Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there’s a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don’t think it’s a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of “too little, too late.” In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He’s not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let’s see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
• 
“Never accuse me of not understanding what war is.’
And, I said that where?
“This is most noticeable in Vietnam. We weren’t fighting a war, not even close. A war you hunt down and and obliterate the enemy.”
Kind of. We fought a “war”. We just used bad tactics. I wasn’t talking about tactics or any of the other things that you are addressong here. I was talking about what you kept throwing around before.
“Do you have the stomach to depopulate whole towns? Does the world have the stomach to let us do exactly that? NO! That is why wars like Vietnam and Iraq will never be won.”
To me, it doesn’t matter what people or the world has the stomach for. War hasn’t changed that much. It’s just become more televised.
That’s what I was addressing.
“I would say at this point I have a far better understanding than you do.”
I doubt it. I would say we’re about even.
“Yes the propaganda of WWII was “clean” but the country knew what was required. The body bags came home stacked like cordwood, those lucky enough to come home for burial.”
And still very few people knew what happened in the war. My wife’s grandfather flew bombing runs over Germany. One mission, he actually bombed the town that HIS grandfather and family were from. Not a lot of people thought about that kind of thing very often. Most people seemed to act as if they couldn’t even imagine that kind of thing when he talked to people after he came back home.He saw other things as well. Still haunts him.
I pull extra duty working functions at The Virginia War Memorial. I talk to a lot of the older vets and watch them talk to others. One thing that almost every vet talks about is coming home and seeing how very little people knew about what actually happened over there. They saw carnage. Most people saw happy, feel good promo spots for the war. They would tell people, back then, what they saw and who ever they were talking to would turn white. They had no clue about even the more mild horror.
Even Korea saw very little real news coverage. Most of what you can find from the actual war years is little more then fluff. You can find some good coverage here and there, but much of it is about as “real” as what people were fed in WWII. Archived TV news from then is almost funny to look at when you see how that little bit carnage was covered.
Vietnam was different. We were there for questionable reasons. The press decided to point that out and show as much of the horror as they could. That was new for our press and for our people watching at home. The only Americans who got a better look at the carnage of war from their homes were the people alive at the time of the civil War.
Gulf 1 and Bosnia went to quick. Noy a lot to cover. We had happy little wars and it was all wonderful.
Now we have Iraq and the press gives us lots of ugly looks behind the curtain again. People are outraged. Fine, they should be. War is an outrage. Tough. Sometimes it’s a needed outrage.
I think we need to take the chance we may have been given and try to fix at least a few of the things we broke before we just drop Iraq, its people and any hope of ours straight into Hëll. You don’t. Fine.
Bill Mulligan:”Uh-oh, Mike been hanging around those websites again.”
Yeah, but the problem is I’m MUCH taller than the guy they had posing as me in the pictures. And the scars are much higher on my chest. Or have I said too much?
Bill Myers: Hmmm. Pinky, the Brain and a Rat? I smell a comeback!
From Micha:”…I was not physically fit to regular service)” There are reasons why they have those standards, Micha. Trust me, thanks to my history I’m not fit to serve either, which really cheesed me off because I wanted Air Force so bad. Anyway, to quote the brilliant phD, Dr. Peter Venkman, everything happens for a reason. There are other ways to serve your country. Ph, and according to a college friend of mine, Israel is great for hunting that elusive prey–Girls. And your deifiniton theory reminds me of the translation problems they ran into in AC Crispin’s Starbridge, almost substituting “Pubic” for “Public.”
“X-ray didn’t cite of mice and men.” Anybody else seeing the scene from “A Fish Called Wanda” where Wanda and Otto are talking about apes reading Plato?
“We weren’t fighting a war, not even close.”
Brian, do yourself a favor. Don’t tell anybody that was over there it wasn’t a war.
Like that portrait of Timothy McVie they found on your lower back during your physical, Sean Scullion?
I fear that Rush and Sean will be right about what is going to happen in the coming 2 years. I do not want to see Bush impeached for a few good reasons.
1. NeoCons will be proven right that liberals don’t care about anything except destroying Bush.
2. This will backfire on those who support impeachment, just like what happened with Clinton.
3. An impeachment will not change a thing. We will still be in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfield was a long time coming for someone who never should have been Secretary of Defense again. I was still in the military at the time of his appointment. Most of the highers ups were beginning their careers during Rummy’s first go around. They did not like him and did not want him in that position. Hopefully, Gates will listen to his generals.
What I do want to see from the new Congress is agreement. I do not want to see this become a stalemate between them and the White House. Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean need to keep their mouths shut. Their vendetta against the President is putting our troops in danger. There are some of you that don’t believe this. Then you are ignorant of the big picture.
The terrorists that are in Iraq and the rest of the world believe they are always just one attack from causing the US to pull out of Iraq. We cannot leave Iraq in the shape it is in. It being “Bush’s war” is not a good excuse to pull out. We need an exit strategy. One that involves the Iraqi people stepping up.
Also, I want to comment to those who believe Americans make more money. The average American actually has about $2000 less spending money than they did 6 years ago. The cost of living has grown faster than wages have.
I have found the best source of information you can get, except the host would disagree. On Saturdays from 8am to 1pm there is a show called Wheels with Ed Wallace on 570 KLIF out of Dallas. While it being a car show first, Ed always has news stories to begin each segment. His website is http://www.insideautomotive.com This site also has link to his columns in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I recommend this show to Dems and Reps alike. If anything I hope some people will pay attention.
Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean need to keep their mouths shut.
I’m sorry, but why should anybody who disagrees with the president and his pathetic displays of leadership have to keep their mouth shut?
Their vendetta against the President is putting our troops in danger.
No, Bush’s vendetta against Saddam put our troops in danger. It continues to put our troops in danger.
What some, on both sides of the political aisle, like Dean are doing is talking common sense. And that’s something else this Administration has utterly lacked.
There are some of you that don’t believe this. Then you are ignorant of the big picture.
Well, if you really want to talk about ignorance of the big picture, you have to look no further than Bush, who was the one who wanted us in Iraq at all costs to begin with, rather than actually fighting the real war on terror.
The big picture is that there are more terrorists now specificially because of Iraq, and Bush has approached his presidency as if he were a dictator hëll-bent on total control.
Micha — unfortunately, the architects of the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq didn’t see the need to learn about the cultural and socio-political landscape of Iraq. That’s why they made such boneheaded blunders like the attempted “de-Baathification” of Iraq.
Alan Coil — my employer was astonishingly uninterested in your opinion of my job performance. As a matter of fact, despite your misgivings, they feel I have excelled in my role and are expanding my responsibilities. Trust me, I was as surprised as you are.
Jerry C — you are correct that modern T.V. coverage makes it difficult to keep public opinion in favor of a war.
Brian Peter — you are correct that historically, the most effective way to fight a war has been to use overwhelming force to pound your opponent into submission. When we defeated the Axis in WWII, however, they surrendered. We didn’t end up with Nazi cells committing acts of terror within and outside of Europe. We do have Islamic terrorists doing just that today, though. If we simply mow down Iraq, we will inspire more terrorists. And as Sept. 11, 2001, has show — they CAN hurt us. They already have.
Iraq in its current state is analogous to Vietnam, but there are also parallels with Europe after WWII. In Iraq, we toppled Saddam Hussein, disbanded his army, and installed a new government. The problem is that we did not provide for the aftermath. We needed — and still need — a Marshall Plan. It would have been far better to have put one in place BEFORE the invasion. It will be hellaciously difficult — but not impossible — to put one in place now. We have to try.
gene tullis — I hate to sound cold, but people “mouthing off” is one of the prices you must be willing to pay if you want to live in a truly free society. Moreover, the sloppy planning by our current administration has done infinitely more to endanger the troops than anything said by dissenters. For example, if we had observed tried-and-true military doctrine and actually, heaven forbid, committed enough troops to be able to secure our rear flank as we advanced towards Bagdad during the initial invasion, we could have kept the arms depots secure and thus kept arms out of the insurgents’ hands. If we had not disbanded the Iraqi army but put them to use (remember, most of them didn’t put up much of a fight on Saddam’s behalf) and kept some of them from joining the insurgency. None of those problems were the result of Democrats “mouthing off.”
To paraphrase Ben Franklin — anyone who trades freedom for security deserves neither.
Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean need to keep their mouths shut.
Ridiculous. Right or wrong they not only have the right to speak out they were specifically elected to do so.
Baghdad’s morgues so full, bodies being turned away:
Are our money, resources, and the lives of our soldiers going to save more lives by trying to put out the fire when it’s climbing, or after the fire has peaked and starts to contract? Considering our presence has been demonstrated to feed the insurgency (by Jim Baker and the new Secretary of Defense Gates) the latter makes more sense.
The war in Iraq was coming for some time. The time between the first Gulf War and 2003 needs to looked at closely. Those who trained me when I joined felt betrayed because they did not finish the job the first time. Politicians are the reason Saddam was not dealt with sooner. Those in the UN should be the ones who face scrutiny. They sat on their hands as Saddam basically gave the rest of the world the finger. We were right in going in there. The wrong we comitted was how we did it. Our planners(Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, etc…) were thinking we would be hailed as liberators. We became occupiers. What they failed to take in account was the fact these people were not stupid. They knew where the weapons Saddam used on them came from. Remember what I said about the bigger picture. This picture is not 3-years-old or even 20, Iraq has never known peace in at least 100 years. Our arrogance is the reason we are in this position. Do not forget our elected officials backed the war as did the majority of Americans. If you said they lied to get us there, that I cannot prove or disprove. I think they took what they considered best information for going to war while discounting anything that said not to go in. I believe Saddam had WMDs. No one clear thinking person could think differently. They are either in Syria or Iran. Our military planners should have waited for Turkey to give the go ahead to use Turkey as an invasion point, then maybe there would be evidence.
Now back to Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean and those folks. They are putting our troops in danger. No doubt about it. They do have free speech that is correct, but I ask that they think about what they say first. You cannot say you support the troops and then say what they are doing is wrong.(Unless you’re John Kerry.) Kerry goes on national television and says our toops are terrorizing women and children, Murtha goes and calls fellow Marines killers before even one sees trial and you think Bush alone is the reason our troops are dying. When Iraqis that are on the fence hear this, what do you think they are thinking. It’s not, ‘I trust the Americans.’
Plain and simple, the mission in Iraq must be completed. I don’t want to hear stay the course, cut and run, or deployment. I want a plan. I want there to be peace. Most of all, I want my brothers and sisters in arms to come home.
“Micha — unfortunately, the architects of the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq didn’t see the need to learn about the cultural and socio-political landscape of Iraq. That’s why they made such boneheaded blunders like the attempted “de-Baathification” of Iraq.”
We’ve had our share of blunders I’m afraid.
If the US simply leaves Iraq, the different groups will kill each other for a while, I don’t know how long, and then they will probably cut a deal among themselves, and the Al-quida foreign guys (and some locals) wil move on to other areas in the region. Some may also move on to try to hit European and American targets, but I’m also worried about the middle eastyern targets.
It would be better if the US tried to get the ifferent Iraqi factions to cut a deal before you leave, isolate the more fanatic Al-Quida, and hopefully do them some major harm before you leave.
There is no way to win this war other than some kind of deal with at least some of the insurgents. The US cannot place a dictator that will do a better job then right now. You have a long bad history with American supported dictators.
“They knew where the weapons Saddam used on them came from.” That’s not the only or most important reason they hate you.
“They sat on their hands as Saddam basically gave the rest of the world the finger.”
That finger was not a threat to the US, and not much of a threat to anybody else.
“Iraq has never known peace in at least 100 years.”
There is a difference between living under a dictatorship or living in a state of total war.
“I think they took what they considered best information for going to war while discounting anything that said not to go in.”
That’s better than lying, but not by much.
“Now back to Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean and those folks. They are putting our troops in danger. No doubt about it. They do have free speech that is correct, but I ask that they think about what they say first. You cannot say you support the troops and then say what they are doing is wrong.(Unless you’re John Kerry.) Kerry goes on national television and says our toops are terrorizing women and children, Murtha goes and calls fellow Marines killers before even one sees trial and you think Bush alone is the reason our troops are dying. When Iraqis that are on the fence hear this, what do you think they are thinking. It’s not, ‘I trust the Americans.'”
I doubt any Iraqi needs the statements of American politicians to notice that things are bad, and that America handled things badly. Statements like this would not be the cause for Iraqis to hate or attack Americans. Terrorists are encouraged by the internal debates in your country. But it is better that you have such debates than not.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
The war in Iraq was coming for some time. The time between the first Gulf War and 2003 needs to looked at closely. Those who trained me when I joined felt betrayed because they did not finish the job the first time.
Those who trained you when you joined should count themselves lucky that George H.W. Bush was smart enough to realize that beating back Saddam’s army would be fairly easy, but that toppling his regime and occupying the country would be very, very difficult.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
Politicians are the reason Saddam was not dealt with sooner.
In this country, civilians run the government, not the military. That’s how it SHOULD be.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
I believe Saddam had WMDs. No one clear thinking person could think differently.
Nonsense. “Clear thinking” people can and do think differently.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
They are either in Syria or Iran.
You’re engaging “circular reasoning,” a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. It’s faulty reasoning because it relies on its own premise to prove its conclusion. In this case, you’re relying on the assumption that Iraq must have had a significant stockpile of WMDs when we invaded, an assumption that you cannot prove.
The idea that the absence of WMDs suggests that Iraq must have had a significant stockpile of WMDs reminds me of this headline from The Onion: “Elvis Dies, Prompting Speculation That Elvis is Alive.”
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
Our military planners should have waited for Turkey to give the go ahead to use Turkey as an invasion point, then maybe there would be evidence.
Or maybe we would’ve had an “Al Capone’s Vault” moment.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
Now back to Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean and those folks. They are putting our troops in danger. No doubt about it.
No, that’s false. The people who sent the troops to Iraq put them in danger.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
They do have free speech that is correct, but I ask that they think about what they say first.
In other words, they have free speech but they should not exercise it. You are paying lip service to the concept but it is clear that you really don’t believe in freedom of speech.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
You cannot say you support the troops and then say what they are doing is wrong.
With all due respect to your service to this country (and I do respect your service), that kind of thinking is un-American. It’s the kind of thing that governments hide behind when they don’t want their corruption and bad decisions exposed.
My uncle fought in Vietnam. The Vietnam war was wrong. My uncle was not. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
I don’t want to hear stay the course, cut and run, or deployment.
I don’t believe we can leave Iraq anytime soon. But if you “don’t want to hear” contrary opinions, may I suggest you turn off your computer, your T.V., and your radio; and that you avoid going outside and interacting with other people? Because this is a free country and people can express opinions contrary to yours whether they like it or not.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
Most of all, I want my brothers and sisters in arms to come home.
I will agree with you there. My uncle fought in Vietnam. I am grateful he came home alive. I know people who have been deployed in Iraq. I hope they too make it home alive.
But I also hope we can keep alive the freedoms for which they are supposedly fighting. Otherwise, the sacrifices we’ve made will have been in vain.
And now, the not so smart move…
Reports are that Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) has accepted an offer to become chairman of the RNC. Maybe the GOP and the RNC are just trying to die.
Martinez is well known for several things of late. He was the one who wrote the talking points memo that said that the Terri Schiavo case was a great political issue to run with and that it would be the thing they really needed to get the pro-life base excited. Went over really well. Several members of the Senate had stated that Martinez himself handed them copies of the memo. Martinez first claimed that he never had any knowledge of the memo and later blamed its writing on one of his aids.
In the run up to the ’04 Fla. senatorial race, Martinez’s campaign sent voters a mailing that called his Republican opponent, Bill McCollum, “the new darling of the homosexual extremists.” He said this because McCollum supports hate crime legislation. After Martinez won, he blamed the whole thing on his aids while claiming he had no knowledge of it prior to when it was done.
He went on to run against Betty Castor. One of his ads really backfired. Martinez aired an attack ad that went after Janet Reno, who supported Castor, saying that Reno had used armed thugs to seize Elián González and send him back to Cuba so that Fidel Castro could have his way.
Problem? Martinez had previously featured one of the federal agents, Bill West, involved in the Gonzalez raid in an attack ad claiming Castor was soft on terrorism and backing Martinez. Martinez said that he was sorry and that the “armed thugs” wording had been a mistake by a staffer. He, of cousre, had no knowledge of how it got in there.
To his credit, Bill West took it well and even joked about it a bit with the local press.
And this is the guy that the RNC sees as their go to guy? Which image are they going for here?
1) Our new head is a bášŧárd who’ll do and say anything, no matter how stupid, to win.
…or…
2) Our new head is so clueless as to what’s going on around him that he can’t even run a small home office without screwing up and letting the inmates run the place. That’s our kind of guy.
The other side’s team must be loving this. I bet they can’t wait to start playing up his every mis-step with the press.
Jerry C wrote
>Kind of. We fought a “war”. We just used bad tactics. I wasn’t talking about tactics or any of the other things that you are addressong here. I was talking about what you kept throwing around before.
What I throwing around before included the tactics and everything else. Vietnam as considered by our government was not a war and it was not fought as a war. That includes all factors that relate to a war. Now unfortunately for our troops it was a war because no one informed the enemy
>To me, it doesn’t matter what people or the world has the stomach for. War hasn’t changed that much. It’s just become more televised. That’s what I was addressing.
What was the point of what was televised then? I’m arguing why we can not “win” this mess, not how it is televised. And if you want to accuse our government of sanitizing the message, they’ve done an excellent job of that this go round. Look at how they reacted when an internet video was broadcast by CNN showing the reality of war.
>And still very few people knew what happened in the war.
Yes it is unfortunate that so many choose to bury their heads in the sand and have no desire to know reality. But then our government this time around don’t want us to know reality because “it supports the enemy”… Whatever!
>Gulf 1 and Bosnia went to quick. Noy a lot to cover. We had happy little wars and it was all wonderful.
Now Bosnia, that was a military police action. Bloody for the natives, but we came out the other side pretty much intact. Gulf 1, I don’t buy your arguement, the largest engagement got plenty of news coverage when we destroyed their retreating forces. And no I was not one who said that was wrong, I agreed with it. Obliterate his remaining forces so he had nothing to rebuild with.
>Now we have Iraq and the press gives us lots of ugly looks behind the curtain again. People are outraged. Fine, they should be. War is an outrage. Tough. Sometimes it’s a needed outrage.
However once again, it’s not a needed outrage and our soldiers shouldn’t be dying.
>I think we need to take the chance we may have been given and try to fix at least a few of the things we broke before we just drop Iraq, its people and any hope of ours straight into Hëll.
No I’m saying you can’t fix it so there is no need to take the chance. If you were dealing with a Religious, Social, Political region that was similar to ours, say like Bosnia then I’d give you, there are plenty of chances. However you are not.
———————————————–
Bill Myers wrote
> you are correct that historically, the most effective way to fight a war has been to use overwhelming force to pound your opponent into submission. When we defeated the Axis in WWII, however, they surrendered. We didn’t end up with Nazi cells committing acts of terror within and outside of Europe.
You just proved my point, we pounded them into submission and they surrendered. We leveled their cities, Berlin was a burning husk, and we killed their army and their civilians. Nothing much as safe from us. Not in Iraq. We left arms, military personnel and enraged civilians running free.
> If we simply mow down Iraq, we will inspire more terrorists.
I’m lost since that is exactly what we are doing NOW! The thing is that presently most of the rebels are more interested in killing each other over their religious affiliations, the “terrorists” are still a small subsection of rebel numbers. Now the longer we are there interfering with their Hatfield and McCoy war we encourage them more and more to unite against a common enemy and invite even more people from other regional countries to join in.
> And as Sept. 11, 2001, has show — they CAN hurt us. They already have.
Get over it, already. You are more likely to be run over by a car tomorrow and die than have a terrorist action take place. It’s that simple. Yes they can hurt us, but the likelyhood of them being successful are slim. 9-11 will not happen like it did again.
The more likely is that our continued stupidity over there will increase the radicalization of Islamic youth in our own country and they will be the performers of the next terrorist actions. Not some foreigner but a citizen as has been the case now twice in Britian. One successful, one not, but all done by British citizens. Should invade Britian next so that we can continue our war on terror outside our borders?
>Iraq in its current state is analogous to Vietnam, but there are also parallels with Europe after WWII.
Europe and those would be what?
>The problem is that we did not provide for the aftermath. We needed — and still need — a Marshall Plan.
The Marshall Plan worked due to the fact that 16 countries, all located in the same region, shared a common interest in getting back on their feet after a devestating war.
In Iraq we have already spent billions to rebuild and they just blow it up again. The people want us out of there, they don’t want our help and two of the three sides just want to kill each other. You aren’t dealing with people who want to put 10 years behind them and get their lives back to normal.
> It would have been far better to have put one in place BEFORE the invasion. It will be hellaciously difficult — but not impossible — to put one in place now. We have to try.
So people can salve their egos with more dead soldiers until even they have had enough and say nothing can be done? No thanks, we tried already. We rebuild something, they blow it up. We train police officers, they either quit when they find out their postings, or they go shoot civilians that are not of their religious sect. A politician outside of Baghdad’s walls has a half life of five minutes.
All we are doing the longer we star are radicalizing more and more people.
“Gulf 1, I don’t buy your arguement…”
What, you’re going to say that Gulf 1 was a long war with tons of up close carnage coverage?
“No I’m saying you can’t fix it so there is no need to take the chance.”
So thinks you. I think different. At this point, whatever.
no argument that teh Martinez pick was a bad one, and a strange one to boot. They could have had Michael Steele…baffling.
With Pelosi apparently willing to piss away a chance for real reform in favor of picking people who have little to reccomend them other than loyalty to Pelosi (even the Soros backed CREW is upset) the Republicans had a good chance to grab some badly needed good publicity. Crazy bad choice. And he’s not even leaving the senate which would have allowed the republican governor of florida to appoint a better replacement.
can ANY of these guys play the game?
“can ANY of these guys play the game?”
It seems that the magic 8-ball is screaming, NO,” at the top of its lungs.
Gonna be a fun few years ahead.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
You just proved my point, we pounded them into submission and they surrendered. We leveled their cities, Berlin was a burning husk, and we killed their army and their civilians. Nothing much as safe from us. Not in Iraq. We left arms, military personnel and enraged civilians running free.
No, I didn’t prove your point. The Germans could easily have mounted an insurgency. It doesn’t take much. Low-tech explosives, car bombs, kidnappings and beheadings… none of those are especially hard to pull off.
The fact is, the European mentality is different from that of Islamic fundamentalists. The Germans surrendered because they realized there was nothing left for which to fight. Islamic fundamentalists are not quite as practical. They believe there is glory for dying in the name of Allah. That makes all the difference in the world.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
I’m lost
Yes, indeed you are.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
since that is exactly what we are doing NOW! The thing is that presently most of the rebels are more interested in killing each other over their religious affiliations, the “terrorists” are still a small subsection of rebel numbers. Now the longer we are there interfering with their Hatfield and McCoy war we encourage them more and more to unite against a common enemy and invite even more people from other regional countries to join in.
Trust me, if we mow down Iraq in the way that you are suggesting, we will see terrorism on a level that makes anything we’ve seen before look tichy by comparison.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
Get over it, already.
No, because it’s not about my emotions, but instead an observation: the fact that the terrorists have hurt us badly means it can happen again. That’s logic, not emotion.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
You are more likely to be run over by a car tomorrow and die than have a terrorist action take place. It’s that simple. Yes they can hurt us, but the likelyhood of them being successful are slim. 9-11 will not happen like it did again.
The first World Trade Center bombing and the suicide attacks that toppled the Center happened years apart. Al Qaeda is known for being patient, and has an appetite for the spectacular. Declaring that “9-11 will not happen like it did again” is, in addition to being tortured syntax, a sign of overconfidence on your part.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
The more likely is that our continued stupidity over there will increase the radicalization of Islamic youth in our own country and they will be the performers of the next terrorist actions.
You just said terrorism wasn’t an issue. Now it is. Well, which is it, then?
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
Not some foreigner but a citizen as has been the case now twice in Britian. One successful, one not, but all done by British citizens. Should invade Britian next so that we can continue our war on terror outside our borders?
The issue is not whether we should invade Iraq, since that’s already happened. The issue is whether or not we should pull out of that nation.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
The Marshall Plan worked due to the fact that 16 countries, all located in the same region, shared a common interest in getting back on their feet after a devestating war.
And there are many countries that have a vested interest in seeing a stable Iraq.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
In Iraq we have already spent billions to rebuild and they just blow it up again.
That’s because we’ve spent our money and deployed our troops unwisely. That doesn’t prove that Iraq cannot be secured.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
So people can salve their egos with more dead soldiers until even they have had enough and say nothing can be done?
You’re creating a straw man argument. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I want to salve my ego with dead soldiers. If you need to distort your opponents argument beyond recognition in order to win, you are as much as admitting that you have no argument.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
All we are doing the longer we star are radicalizing more and more people.
The only logical reason to worry about radicalizing the Iraqis is if you believe terrorism is a threat. But you’ve said terrorism is not a threat.
Well? Which is it, then?
>No, I didn’t prove your point.
Yes you did and you are about to prove another one of my points!
>The Germans could easily have mounted an insurgency. It doesn’t take much. Low-tech explosives, car bombs, kidnappings and beheadings… none of those are especially hard to pull off.
Yes they could have, but they didn’t, now did they.
>The fact is, the European mentality is different from that of Islamic fundamentalists.
Thank you for agreeing on another point! Their social/religious/political makeup is completely different than what we have normally dealt with!
>Yes, indeed you are.
No you lost. I’ve never supported this war except to get the hëll out of there. It’s just a matter of time till I can say, na, na, nana, hey hey, goodbye, told you so.
>Trust me, if we mow down Iraq in the way that you are suggesting, we will see terrorism on a level that makes anything we’ve seen before look tichy by comparision.
You have to be alive to be a terrorist. But like I said, it will never happen because it is the politically incorrect thing to do, regionally and worldly. But you are wrong also, Saddam if nothing else proved that, these people will only rebel to a certain point before they accept forced peace. There is a reason Saddam killed so many of his own people, it maintained peace.
>No, because it’s not about my emotions, but instead an observation: the fact that the terrorists have hurt us badly means it can happen again. That’s logic, not emotion.
Yes, but you are the one who is so worried by it you are willing to continue sending lives and money down a black hole, that will have absolutely no effect on IF it happens again, to supposedly keep it from happening again. Our money is better spent protecting the borders and strengthening our intelligence services, than it is used creating more terrorists in a wrong headed war.
>The first World Trade Center bombing and the suicide attacks that toppled the Center happened years apart. Al Qaeda is known for being patient, and has an appetite for the spectacular. Declaring that “9-11 will not happen like it did again” is, in addition to being tortured syntax, a sign of overconfidence on your part.
Have you flown lately? Have you tried to break into the pilot’s deck? Have you seen the reaction of all the other passengers when you tried? Piloting 3 jumbo jets into major buildings was due to a convergence of pre-held beliefs that had been pounded into people for decades. 1 We had forgotten that people would willingly committee suicide for their cause and 2 that no one who ever high jacked a plane would use it to committee suicide… On top of that the high jackers were flagged by civilians prior to 9-11, but our intelligence service failed to take notice.
Now a bomb in a garage as was the first attack? Sure has happened, will happen and will more likely be the result of a citizen, than some terrorist. Remember Olympic bombing at the AT&T pavilion?
Oh yes Al Qaeda is very patient. Yawn! That has nothing to do with Iraq, except for the fact Al Qaeda operates in the middle east and Iraq is in the middle east. Might as well carpet bomb Saudi Arabia while we carpet bomb Iraq because the majority of 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia… Oh I’d be willing to bet the next group of terrorist will be from Iraq, they are the children/brothers/fathers/cousins/whatever of those we have killed who probably could have cared less about Al Qaeda before we invaded.
>You just said terrorism wasn’t an issue. Now it is. Well, which is it, then?
I don’t know what do you think? You’re the one who seems to be lost, lets see if you can follow this line of thought, published by those appointed by Shrub: America’s involvement in Iraq has resulted in Iraqis joining Al Qaeda and created more terrorists in the world… Now since our activities, are resulting in radicalizing Iraqis who weren’t radicalized before, wouldn’t withdrawal bring that to an end or at least slow it down? And for me terrorism in Iraq isn’t an issue, but I will respond to those who use it in their arguments as justification.
>The issue is not whether we should invade Iraq, since that’s already happened.
The issue is whether or not we should pull out of that nation.
Yes, let’s stay in Iraq, thus radicalizing more of their populace into radical islam due to their hatred of us and maybe you’ll get your fear realize and they’ll hi-jack 3 more planes and run them into some more buildings.
>And there are many countries that have a vested interest in seeing a stable Iraq.
Ya so we can run off with their oil. Go back and reread what I said and that was a whole region made up of 16 countries wanted to get their lives back. On one side, Iran wants it’s land back. On the other, Saudi Arabia wants their oil. In the north the Kurds want to take over Turkey and make their part of Iran a part of Turkey. The Sunnis just want to kill everyone who don’t worship their way and the Shites want to do the same to the Sunnis… Yes everyone in the region has a vested interest in seeing a stable Iran. NO, not really!
>That’s because we’ve spent our money and deployed our troops unwisely. That doesn’t prove that Iraq cannot be secured.
How much more money do you want to spend? How many more dead troops do you want? How many more troops do you want to ship over there?
>You’re creating a straw man argument. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I want to salve my ego with dead soldiers.
You’re the one arguing with me about not withdrawing the troops, so exactly what are you trying to do? Win? You can’t win? And at this point even if you can win how many more lives is it worth? How much more money? Are you willing to pay my share of those taxes?
>If you need to distort your opponents argument beyond recognition in order to win, you are as much as admitting that you have no argument.
Look the argument was not based on you, it’s based on the argument a lot of people have used for keeping our troops over there: As our soon to be former House member Chris Chocola said in one of his ads: “I’m all for bringing our troops home, but it MUST be in victory.” Or as a parent of a dead soldier told me recently: “They must win or my son died for nothing…” At this point the argument is about salving egos, a parent who will be tortured if the likely hood occurs and their child died in vain. (I’m sorry their child died, he shouldn’t have, but how many more people must die before enough is enough?) A politician who failed in every way possible, looking for an excuse to keep our soldiers over there, “because they must win”. If you want to defend this type of attitude then I’ll lump you in with them.
>The only logical reason to worry about radicalizing the Iraqis is if you believe terrorism is a threat. But you’ve said terrorism is not a threat.
And I supposedly twist arguments. Sorry, but you are wrong. I have no fear of radicalized Iraqis. The chances they are going to get in the country and do any damage is nearly nil. Al Qaeda claims to have what 20,000 troops? And they only managed to get 20 in for 9-11 out of 20,000? I’m so not worried. However I don’t like seeing our troops come home in coffins, I don’t like getting calls to go document their funerals, and I don’t like the fact that we are getting them killed because our actions have radicalized a large portion of the population that we supposedly were going to shove “democracy” down the throats of.
>Well? Which is it, then?
Watching you twist in the wind.
What I’m worried about is the national deficite which is pushing 9 trillion under Shrub, largely because of this war and in 10 years because of his out of control spending the majority of us will be standing in soup lines because our economy finally collapsed and sent to the world into another Great Depression. Terrorists aren’t even a worry in my life, they are just the latest boogie men in a long line of boogie men used to scare people and justify the stupidity of the government.
The only logical reason to worry about radicalizing the Iraqis is if you believe terrorism is a threat. But you’ve said terrorism is not a threat.
Well? Which is it, then?
i somehow missed the part where Brian said terrorism was not a threat.
i also think that if you read his posts you’ll find that he really doesn’t think mowing down Iraq is a good idea.
ok, i can see the terrorism not a threat thing in Brian’s latest post.
and, frankly, he has a point. this stuff grabs headlines but it’s not really one of the more substantive concerns facing American citizens.
i don’t think anyone’s suggesting that we don’t take steps to stop terrorism in our country, however.
Brian Peter, having searched your last post for anything resembling a coherent point and finding instead nothing of the sort, I find I have nothing else to say to you.
and, frankly, he has a point. this stuff grabs headlines but it’s not really one of the more substantive concerns facing American citizens.
But all it will take would be a few with some nuclear, chemical or biological material to change all that. Considering what was accomplished with box cutters and what could still be done with material easily purchased at any Home Depot store I’m not resting as easily as Brian is.
i don’t think anyone’s suggesting that we don’t take steps to stop terrorism in our country, however.
If they are as much of a non-threat as Brian thinks, why not?
Hey, I hope he’s right, though I can’t say his arguments are easy to follow. There’s no denying that I was very wrong to expect that the last 5 years would have many attacks within the country. But I would rate the liklihood of a major catastrophic attack in the next 10 years as much more likely than all of us standing in soup lines. We’ll see who’s right. Hopefully, neither of us.
With what soldiers? Kurt Vonnegut was told his generation of German’s in Germany were wiped out. Complaints that the French offered no resistence in WWII? It’s because their WWI generation was wiped out in the same way.
Review your Art of War: in the first chapter, your first consideration in deciding to go to war is moral law. In effect, the first rule of the Art of War is to secure your resolve to wage war in the first place.
Well, we’ve handed the Iraq insurgency their resolve to fight us: We’ve invaded an oil-rich Muslin territory that was no threat to us. The only evidence Iraq had WMD came from Ahmad Chalabi, who we paid $300,000 a month, and was later revealed to be a spy for the Iranian. All other evidence was speculation.
The first thing to attack in war is the resolve to fight you, or it will never end. We can’t do that while we continue to occupy them after an invasion, and we also don’t have the resolve to nuke them. What then is the point of staying there?
Yes, in all their chicken-hawkishness, the republicans have persistently demonstrated a pathological ignorance of the underlying principles of war that as cost us $½ trillion — just so we can lose a war we started. Dumb-ášš fûçkërš (can’t be emphasised enough). And Bill Mulligan doesn’t think turning out some of these chickenhawk áššhølëš won’t change congress for the better. Sweet Baby Jesus.
“I don’t agree with PAD, Bush didn’t exit Rummy because it “was the right thing to do”, he exited him for future political gain.”
Whoa, back up. You’re saying the same thing that I did. I said it was “the right move at the right time.” Believe it or not, there’s a subtle difference between that and “the right thing to do.” The latter phrase implies there’s some sort of moral foundation involved. I never said there was. I said it was “the right move at the right time” because I was casting it *entirely* in the light of political gamesmanship. Bush made the move, not because Rumsfeld was incompetent or got people killed, but because it was politically expedient.
“True. However, removing would have been a nice symbol of graciousness and nonpartisanship. An acknowledgement that things are going to change since the Congress is going to switch hands in January. All about being “uniters,” not “dividers.””
I’m sorry, Tim, but what a steaming pile of crap that is. When the GOP took control of every branch of the government, they had no interest in graciousness, in nonpartisanship. Nor did their leader, who came into office through a partisan Supreme Court and a false claim of uniting rather than dividing have any interest in those points of view (did you know that when he gave his acceptance speech from the floor of the Texas Senate, it was filled entirely with Republicans? Any Democrats who had been in opposition to him were kept out of the proceedings.) Republicans in the government have done everything they could to marginalize Democrats and reduce the effectiveness of the previous Democratic president while he was in office.
But now that they’re no longer in power–now that their divisiveness, belligerence and arrogance finally caught up with them–NOW there’s a call for bipartisanship? Of establishing “a new spirit?” My God, how can any conservative even type that with a straight face, much less believe that? Think of the message that’s being sent: “Hi. We’ve spent years being divisive. But now we expect you to be better than we are and work with us in a spirit of bipartisanship that we ourselves never exhibited.” It’s an inherent admission that Democrats are more moral, more interestedin the common good, and quite simply better people than the Republicans. To quote Timon: “And we’re OKAY with this?”
PAD
Think of the message that’s being sent: “Hi. We’ve spent years being divisive. But now we expect you to be better than we are and work with us in a spirit of bipartisanship that we ourselves never exhibited.” It’s an inherent admission that Democrats are more moral, more interested in the common good, and quite simply better people than the Republicans.
But doesn’t that imply that he was right–that taking it down would mean you really ARE better? And if that’s the case isn’t that an argument for doing it? By not doing it aren’t you admitting that no, Democrats really AREN’T any better?
Me, I don’t think that keeping it up or taking it down makes one iota difference about much anything. Certainly the actions of one person can’t be extrapolated to Democrats or even the Jeopardy category “Famous Comic Book Writers Named Peter” as a whole. Especially when the action is so meaningless. Now if you were to cure cancer, broker peace between the Palestinians and Israelis or see to it that Mike gets the Lithium he needs, those would indeed be noble efforts worthy of praise.
“But doesn’t that imply that he was right–that taking it down would mean you really ARE better?”
I’d rather simply know I’m better without flaunting it. Why be showy?
PAD
I’d rather simply know I’m better without flaunting it. Why be showy?
Good point. 🙂
“But doesn’t that imply that he was right–that taking it down would mean you really ARE better? And if that’s the case isn’t that an argument for doing it? By not doing it aren’t you admitting that no, Democrats really AREN’T any better?”
Thanks, Bill, for putting it so well. That’s exactly what it means, in my opinion. Now, I don’t really care about the Freedom Clock. As I said, it has a new meaning for me now. In fact, I may be coming back to this site more often to check on it.
In all honesty, the tone of unity and bipartisanship from the Democrats in Washington probably won’t even last as long as it did when President Bush took charge. The only thing on this subject that will be truly difficult to swallow will be continuing to hear from some about how Bush isn’t a uniter while excusing the rank partisanship of the Democrats by saying, “Well, the Republicans started it!!!” Good Lord, if you’re going to complain about something for 6 years at least try to show a better way when you have the opportunity to do so.
“I’m sorry, Tim, but what a steaming pile of crap that is.”
That’s all right. I forgive you.
Bill Myers hacked:
>Brian Peter, having searched your last post for anything resembling a coherent point and finding instead nothing of the sort, I find I have nothing else to say to you.
Back to the insults. It’s nice to know that the intelligence level of the conservative side hasn’t increased on iota since last Tuesday.
—————————-
>i somehow missed the part where Brian said terrorism was not a threat.
I didn’t but Bill prefers using the Bill O’Riley play book, fabricate your facts, don’t argue the reality.
Terrorism is a threat we need to be aware of, but it can take many forms and is more likely to be perpetrated by your citizens than a barely educated fanatic sqautting in a cave 7000 miles away.
>i don’t think anyone’s suggesting that we don’t take steps to stop terrorism in our country, however.
Precisely a strong intelligence agency that is allowed to do their job, not prove one person’s wrong headed ideals will go farther in protecting our borders than irradiating sand with spent uranium.
———————————————
>But all it will take would be a few with some nuclear, chemical or biological material to change all that. Considering what was accomplished with box cutters and what could still be done with material easily purchased at any Home Depot store I’m not resting as easily as Brian is.
And why was a box of razor blades in the hands of 5 idiots successful? 5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn’t much of a fight. If you can’t figure out that one then I suggest running out to Menards and purchasing plastic wrap and duct tape and then gift wrap your house in it.
>There’s no denying that I was very wrong to expect that the last 5 years would have many attacks within the country.
Most recently a small community of Amish were terrorized by a milk man who killed several school children before turning the gun on himself. 4 years ago I believe two 14 year olds decided to take their daddy’s hunting rifels and play snipper on a hill overlooking their school, killing at least 1 adult if I remember right. The DC area saw a string of drive by shootings by unseen snippers, people were killed mowing, pumping gas, leaving a store, besides other scenarios. Massive manhunt, international news, assumed the latest international terrorist action after 9-11 and was uncovered to be a teenager and an adult from Washington State who were both off their rockers.
You can count any number of happenings terrorist actions. Yes in 10 years another attack by Al Queda rises in probability but even then the chances of success is highly unlikely if we maintain our awareness. The first bombing of the twin towers while sponsored by Al Queda was done by the followers of a Muslim Cleric living in this country who was already on a watch list. The ring leaders of 9-11 were turned into the FBI by their flight instructor and supposedly a hollywood actor. Both occasions human error failed to stop the terrorists. And human error will fail to stop them again, but a war that radicalizes individuals into becoming terrorists, is more likely to help their plans foil them.
——————–
PAD wrote
>Whoa, back up. You’re saying the same thing that I did. I said it was “the right move at the right time.” Believe it or not, there’s a subtle difference between that and “the right thing to do.” The latter phrase implies there’s some sort of moral foundation involved. I never said there was. I said it was “the right move at the right time” because I was casting it *entirely* in the light of political gamesmanship. Bush made the move, not because Rumsfeld was incompetent or got people killed, but because it was politically expedient.
Sorry about that. You are of course right, I miss read it.
>In all honesty, the tone of unity and bipartisanship from the Democrats in Washington probably won’t even last as long as it did when President Bush took charge.
Oh yah, those dámņ Dems and their failure to be bipartisan… Considering Bush decided to give up on bipartisanship about 15 minutes after Pelosi left the White House, by trying to force Bolton down everyones throat again, the Republicans have absolutely nothing to complain about; the president already killed it off with actions.
Posted by: Peter David at November 14, 2006 09:24 AM
I’m sorry, Tim, but what a steaming pile of crap that is.
Actually, I’d say calls for bi-partisanship coming from the Republicans amount to them saying the right things for the wrong reasons, rather than being nothing but a “steaming pile of crap.”
As you so aptly put it, the Republicans are out of power because “their divisiveness, belligerence and arrogance finally caught up with them.” But the Democrats have demonstrated no shortage of those traits — it’s just been harder to see because the Dems haven’t been the dominant party in quite some time.
Regardless of whether or not a GOP call for bi-partisanship is insincere (and I believe that it is insincere), the Democrats would do well to make a good-faith attempt to heed this call and do it ostentatiously. The Dems weren’t swept into power because people believe they’re made of angel-stuff and the GOP is made of hellfire and brimstone. They were swept into power because people were sick and tired of Republicans’ actions. If Democrats repeat the mistakes of the Republicans, they’ll be out on their ášš again in short order.
For the record, I am a Democrat and I voted mainly Democratic in the most recent election. But I don’t believe the Democrats are inherently better people than the Republicans. I’ll judge the Dems the way I did the GOP — by their actions, not their party affiliation.
By the way — one of the few times Bill Clinton took a stand on pure principle was when he refused to sign the Republicans’ budget proposal into law. People closest to him said he truly didn’t care if it cost him the 1996 election. The resulting stand-off shut down the government. Clinton came out smelling like a rose, and with good reason.
The Dems need to do something similar. Take a stand for bi-partisanship. If the GOP responds by going on the attack, the Dems should not respond in kind. Instead, they should make it loud and clear that they will continue to stand for bi-partisanship. The GOP would look terrible by comparison and the Dems would make further gains in upcoming elections.
Do I think the Dems are smart enough to do this? I really don’t know. I hope so.
“it’s based on the argument a lot of people have used for keeping our troops over there…”
Yes, Brian, and you are missing key points in the argument being made here by arguing things said by others elsewhere. Rather then further confusing you and the issue by responding to the straw dogs you are throwing up based on “the argument a lot of people have used” rather then the main points being made here, I will give you, again, the reasons why would should stay.
1) Long term security
If we pull out now, Iraq goes to hëll. That’s both stupid and in the best interests of no one. It also adds a bit of fuel to the fire. Many people in Iraq did not trust us after Gulf 1. due to Bush the Elder making promises of support if they stood up against Saddam and then abandoning to torture and death after they did so. You would have us, after bleating on about learning from history, repeat that with a similar mistake. Good move. Lets just go ahead and make another country that hates our guts. That way, they can either survive to be their U.S.A. haters in the future or they can hook up with/be taken over by another country in the region that also hates us.
By increasing the number of troops over there, we can stabilize things enough to actually start doing some of the stuff right that we’ve been unable to do. We may be able to give the new government of Iraq enough breathing room to start to better set itself up. We’ll also be able to deal with some security issues in a way that being too short in numbers and playing whack-a-mole has never let us do.
Now, will this allow us to “win”? Depends on what you want to call a win. I think the best win we will get is by not creating a country that hates us and actively tries to hurt us.
2) We have a moral obligation to do what we can.
Iraq did nothing to us and was no threat to us in the least. Then we invaded the country. We removed its government. We disbanded its army. We disbanded its civilian authority. We destroyed many of its emergency responders. We destroyed much of its infrastructure. We destroyed its public works facilities. We weakened its stand alone economy. We removed its ability to standup to outside threats. We have yet to bring any of those things back up to pre-war levels.
I’m sorry, but we broke it and now we are obligated to buy it. Plus, while I my in fact be an @$$hole, I’m not a big enough of an @$$hole to think that leaving Iraq in that state is all fine and dandy. You want to bleat on about what the world will stomach? How exactly happy do you think the world will be with us if we leave a country that, while limping badly, was running before we decided to waltz in and destroy it and not do something to fix that before waltzing back out and into the sunset? How much of an immoral, irresponsible and uncaring jáçkášš do you have to be to think that doing that is all fine and dandy? Wait, don’t answer that, I already have my answer.
3) You keep saying that we’re trying to salve our egos. I’m sorry, but you’re full of s**t. I have friends who are over there. I would rather not see them get killed just so my ego can feel good about itself. So glad that you feel you know enough about me to keep implying that I’m that much of a monster.
I’ve argued for years, here and elsewhere, that Iraq was a mistake. I said that before we even went in. Hëll, I said that back in the 90’s when people were griping about the fact that we didn’t “finish the job” in Gulf 1. I’ve pointed out just how many ways I thought that this foolish venture was pointless. But most of that was based on the fact that the Neo-Cons were in complete power and control, Rummy was running things and Bush saw his path in Iraq as the right one no matter how clear it was that it was going off of a cliff.
Things have changed. We may be seeing a change in the running of this war that puts us in a position to at least correct some of what we’ve been doing wrong. It’s an option that should not just be dismissed out of hand because things have been run poorly up until now.
I also happen to agree, even if it is somewhat grudgingly and after many arguments, with some of the people who are questioning whether or not just pulling out means that we’re saying that the soldiers who have died for this sacrificed for nothing. That’s because I’ve been told this by my friends who are over there or have been over there.
They’ve been on the ground. They’ve stated that a new boss running the show could make a world of difference. They (most of them) want to stay and try to do something to make having been there worth it. They feel that they can. The only guys I know who don’t share that belief are the guys who never wanted to be there at all. Personally, I’ll give my friends’ opinions on what they want more respect then yours.
“Back to the insults. It’s nice to know that the intelligence level of the conservative side hasn’t increased on iota since last Tuesday.”
Bill Myers…. A Conservative???? Wow. The things you learn on this site.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 14, 2006 12:21 PM
Back to the insults. It’s nice to know that the intelligence level of the conservative side hasn’t increased on iota since last Tuesday.
I am a registered Democrat and voted nearly straight Democrat in the last election. I opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it was a dangerous and unnecessary thing to do. The main difference of opinion between you and I is whether or not we can leave now that we’ve blundered in. Just because I don’t think a swift withdrawal is wise doesn’t mean I’m a conservative (in fact, I can best be described as left-leaning but able to see the value in certain aspects of conservatism).
Given the abrasive and dismissive tone of your responses to Jerry C and I, you are in no position to complain about insults. I am sorry that you feel compelled to interpret disagreement as a personal attack. I’d’ve enjoyed continuing to debate with you as I have enjoyed debating with others here.
In fact, there are times when I have changed my mind on the basis of a superior argument. I am far more open-minded than you want to believe; there is ample evidence for that in these threads. But when you resort to insults (like “watching you twist in the wind”) and take the argument to a personal level, I lose interest. Sorry.
Posted by: Jerry C at November 14, 2006 12:45 PM
Bill Myers…. A Conservative???? Wow. The things you learn on this site.
Yeah, I know, that’s pretty staggering. And what a piss-poor conservative I’ve been — I voted for Hillary Clinton for Chrissakes!
“>i somehow missed the part where Brian said terrorism was not a threat.
I didn’t but Bill prefers using the Bill O’Riley play book, fabricate your facts, don’t argue the reality.”
Well…..
“Right where we were the day after 9-11. With people who hate us loose in the world and the potential that something may some day be done to us. Our gas prices…”
“… But it won’t be the end of the world, far from it. Bush has pounded fear into the majorities heads, but the reality is they are thousands of miles from us. They are just as happy killing each other over religious debates as they are killing us.”
“Bailing and letting them shoot it out will keep them occupied for a few years and give us the manpower to go after the real problem, Bin Ladden.”
“Get over it, already. You are more likely to be run over by a car tomorrow and die than have a terrorist action take place. It’s that simple. Yes they can hurt us, but the likelyhood of them being successful are slim. 9-11 will not happen like it did again.”
“Have you flown lately? Have you tried to break into the pilot’s deck? Have you seen the reaction of all the other passengers when you tried? Piloting 3 jumbo jets into major buildings was due to a convergence of pre-held beliefs that had been pounded into people for decades.”
“Oh yes Al Qaeda is very patient. Yawn!”
You did come off as blowing off the threat quite a bit in how you worded your arguments. You come off as saying that it once happened but is never really gonna be a big deal again. You kind of did come off as saying that you saw terrorism as no real or big future threat.
“Precisely a strong intelligence agency that is allowed to do their job, not prove one person’s wrong headed ideals will go farther in protecting our borders than irradiating sand with spent uranium.’
And working on our intelligence and working to fix what we’ve done wrong over there will work better then doing either by itself.
“5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn’t much of a fight. If you can’t figure out that one then I suggest running out to Menards and purchasing plastic wrap and duct tape and then gift wrap your house in it.”
Really? Ok. Go get yourself 4 more people and some box cutters. I’ll go get 67 of my friends. Wanna test your theory?
“5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn’t much of a fight.”
You also seem to forget that one flight DID fight back when they found out what was going on. The others didn’t fight back because they likely didn’t know what the terrorists were up to.
Sorry to trip you up with the facts and all.
And why was a box of razor blades in the hands of 5 idiots successful? 5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn’t much of a fight. If you can’t figure out that one then I suggest running out to Menards and purchasing plastic wrap and duct tape and then gift wrap your house in it.
I am totally missing your point here.
My point was that, far from being a minor threat, terrorism is a real problem. The bit about the boxcutters was just to show how much can be done with very little. With some of the plutonium that iran has now been proven to be producing…well.
Bill Myers…. A Conservative???? Wow. The things you learn on this site.
That’s how it usually happens…you hang out long enough with liberals and one day…
That’s plainly wrong. The Iraq Study Group, staffed by the president’s father’s people, have concluded that it’s our occupation that’s adding fuel to the fire. To say otherwise is fabrication and denial. Sorry to trip you up with the facts and all.
We aren’t going to stop an insurgency we are feeding, and we aren’t going to stop all the kidnapping, ransoming, and torture that’s going on. All that’s keeps us there pushing is vanity.
I’m sorry, but we broke it and now we are obligated to buy it. Plus, while I my in fact be an @$$hole, I’m not a big enough of an @$$hole to think that leaving Iraq in that state is all fine and dandy. You want to bleat on about what the world will stomach? How exactly happy do you think the world will be with us if we leave a country that, while limping badly, was running before we decided to waltz in and destroy it and not do something to fix that before waltzing back out and into the sunset? How much of an immoral, irresponsible and uncaring jáçkášš do you have to be to think that doing that is all fine and dandy? Wait, don’t answer that, I already have my answer.
ideally, our moral obligation is to fix it. however, if it’s beyond our power to fix, then we should leave before more damage is done.
i haven’t seen much of a credible plan for actually fixing Iraq. the best plans i’ve seen are for cutting our losses (ie., cutting and running). in an unwinnable situation, strategic withdrawal is the only reasonable solution.
i’d love to see us fix Iraq, but nothing i’ve seen gives me any faith that we can do so.
i think Brian has overstated many things. i also think there’s a lot of truth in the arguments he’s been making.
That’s plainly wrong. The Iraq Study Group, staffed by the president’s father’s people, have concluded that it’s our occupation that’s adding fuel to the fire. To say otherwise is fabrication and denial. Sorry to trip you up with the facts and all.
The Iraq Study Group? when our best hope for sanity comes from James Baker III, you know we’re in deep doo-doo.
that said, i’ve seen little credible doubt cast on their conclusions.
Posted by: indestructibleman at November 14, 2006 02:58 PM
The Iraq Study Group? when our best hope for sanity comes from James Baker III, you know we’re in deep doo-doo.
James Baker III was the incredibly skillful diplomat responsible for putting together international support for the first Gulf War. I happen to believe that the first Gulf War was morally dubious at best, but there is no denying Baker’s gift for diplomacy.
One of our biggest problems dealing with the sequel — Iraq II: The Bungling — has been a lack of international support. Baker has the skill and the international stature that would allow him to help change that.
Baker has the skill and the international stature that would allow him to help change that.
Except, why would the rest of the world want to get anywhere near the mess that we almost single-handedly created?
Why would they want to put their soldiers at risk in a situation that we can’t control?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 14, 2006 03:30 PM
Except, why would the rest of the world want to get anywhere near the mess that we almost single-handedly created?
Why would they want to put their soldiers at risk in a situation that we can’t control?
The fact that the U.S. created the mess doesn’t mean that other nations don’t have a practical interest in helping to solve it. It has an impact on the national security of the international community.
But you’re right — convincing other nations of that will be a bìŧçh. It may not be possible. My point, however, is this: if it can be done, Baker is one of the few who is capable of doing it.
Sigh… when I said the “national security of the international community,” I meant the security of the international community. Because national and international are kind of opposites.
Sigh… forgive me, it’s been a rough day at the office.
It brings up an interesting point though–as some commentators have mentioned, the United States and the Coalition have an obligation under UN Security Council resolutions to maintain security in Iraq until the Iraqis can take over.
One of the common complaints about Bush was that he ignored UN resolutions. Will it suddenly be ok if he ignores that one?
Jerry wrote:
>You also seem to forget that one flight DID fight back when they found out what was going on. The others didn’t fight back because they likely didn’t know what the terrorists were up to.
>Sorry to trip you up with the facts and all.
I didn’t know I left any facts out. You are now reaching for an argument to try and prove me wrong. Go back through the posts and you will find that I have made numerous statements that 9-11 was a disaster that took place because in our arrogance and belief system no one ever thought someone would hi-jack a plane and suicide themselves with it!
In training up until 9-11 pilots and staff had it pounded into their heads that when hi-jacked you take no steps to stop the hi-jackers but obey their orders and get the plane on the ground as soon as possible.
In today’s world, is that going to happen. Are 4 to 6 people with box cutters going to be able to barge into the flight deck, kill the pilots and fly the plane into a building? Highly unlikely. The flight deck is protected with reinforced doors today and passengers at this point will probably grab the closest thing to them and ram it into the hi-jackers.
Yes one flight did fight back but for them it was too late since the terrorists controlled the flight deck. Now if we had not had 30 years of it pounded into us to not move against a hi-jacker when they try and take a plane, 9-11 would have been a totally different story.
So Jerry please re-read my posts and get your facts straight about what I have said. Hi-jackers may blow a plane up in mid air. Thay may shoot all the passengers, if they have guns. But taking over the flight deck and piloting a passenger jet into a building is today highly unlikely to happen.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 14, 2006 03:51 PM
One of the common complaints about Bush was that he ignored UN resolutions. Will it suddenly be ok if he ignores that one?
You know, I hate it when U.N. Resolutions are trotted out as a justification for anything. Nations flout them all the time, including the U.S. The only time anyone thinks they mean a dámņ thing is when it’s convenient.
“My point, however, is this: if it can be done, Baker is one of the few who is capable of doing it.”
And it would be foolish to not even let him try.
“I didn’t know I left any facts out. You are now reaching for an argument to try and prove me wrong.”
Really?
“And why was a box of razor blades in the hands of 5 idiots successful? 5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn’t much of a fight. If you can’t figure out that one then I suggest running out to Menards and purchasing plastic wrap and duct tape and then gift wrap your house in it.”
I didn’t read you wrong at all. If you meant something else, you did a poor job of getting it across. Not my fault there.
Now, if you’re trying to change what you said to make it say that five guys should not have been able to overpower sixty-eight people or that sixty-eight people should have been able to make short work of five thugs with box cutters… Well, then we can agree. That’s just not what you wrote or how it came across. Again, not my fault that you didn’t make a clear point.