We're All Spaniards Now

[Dr Grump]

and then they'll stop?

If the US hadn't invaded Iraq, maybe. Pre Iraq you had a group of radicals who wanted the US influence out of the ME. Now you have at a minimum 50,000 or maximum 600,000 dead civilians. They have relatives. A percentage of those relatives now hate the US not becuase of the US presence, but because they see the US as responsible for killing their sons, mothers, fathers, daughters. Imagine being in Iraq and being apathetic towards the US. Then one of their bombs kills your son/daughter. How do you feel about them now? Not talking about insurgents killings here, talking about the bombing during the war....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

leave the mideast? we have interests there. I think we need to remake our mideast policy to make up for the neo-con policies of the last few years, but leaving totally? Not likely.

And then there is the issue of leaving Israel to the wolves.

Remake the policy? What sort of pseudointellecual political trash speech is that jillian? What does that mean? Remake the policy

 

[Annie]

If the US hadn't invaded Iraq, maybe. Pre Iraq you had a group of radicals who wanted the US influence out of the ME. Now you have at a minimum 50,000 or maximum 600,000 dead civilians. They have relatives. A percentage of those relatives now hate the US not becuase of the US presence, but because they see the US as responsible for killing their sons, mothers, fathers, daughters. Imagine being in Iraq and being apathetic towards the US. Then one of their bombs kills your son/daughter. How do you feel about them now? Not talking about insurgents killings here, talking about the bombing during the war....

Funny, the UN today or yesterday estimated 150k Iraqi civilians.

 

[Dr Grump]

But...we were in the mideast well before 9/11. The first attack, the 1993 WTC bombings, didn't come until after we had our troops in the area for a couple years. Then there was the long crippling embargo, cited as one of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks. And Britain's example has shown that the "Iraq is terrorist bait" theory doesn't hold up. It's true that we haven't been hit since the Iraq invasion, but correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

I'd suggest it goes back to the Beruit barrack bombings in 1984....

 

[Dr Grump]

Funny, the UN today or yesterday estimated 150k Iraqi civilians.

Which is why I said between 50 and 660....Nobody seems to know it seems. Funny, how that is the only part of my post you picked up on...probably the least important part of it IMO.

 

[Bonnie]

Nope, if this goes the way it's looking, there will not be anyone rushing to greet anyone. If it goes the way it's looking, good luck with the 'all volunteer military,' if we need one anymore.

Well when the Dems say re-deployment all we need do is look at the same rederic during Vietnam. Re-deployment means turn coat and run....We should be happy that we made the terrorists happy right?????

 

[Annie]

Which is why I said between 50 and 660....Nobody seems to know it seems. Funny, how that is the only part of my post you picked up on...probably the least important part of it IMO.

Well those upper limits of Lancet are tedious, no?

 

[Dr Grump]

I would recommend to you the same book that I recommended to the Baron. The author is a recognized authority on counter-terrorism, with long years of experience. You won't even have to read the 400+ pages. The last few chapters should put your argument to rest.

I've read several books on the ME and terrorism. Some by authorities, and one by a Englishman of Pakistani descent. None make the connection between Iraq and terrorism. The only link I've seen is supposition by those who want to see the connection. Hell, up until about six months ago, every neocon or conservative I spoke to said nobody in the admin had made the connection. Now, they are saying there is. OBL hated Saddam and vice versa.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well those upper limits of Lancet are tedious, no?

I find the Lancent more credible than the UN. If you find the UN credible that would be a first (a conservative who finds the UN credible). In saying that, I think they are all guessing to large degree. There has been no official body count. It is within the interests of the anti-war crowd for it to be 660+. For the pro-war crowd 50+ is the number. Who knows

 

[Annie]

I find the Lancent more credible than the UN. If you find the UN credible that would be a first (a conservative who finds the UN credible). In saying that, I think they are all guessing to large degree. There has been no official body count. It is within the interests of the anti-war crowd for it to be 660+. For the pro-war crowd 50+ is the number. Who knows

Any statistics with 50-660k are knowingly misleading.

 

[Dr Grump]

Any statistics with 50-660k are knowingly misleading.

The 660 is Lancet. The 50 was a figure I read on a conservative website a few months ago (forget which one)...

 

[Hobbit]

I've read several books on the ME and terrorism. Some by authorities, and one by a Englishman of Pakistani descent. None make the connection between Iraq and terrorism. The only link I've seen is supposition by those who want to see the connection. Hell, up until about six months ago, every neocon or conservative I spoke to said nobody in the admin had made the connection. Now, they are saying there is. OBL hated Saddam and vice versa.

And I've talked one on one with an actual, bona fide Iraqi who saw her half-Iraqi granddaughter for the first time since she was a little girl. She says the country is much better off now and that Saddam offered large sums of money to the family of anyone who would blow themselves up in Israel.

 

[Dr Grump]

And I've talked one on one with an actual, bona fide Iraqi who saw her half-Iraqi granddaughter for the first time since she was a little girl. She says the country is much better off now and that Saddam offered large sums of money to the family of anyone who would blow themselves up in Israel.

So have I, some say it is better, some worse. I think you'll find Saddam's motives were more in keeping the wolves at the door (ie, keep the people occupied with Israel rather than concentrate on how shitty I make their lives), than any true belief one way or another in Islam and the evil of Israel. Although Israel bombing his nuke facility in 1981 musta hurt....

 

[jillian]

And I've talked one on one with an actual, bona fide Iraqi who saw her half-Iraqi granddaughter for the first time since she was a little girl. She says the country is much better off now and that Saddam offered large sums of money to the family of anyone who would blow themselves up in Israel.

My guess is it would depend on the part of Iraq the person lives in and the religious sect to which he or she belongs. Most reliable information is that it's a nightmare there now... no infrastructure; no jobs; families having to move because of the violence... and death, death and more death.

As for Saddam offering money to Palestinians..... that's common knowledge and it's true, but certainly doesn't justify hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of 3,000 soldiers.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Kathianne
The vast majority of adults do understand what Vietnam did to our self-image, not to mention to those we left behind. They do not want to repeat that.

LOL

You know, there are still old soviet generals in Russia who says something very similar to the mantra parroted by the super patriots of the US Message Board.

“If only we had stayed the course in Afghanistan... we could have defeated the insurgents, blah, blah, blah... “

The only difference between these clowns and the ones we have here is that the russian clowns do not have the convenient scapegoat to blame for their defeat: the soviet media.

As the mouthpiece of a dictatorial state, the soviet media was only allowed to print stories about soviet soldiers building schools, hospitals etc, in Kabul while soviet soldiers were being torn to pieces by the hundreds on the roads, valleys and mountains of Afghanistan.

Since a free media were not a concern for the soviet authorities they had the opportunity to escalate the war at will.

Indeed, the Soviet Union used just about every brutal method to defeat the rebels short of nuking the whole country.

With no free soviet media to blame one would think these former soviet generals would be honest enough to admit they were defeated in Afghanistan, not in the Soviet Union.

But no... according to these clowns the only reason the SU lost was because the country gave up fighting (due to the beggining of the process of dissolution).

But whether they want to admit it or not the SU lost due to two main reasons:

1) – The afghan resistance was fighting for home, driven by nationalism and not some obscure, controversial foreign policy goal.

2) – They chose to fight like Afghans, not like Soviets. If they had fought like the Red Army they wouldn’t have lasted 1 month.

This is exactly what would happen in Vietnam with or without a free american media to serve as a scapegoat.

Because the problem in Vietnam had nothing to do with the american press, it had to do with the majority of the vietnamese population determined to expell all foreign troops and unify their country and avoiding to fight in a symetrical way.

 

[José]

It’s quite ironic to see former soviet generals and the american civilians/retired soldiers of this MB agreeing on something.

But wait!!!

I almost forgot...

These russian generals were (still are) super patriotic soviet clowns.

OH... this explains the common ground shared by both groups.

Super patriotic clowns think alike. : )

 

[Dr Grump]

Jose

I agree re your assessment although I disagree with one aspect with a caveat. The US media had huge influence on public perception, and it was that public perception that brought the soldiers home (IMO). In saying that, the media did the US a favour, because you are right, short of nuking the place, the Vietnamese would never have given up and the war would still be going IMO.

BTW, your last post was unnecessary IMO...you'd made your point...

 

[dilloduck]

If the US hadn't invaded Iraq, maybe. Pre Iraq you had a group of radicals who wanted the US influence out of the ME. Now you have at a minimum 50,000 or maximum 600,000 dead civilians. They have relatives. A percentage of those relatives now hate the US not becuase of the US presence, but because they see the US as responsible for killing their sons, mothers, fathers, daughters. Imagine being in Iraq and being apathetic towards the US. Then one of their bombs kills your son/daughter. How do you feel about them now? Not talking about insurgents killings here, talking about the bombing during the war....

But the US DID invade Iraq. That's the reality here. So will everything be peachy if we cut and run?

 

[Bonnie]

But the US DID invade Iraq. That's the reality here. So will everything be peachy if we cut and run?

Thank you Dillo, I have been wondering the same thing for a long time. We are there, and we are getting things done.

 

[Bonnie]

Jose

I agree re your assessment although I disagree with one aspect with a caveat. The US media had huge influence on public perception, and it was that public perception that brought the soldiers home (IMO). In saying that, the media did the US a favour, because you are right, short of nuking the place, the Vietnamese would never have given up and the war would still be going IMO.

BTW, your last post was unnecessary IMO...you'd made your point...

I suppose those who were hanging off our helicopters trying to avoid the Vietcong as we fled Saigon, then fell to their deaths, may disagree with you there??