leaving.

So admittedly you really have no interest in the future of Iraq or their chances to acheive freedom.

The problem clearly is that when you and RGS use the word 'improvement', you each mean two different things.

RGS, I believe, means in the sense that violence has decreased, allowing the the government to not be distracted by it and work on actual democracy.

You however define improvement as the U.S. not being there. Technically that isn't 'improvement'. For something to 'improve' it has to 'get better'. What exactley is going to get better if the U.S. leaves?

Tell me why you love war so much..

this is just plain stupid. Because he is practical enough to see the implication of immediate U.S. withdrawl, he loves war?

Because he sees a drop in violence due to the troop surge, thus improveing chances for stability in the country, he loves war?

 

[Paulie]

So admittedly you really have no interest in the future of Iraq or their chances to acheive freedom.

We should have referred to the constitution, and seen that the only legal means of going to war is congressionally DECLARING it. Declare it, go fight it, win it, tell the American people that the mission was accomplished, and COME HOME. We don't need 160,000 troops continually put into harms way while the country is reconstructed. Cheney has known for years though, that were we to actually commit to an occupation, that the consequences would be disasterous. We need our military HERE right now, defending our OWN borders.

What is happening right now in Iraq was expected. It's sad that congress at large didn't have the balls to stand up and admit it.