Is Iraq the new Vietnam War?

[J. Weiland]

I believe it is so. I just finished watching Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and although it is a magnificent film it also depresses me, as it reminds me of what is going on in Iraq. The Danish population, of which I am one, did not wish for this war but the government did not ask us, and thus we are caught up in this struggle together with the U.S. and the other nations who saddled up for the wrong reasons; the weapons of mass destruction.

FMJ reminded me of Iraq because it is obviously the same kind of conflict; a conflict where no one knows what they are fighting for (although the Bush government is fighting for oil; they just hoped no one noticed) Oh yes, there are ideas that the U.S., as usual, are the saviors who wish to enlighten people with democracy even though they have to kill a lot of innocents in order to make people see the light.

The U.S. never got control of what was happening in Vietnam (yes, they lost that war), and they still have no control of what is happening in Iraq. Just as in Vietnam, we have half a people who did not wish to be saved, and there are suicide bombers who are able to strike where ever they wish, just as in Vietnam.

The war in Iraq will last at least ten to twenty years more. The "allies" can not leave, since if they do, it will be a national disaster, civil war with the most horrific consequences ever seen. I try not to think much about it in my everyday life, but it makes me sad when I do.

[aadams73]

Yes, absolutely. Every single Iraqui is a potential "Charlie."

[William Haskins]

inasmuch as strategy is driven by politics, yes.

[Sheryl Nantus]

except, of course, that Canada has more oil than Iraq.

but why confuse the issues with facts?

[J. Weiland]

Unfortunately Canada does not have an evil dictator, so there is no excuse.

[robeiae]

No.

There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

And we are hardly engaged in an attempt to prop up a long-standing and corrupt regime, nor are we fighting against an overwhelming majority of the people in Iraq who had been repressed by that regime, nor is our engagment with the insurgents taking place in primarily rural/jungle areas. For starters.

[J. Weiland]

No.

There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

And we are hardly engaged in an attempt to prop up a long-standing and corrupt regime, nor are we fighting against an overwhelming majority of the people in Iraq who had been repressed by that regime, nor is our engagment with the insurgents taking place in primarily rural/jungle areas. For starters.


If there had been a lot of trees in Iraq, they would have been erased by flammable liqids by now, I believe.

[dclary]

Like oil?

[rtilryarms]

I am a Vietnam War historian, specializing in the events leading up to and the mistakes of the aggression over North Vietnam (it could not officially be a war or we would have started WWIII).

The Parallels are absolutely astonishing. The only significance is that Vietnam was Democrat action and Iraq is Republican.
Soon we will begin hearing the smart words like de-escalating aggression, humanitarian cease-fire for peace talks, and declaring successful goals met as we re-Iraq the native Military which is already in progress.

If McNamara resigned sooner, Vietnam would have ended 2 years and 20,000 bodies sooner. Rumsfeld just saved thousands of lives stepping aside, you watch. Unfortunately the saving of American lives was not his motivation for stepping aside. It was pure politics. Had Johnson committed to running for re-election, McNamara would have been out. But Johnson stayed with his sinking ship until the last rat climbed to the crows-nest with the others.

[Sheryl Nantus]

Unfortunately Canada does not have an evil dictator, so there is no excuse.

obviously you never had to live under Jean Chretien.

[J. Weiland]

With ten years in power, he probably wasn't that bad.

[Celia Cyanide]

except, of course, that Canada has more oil than Iraq.

but why confuse the issues with facts?

How does that fact confuse the issue?

[greglondon]

There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed on the grounds that the sand is different and the air has a differnt scent. Besides, the US military never wore those new pixelated cammies until Iraq, so that right there makes it different. We wore tigerstriped cammies and plain olivedrab fatigues in vietnam, which rules out any apples to apples comparison.

[J. Weiland]

Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed on the grounds that the sand is different and the air has a differnt scent. Besides, the US military never wore those new pixelated cammies until Iraq, so that right there makes it different. We wore tigerstriped cammies and plain olivedrab fatigues in vietnam, which rules out any apples to apples comparison.

Be careful, Greg; You might be accused of being a "liberal". :D.

I know, I'm careful.

[robeiae]

Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed on the grounds that the sand is different and the air has a differnt scent. Besides, the US military never wore those new pixelated cammies until Iraq, so that right there makes it different. We wore tigerstriped cammies and plain olivedrab fatigues in vietnam, which rules out any apples to apples comparison.Depends on who you're talking to.

Why not just deal with Iraq for what it is, regardless of your ideological orientation? I don't get it.

[J. Weiland]

Depends on who you're talking to.

Why not just deal with Iraq for what it is, regardless of your ideological orientation? I don't get it.

What do you believe it is then?

[robeiae]

What do you believe it is then?Ummm...a place that the U.S. invaded and is now engaged with resistance to it's occupation?

[J. Weiland]

Ummm...a place that the U.S. invaded and is now engaged with resistance to it's occupation?

How soon do you think the country will be stable again, as in society is back to normal without dozens of people getting killed every day?

[robeiae]

How soon do you think the country will be stable again, as in society is back to normal without dozens of people getting killed every day?It depends on what actions are taken from here on in: more of the same leads to more of the same.

[greglondon]

Why not just deal with Iraq for what it is, regardless of your ideological orientation? I don't get it.

Because if you insist that
"Iraq is like nothing we've ever seen before"
you insist that we could not have predicted the quagmire we're in now.
If it is completely without precedent, there is no historical comparison
to be made that would explain why we are where we are,
which is knee deep in a quagmire.

And that's hogwash.
The generals knew exactly how this would turn out,
and it's turning out exactly like the generals predicted.
Therefore, there is historical precedence that we can take
the lessons of the past and apply them to the current situation.

We are three years into something that might turn out to be
our new vietnam. If we get full blown civil war, that's it,
it's the north invading Saigon, and an evacuation of troops.
The death tolls will be comparable. The helicopters evacuating
the embassy will be ch53's and uh-60's instead of the old hueys,
but the lessons will be the same.

Iraq is exactly like what we've seen before.
The differences are surface differences.
Sun Tzu still applies.
There are no surprises in the current trajectory of Iraq.
Except for those who only remember the surface
of history, rather than it's deeper lessons.

You can only predict based on what you've seen before,
and the patterns you've extracted from those observations.
That is basic scientific principle, scientific method.

If you say there are no comparable observations to Iraq,
then you're looking at surface differnces, not deeper patterns.

[greglondon]

shorter me:
You can only predict based on what you've seen before,
and the patterns you've extracted from those observations.
That is basic scientific principle, scientific method.

[greglondon]

Be careful, Greg; You might be accused of being a "liberal".

I'd prefer the term "reality-based progressive", but I hear ya.

[blacbird]

except, of course, that Canada has more oil than Iraq.

but why confuse the issues with facts?

An aside, but let's not confuse facts, either. Canada has more hydrocarbon resources in the ground than does Iraq (or anywhere else, probably). Problem is, the vast bulk of it is in tar sands, which are presently problematical to extract, and not viable economically. Regards conventionally produceable oil, Iraq is considered somewhere between 2nd and 4th among nations in the world, depending on whose figures you see, behind Saudi Arabia, and possibly Iran and Kuwait.

caw

[blacbird]

Why not just deal with Iraq for what it is, regardless of your ideological orientation? I don't get it.

Sure would have been nice if GWB and his crew had done this back in 2003, wouldn't it?

caw

[robeiae]

Because if you insist that
"Iraq is like nothing we've ever seen before"...
Greg's putting words in my mouth again. What shocker.

If I disagree with the statement "Iraq is the new Vietnam War," it does not logically follow that I accept the statement "Iraq is like nothing we've ever seen before."

Very poor reasoning.

[robeiae]

I'd prefer the term "reality-based progressive", but I hear ya.:roll: Only in that reality where the rules of logic can be disregarded when they interfere with your ideological assumptions and conclusions, which is pretty much always from what I've seen.

[robeiae]

Sure would have been nice if GWB and his crew had done this back in 2003, wouldn't it?From both your perspective and my perspective, I think that would be a "yes." But then again, it always has been, hasn't it?

[greglondon]

Only in that reality where the rules of logic can be disregarded when they interfere with your ideological assumptions and conclusions,

I know you are, but what am I?

You did just say that we can't compare Iraq with anything in history,
didn't you? How much of that is "reality" and how much of that
is "idealogical"?

I'll stick with "reality-based progressive", thanks.

[greglondon]

Greg's putting words in my mouth again. What shocker.

If I disagree with the statement "Iraq is the new Vietnam War," it does not logically follow that I accept the statement "Iraq is like nothing we've ever seen before."

Very poor reasoning.

No, you didn'te disagree with Iraq being the new Vietnam, you disagreed wtih any comparison at all. I said this

Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed .... which rules out any apples to apples comparison.

to which you replied this:

Why not just deal with Iraq for what it is, regardless of your ideological orientation?

How is comparing Iraq to any previous military failure idealogical?
How is any apples to apples comparison impossible?
Does history teach us nothing?
Or is it your idealogical motivation to make sure no one compares
Iraq to anything associated with failure?

Do you want to look at historical similarities,
or do you want idealogical override?

[robeiae]

You did just say that we can't compare Iraq with anything in history,
didn't you?No, I didn't. But I can come up with ways that Iraq and Vietnam are comparable, and ways that they are not.

But that's not gonna work for you, because it's a little too "reality-based," I guess...

Like I said, poor reasoning on your part.

[robeiae]

No, you didn'te disagree with Iraq being the new Vietnam, you disagreed wtih any comparison at all.Sorry, no.

I said: No. There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.
...as a response to the question: Is Iraq the new Vietnam War?
...then I listed a few ways in which they are quite different.

So what we have here is me saying that the assertion "Iraq is the new Vietnam War," is essentially meaningless. That doesn't mean no comparisons are possible, it only means that Iraq is not identical to the Vietnam War across the board. And it's not.

You just can't get past your ideology and think for yourself.

[greglondon]

No, I didn't. .

This says otherwise
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=924687&postcount=29

Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed .... which rules out any apples to apples comparison.

I wasn't just comparing Iraq to vietnam, I was saying you've ruled out ANY comparison.

And rather than say no, comparison is OK, you say, why not just deal with Iraq for what it is.

Sounds like you're going along with the "Can't compare Iraq to anything in the past" to me.

[greglondon]

You just can't get past your ideology and think for yourself.

boohoo

:cry:

[robeiae]

Sounds like you're going along with the "Can't compare Iraq to anything in the past" to me.You can go with what is sounds like to you, or you can go with what I'm telling you it means. If you choose the former, you'll be wrong.

[robeiae]

boohoo

:cry:I don't blame you. Between your inability to understand what I said and your error in reading a simple news report here (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=923919&postcount=130), things aren't looking to good for you. But it could be worse...couldn't it?

[greglondon]

Between your inability to understand what I said

Right, because when I say "Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed .... which rules out any apples to apples comparison." was just too unclear that I was talking about any comparison to any military operation in any point in history. I just didn't put enough any's in there to make it clear for you that I wasn't talking about just Vietnam. Would 5 "any's" be better next time around? 6?

your error in reading a simple news report Yeah, I see you've been on the ball getting some hard numbers about the number of civilians Saddam has killed. Nice work there, Rob. Keep it imaginary. Anyway, we can't use any of Saddam's actions before 1988 because we supported Saddam up until the end of teh Iran Iraq war. Remember that Rusfeld buddy-buddy handshake? Just give me any number for civilians killed by Saddam from 1988 to 2003. I've found somewhere around 150k or so. If you've got something solid, let's see it.

[robeiae]

Right, because when I say "Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed .... which rules out any apples to apples comparison." was just too unclear that I was talking about any comparison to any military operation in any point in history. I just didn't put enough any's in there to make it clear for you that I wasn't talking about just Vietnam. Would 5 "any's" be better next time around? 6?What you said was crystal clear to me. Let's look at the whole thing, shall we: Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed on the grounds that the sand is different and the air has a differnt scent. Besides, the US military never wore those new pixelated cammies until Iraq, so that right there makes it different. We wore tigerstriped cammies and plain olivedrab fatigues in vietnam, which rules out any apples to apples comparison.

That was your response to me saying:
There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

Now, it's clear you were implying that I was dismissing any possible comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. And you were attempting sarcasm, as well. Of course, I was only answering the question posed by the OP, not making the claim you attributed to me. Thus, you misrepresented what I said.
Yeah, I see you've been on the ball getting some hard numbers about the number of civilians Saddam has killed. Nice work there, Rob. Keep it imaginary. Anyway, we can't use any of Saddam's actions before 1988 because we supported Saddam up until the end of teh Iran Iraq war. Remember that Rusfeld buddy-buddy handshake? Just give me any number for civilians killed by Saddam from 1988 to 2003. I've found somewhere around 150k or so. If you've got something solid, let's see it.You drew the wrong conclusion with regards to what was written in the article. You misunderstood the meaning, as you have done with what I posted in this thread. Thus, you misrepresented what was in the article.

Hey, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. All things considered, I could be claiming you did both things intentionally, and I could back it up.

[SC Harrison]

The danger of comparing Iraq with previous wars is in calling too much attention to similarities while downplaying unique aspects which could have impact in future conflicts.

The danger of focusing too much on unique aspects is that future potential conflicts may not share these attributes, thus making the "new" crisis seem less dangerous.

So...you must be prepared to do both, as well as a deep analysis of potential, yet-to-be-seen problems, before taking any action in other possible theaters.

[greglondon]

What you said was crystal clear to me. Let's look at the whole thing, shall we: Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed on the grounds that the sand is different and the air has a differnt scent. Besides, the US military never wore those new pixelated cammies until Iraq, so that right there makes it different. We wore tigerstriped cammies and plain olivedrab fatigues in vietnam, which rules out any apples to apples comparison.

That was your response to me saying:
There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

Now, it's clear you were implying that I was dismissing any possible comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. .

Right. You clearly say that I was implying that you were dismissing
any possible comparison between VIETNAM and Iraq, because,
as you know bob, "any" is milsec speak for "VIETNAM".

Ah. Yeah.
Fine.
You win because you say so.
Thank you for reading my mind and divining what it was I was implying.
I had forgotten.

[robeiae]

Right. You clearly say that I was implying that you were dismissing
any possible comparison between VIETNAM and Iraq, because,
as you know bob, "any" is milsec speak for "VIETNAM"."Any" necassarily includes Vietnam, and that was the subject of this thread and my comments. But, yes--you were also wrong in implying that I had ruled out comparisons to any other war, as well. I'm not sure why you think being wrong again makes you any less wrong the first time. But as long as you've stopped crying, it's cool with me.

[greglondon]

"Any" necassarily includes Vietnam, and that was the subject of this thread and my comments. But, yes--you were also wrong in implying that I had ruled out comparisons to any other war, as well. I'm not sure why you think being wrong again makes you any less wrong the first time. But as long as you've stopped crying, it's cool with me.

Whatever, dude. I assumed you were a writer of some vein or another, who would know what "any" means. Keep saying you know what I meant better than I did, if it helps you get through your day. Keep doing the Humpty Dumpty to redefine "any" to mean whatever the he11 you need it to mean to make your argument come out right. It ceases to be interesting when you keep changing the rules of teh game so that you "win" by your definition. I'm not going to play that game.

[Kentuk]

Real opposition to the Iraq war has been slow to materialize. Many people object to starting the war but few are advocating quitting. We quit in Vietnam. It doesn't look like the American public is prepared to quit. We have to figure out how to win this affair.
There are similiarities to Vietnam but Iraq isn't Vietnam. One big difference is our army is much better prepared to fight insurgency. Forty years ago army leadership was dominated by WWII and cold war conventional soldiers and they barely tolerated Special Forces. We can crack the situation in Iraq but have to toss the thinking we can do it on a budget. We have to accept this stupid war is going to cost us.

[oswann]

Whatever, dude. I assumed you were a writer of some vein or another, who would know what "any" means. Keep saying you know what I meant better than I did, if it helps you get through your day. Keep doing the Humpty Dumpty to redefine "any" to mean whatever the he11 you need it to mean to make your argument come out right. It ceases to be interesting when you keep changing the rules of teh game so that you "win" by your definition. I'm not going to play that game.


This is just silly.


Os.

[J. Weiland]

This is just silly.


Os.

But true. Robeiae does not substantiate his claims.

[Robert Toy]

Kentuck -


What we need is Arab intervention; we need to bring together a consortium of Arab Nations - muster up what we can of Islamic moderate allies - and bring them to the table and into the fray diplomatically and possibly with troops. Only a collective group of Islamic nations can galvanize and inspire Iraqi national forces and the Iraqi population to crush the backlash of fundamentalism and sectarian feuding.

If it were me, I would bring Libya, Kuwait, probably Saudi Arabia (not moderate but getting there), Egypt, LEBANON - even though we owe her big time - and Syria to make their presence felt. It would have to be done through incentives, probably expensive, but they would acheive in months what will take us years of bloodshed and sacrifice. Why? Because they understand each other. They understand the history of that region and the mentality of the region better than we ever will. The Iraqis need a power base to trust.A unified and peaceful Iraq is not going to be accomplished without a national sense of identity with the fledgling government. That comes with the population feeling that it is, ultimately, in the Islamic fold and has the open backing of the Islamic world, not the West. And yes, that comes with the US eating a little crow. That's OK with me. Peace in Iraq, imo, will never happen any other way.
First Hi BoP, long time no speak.

Good idea, except for one wee problem. IMHO none of the regional countries have an interest in seeing a democratic Iraq, it could spill over on to their turf and next thing you know the folks in power now would not be.

[robeiae]

Keep saying you know what I meant better than I did, if it helps you get through your day.This argument is a product of you minsunderstanding me. Now that you've bashed your head into that wall enough times, you want to call it quits and get all offended that I misunderstood you. Okay, I'm more than happy to go down that road, as well.

Tell me again what you said, what you think I said, and why you think I misunderstood you, please.

[robeiae]

But true. Robeiae does not substantiate his claims.What claims are you talking about? I'd like to know.

[J. Weiland]

What claims are you talking about? I'd like to know.

Hey, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. All things considered, I could be claiming you did both things intentionally, and I could back it up.

Please do.

[J. Weiland]

So what we have here is me saying that the assertion "Iraq is the new Vietnam War," is essentially meaningless. That doesn't mean no comparisons are possible, it only means that Iraq is not identical to the Vietnam War across the board. And it's not.

some more here.

[J. Weiland]

No, I didn't. But I can come up with ways that Iraq and Vietnam are comparable, and ways that they are not.

But that's not gonna work for you, because it's a little too "reality-based," I guess...

Like I said, poor reasoning on your part.

More of the same.

[oswann]

:popcorn:


Os.

[robeiae]

Please do.You want me to argue why I think Greg is intentionally misrepresenting what I say? Is that right?

I'm just checking, because really, I would prefer to leave it as it currently is: a misunderstanding.

[J. Weiland]

I'm just curious as to what you believe is comparable and what is not. So far, all you have shown is mild sarcasm.

You'll need more popcorn, os. :D

[robeiae]

some more here.
Uh-huh...

Your initial question:

Is Iraq the new Vietnam War?

My initial answer:

No.

There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

And we are hardly engaged in an attempt to prop up a long-standing and corrupt regime, nor are we fighting against an overwhelming majority of the people in Iraq who had been repressed by that regime, nor is our engagment with the insurgents taking place in primarily rural/jungle areas. For starters.

So, that's not substantiating my position? But if you want some more ways the Iraq war and the Vietnam War are different:

The process that led to the Vietnam War was one of escalation, not so in Iraq.
In the Vietnam War, there was no distinct divisions comparable to those in Iraq, ala Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites.
The North Vietnamese Army was a regular army throughout the conflict; there is no regular army opposing the U.S. in Iraq.
In Vietnam, the U.S. replaced an occupying Colonial power (France); not so in Iraq.
The undercurrent of the illegal drug trade has a significant role in the Vietnam War; not so in Iraq.

Plenty more, if you need them.

Of course, there are also specific ways that Vietnam and Iraq can be compared. You gave some in your first post. But in my opinion, there is not sufficient justification to label Iraq "The New Vietnam War," based these similarities.

You disagree--that's fine, but you can't prove you're right, nor can I prove you're wrong, since it's just an arbitrary label (The New Vietnam War). To that end, I would maintain that the use of that label is a purely political calculation for most, designed to invoke the general distaste for the Vietnam War that is so common. And I would argue that it is largely needless, since it is clear that there is pretty much widespread amount of distaste/disgust for the Iraqi War at this point in time.

[J. Weiland]

But would you agree that this conflict could turn out to be a lost cause in a similar way to the VW, by which I mean that the U.S. will be forced to withdraw without having accomplished what they promised, and that the country will be in violent turmoil many years into the future because of this?

[robeiae]

But would you agree that this conflict could turn out to be a lost cause in a similar way to the VW, by which I mean that the U.S. will be forced to withdraw without having accomplished what they promised, and that the country will be in violent turmoil many years into the future because of this?Certainly. In fact, I think it likely.

I'm a cynic in all things.

[robeiae]

I'm just curious as to what you believe is comparable and what is not. So far, all you have shown is mild sarcasm.Incorrect, as I have just demonstrated (and look--no sarcasm).

[oswann]

But would you agree that this conflict could turn out to be a lost cause in a similar way to the VW, by which I mean that the U.S. will be forced to withdraw without having accomplished what they promised, and that the country will be in violent turmoil many years into the future because of this?

The failure of certain objectives in these two wars isn't enough to say they are the same. The objectives were different (not to mention the country, time, adversary etc.) so the outcomes must be also different.


Os.

[J. Weiland]

Thanks for your opinion, guys. We'll stop the discussion here. :D

[greglondon]

There was only one Maginot Line.

Any attempt to defend a nation through static, defensive, combat
cannot be compared to the failures of the Maginot line.

They are completely different.
The Maginot line was used 1930-1940 by France.

Unless you're talking about a static defensive military
structure used in France from 1930-1940, you are
talking about something completely different and
absolutely no valid comparisons can be made.

And "any" really only means "vietnam"

[billythrilly7th]

This thread got way too complicated. It comes down to one word.

Rambo.

'Nuff said, lock thread.

[SC Harrison]

This thread got way too complicated. It comes down to one word.

Rambo.

'Nuff said, lock thread.

"All I wanted was a cheeseburger!"

[SpookyWriter]

Uh-huh...

Your initial question:

Is Iraq the new Vietnam War?

My initial answer:

No.

There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

And we are hardly engaged in an attempt to prop up a long-standing and corrupt regime, nor are we fighting against an overwhelming majority of the people in Iraq who had been repressed by that regime, nor is our engagment with the insurgents taking place in primarily rural/jungle areas. For starters.
Just give it more time.


The process that led to the Vietnam War was one of escalation, not so in Iraq.Not yet, but if we don't stop the insurgency and provide internal stability I can only think more troops will be sent in to help provide security. I believe this is the beginning of a similarity between Vietnam and Iraq.


In the Vietnam War, there was no distinct divisions comparable to those in Iraq, ala Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites.
The North Vietnamese Army was a regular army throughout the conflict; there is no regular army opposing the U.S. in Iraq.
In Vietnam, the U.S. replaced an occupying Colonial power (France); not so in Iraq.
The undercurrent of the illegal drug trade has a significant role in the Vietnam War; not so in Iraq. Here is where we will disagree. The NVA and Vietcong were two distinct elements of the armed services that we had to contend with in Vietnam. The Vietcong were (are) the insurgents of Iraq. The regular army of North Vietnam suffered several defeats during the eleven years. However, the Vietcong had numerous successes against the (coalition) U.N. forces.

The British, French, and Russians all had a colonial past or influence in Iraq. We may have arrived late, but make no mistake it was the colonial past that made Iraq what it is today.

We propped up a failing dictator in both Vietnam and Iraq. Saddam was our puppet for many years until he decided to make a name for himself and didn't need us anymore. Now, pray tell, who was that South Vietnamese President who was assassinated with the help of the CIA?

Maybe the players are different, the terrain is not as lush, but there is enough similarities between our involvement in Vietnam and Iraq to make the leap toward another protracted conflict with no attainable goals.

[robeiae]

The British, French, and Russians all had a colonial past or influence in Iraq. We may have arrived late, but make no mistake it was the colonial past that made Iraq what it is today. Something that can be said about a large portion of the world's nations, no? But the fact is, the U.S. went to Vietnam on the heels of the French, who had been engaged in a failing attempt to maintain their Indochina empire. The terms of the the '54 Geneva Conference, formalizing French withdrawal, seperated Vietnam into North and South, and mandated future elections (which never happened--surprise, surprise). Communist North, Non-communist South. And into the South come the first American advisors, just as the French walk out the door.

Yes, the similarities here to events in Iraq are quite obvious. ;)

[Joe Unidos]

Something that can be said about a large portion of the world's nations, no? But the fact is, the U.S. went to Vietnam on the heels of the French, who had been engaged in a failing attempt to maintain their Indochina empire. The terms of the the '54 Geneva Conference, formalizing French withdrawal, seperated Vietnam into North and South, and mandated future elections (which never happened--surprise, surprise). Communist North, Non-communist South. And into the South come the first American advisors, just as the French walk out the door.

Yes, the similarities here to events in Iraq are quite obvious. ;)

They never happened because the US knew that the Communists would win a clear victory, North and South.

[robeiae]

They never happened because the US knew that the Communists would win a clear victory, North and South.
Just like in Iraq? :D

[SpookyWriter]

Something that can be said about a large portion of the world's nations, no? But the fact is, the U.S. went to Vietnam on the heels of the French, who had been engaged in a failing attempt to maintain their Indochina empire. The terms of the the '54 Geneva Conference, formalizing French withdrawal, seperated Vietnam into North and South, and mandated future elections (which never happened--surprise, surprise). Communist North, Non-communist South. And into the South come the first American advisors, just as the French walk out the door.

Yes, the similarities here to events in Iraq are quite obvious. ;)We are still dealing with the Domino Effect with this regard. Our fears in the late 40's until the fall of the Soviet Union was the spread of communism. Our fear today is the spread of terrorism. I don't think our elected leaders have grasped the two concepts yet and continue to blunder into uncharted waters.

Iraq will be our national disgrace much like Vietnam. Only difference will be that twenty years from now we'll still be up to our elbows in fundamentalist terrorism.

[robeiae]

Only difference will be that twenty years from now we'll still be up to our elbows in fundamentalist terrorism.And not going into Iraq would have prevented this? Just wondering.

[billythrilly7th]

And not going into Iraq would have prevented this? Just wondering.

Rob, don't you remember that there was no Islamic terrorism before we went into Iraq?

Jeez. For a smart guy sometimes you amaze me.

[greglondon]

>Only difference will be that twenty years from now we'll still be up to our elbows in fundamentalist terrorism.

And not going into Iraq would have prevented this? Just wondering.

Well, it sure as fkc isn't helping


The Iraqi insurgency has become the "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, "breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."
The Iraq war is also shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives who could be a "potential source of leadership" for new Islamic terrorist groups,

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/27/nie.iraq/index.html

Our botched occupation has become a recruiting poster for terrorism. We haven't made the war on terrorism better, we've made it worse.

(Those bits in quotes are from a report by the House Intelligence Committee)

[SpookyWriter]

And not going into Iraq would have prevented this? Just wondering.It's a long story, Rob. Iraq is now the proving ground for terrorism. Before they had no live targets except for a few stragglers in Afghan or a few goats in the desert. Now they have the perfect training ground in Iraq courtesy of the U.S. military. They can now hone their skills and bring them to other opportunities throughout the world.

Yes, America does train the best and brightest.

Thank you GW

[SpookyWriter]

P.S. If the Romans couldn't get it right then who are we to think otherwise?

[billythrilly7th]

We haven't made the war on terrorism better, we've made it worse.

"It's gonna get worse before it gets better."
Dalton
Patrick Swayze
Roadhouse
1986

[greglondon]

"It's gonna get worse before it gets better."
Dalton
Patrick Swayze
Roadhouse
1986

No, billy, you need to quote A-Team lines. They're the guys who know how to fight in quagmires.

[billythrilly7th]

No, billy, you need to quote A-Team lines. They're the guys who know how to fight in quagmires.

I don't know any A-Team lines other than "I love it when a plan comes together" which I've used many times and "Murdock, you crazy!"

I only know movies and Seinfeld for the most part.

It all works.

But thanks for the concern. If I run into trouble I'll PM ya.

[greglondon]

I only know movies and Seinfeld for the most part..

Well, stick to movies then.
Patrick Swayze is no good in a fight.

[robeiae]

Just to be clear about this:
1) Are you both (Greg and Spooky) saying that insurgents in Iraq are terrorists (all of them or some of them)?
2) Are you both saying that Iraq is breeding terrorists by drawing them into Iraq from other places, breeding terrorists in other parts of the world who remain where they are, or both?
3) Are you both saying that without the Iraq War, global terrorism would be on the decline?

No doubt, yours is a plausible and defensible position to some extent, though it is also impossible to know what the situation would be if the Iraq invasion had never occured. But given that your position is reasonable, I would ask if the War is somehow a legitimate justification for bombing train stations in Spain, for instance. Nevermind whether this a a predictable or expected kind of reaction; is it a justified and legitimate response? Further, do you think the U.S. bears some measure of responsibility for such incidents?

[Bravo]

Just to be clear about this:
1) Are you both (Greg and Spooky) saying that insurgents in Iraq are terrorists (all of them or some of them)?
2) Are you both saying that Iraq is breeding terrorists by drawing them into Iraq from other places, breeding terrorists in other parts of the world who remain where they are, or both?
3) Are you both saying that without the Iraq War, global terrorism would be on the decline?

No doubt, yours is a plausible and defensible position to some extent, though it is also impossible to know what the situation would be if the Iraq invasion had never occured. But given that your position is reasonable, I would ask if the War is somehow a legitimate justification for bombing train stations in Spain, for instance. Nevermind whether this a a predictable or expected kind of reaction; is it a justified and legitimate response? Further, do you think the U.S. bears some measure of responsibility for such incidents?

for you rob:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_homegrown_threat_1

and countless more stories like that.

[billythrilly7th]

I love the fact that the cage of all idiots with any inclination to be a Jihadist has been rattled and they're all coming out of the woodwork or their ...uh..cage.

That's fantastic.

Yeah, all head to Iraq! I love it. Keep 'em coming boys.

[Bravo]

bring it on!

[billythrilly7th]

bring it on!

now you talking boy!

that's my boy!!!

finally a little passion for the fight from Bravo!!

holla!!

I still can't wait until you get drafted.
:D

[Unique]

I still can't wait until you get drafted.
:D

that's mean

[billythrilly7th]

that's mean

It's an inside joke, but Bravo, if I may so bold as to speak for him, thanks you for your concern and support.
:D

Throw me a rep point and let's call it a night!

[Unique]

I already gave you at least two today, do you really need another?

[SC Harrison]

I love the fact that the cage of all idiots with any inclination to be a Jihadist has been rattled and they're all coming out of the woodwork or their ...uh..cage.

That's fantastic.

Yeah, all head to Iraq! I love it. Keep 'em coming boys.

The belief that every insurgent in Iraq was already a jihadi, and this conflict is merely "smoking them out" is an extremely dangerous assumption. The economic situation in Iraq has been dismal since the war with Iran, but it is intolerable now. The following article is 2 1/2 years old, but since there hasn't been any real progress, things are probably much worse:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3372029.stm

High unemployment is not just a waste of Iraq's enormous human resources, it also leads to trouble, with hundreds of thousands of young discontented Iraqi men finding they have not much to do - except perhaps confront coalition forces.

AZHJAN:
(Prostitute)
A lot of women are selling themselves now. Families take their daughters to the hotels to be enjoyed by the Americans. This is the only way, and the easy way, to get money.


Insurgent leaders know the best way to get recruits is to concentrate on young, unemployed men. Well, there's a buttload of them. 50% unemployment would turn this country (the U.S.) into a war zone also. The only way to reverse the economic situation is for the violence to cease. The violence will not cease as long as we're there, and it would take ten times the troops to "pacify" this insurgency, if it's even possible.

So...we must go. I'm sure it will get uglier before it gets ...less ugly, but those leaders who survive long enough to make it back to the table will have a legitimacy they don't have now.

[SpookyWriter]

Just to be clear about this:
1) Are you both (Greg and Spooky) saying that insurgents in Iraq are terrorists (all of them or some of them)?
The Vietcong were called terrorist as were other individuals who fought against conventional armies in various times throughout history. I believe the Romans called the Brits terrorists at the time as had the Chinese done during the Maoist revolts.

Define terrorist? Were the IRA terrorist?

2) Are you both saying that Iraq is breeding terrorists by drawing them into Iraq from other places, breeding terrorists in other parts of the world who remain where they are, or both?
Britain has a history of breeding insurgents who are later portrayed as terrorist. Wasn't Gandhi branded as such for his political views? Although the British government may not have formally accused Gandhi of terrorism, they did have limits on his movements and incarcerated him for a period of time

Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Or Martin Luther King. See, MLK was a thorn in the side of America's established segregation policy in the south.

But enough about individuals. What makes a person take up arms against a foreign invader?

Can I say all insurgents are terrorist? No, and neither can the government.

3) Are you both saying that without the Iraq War, global terrorism would be on the decline? I would like to think that the ability to train and educate young men in the middle east to conduct terrorist activities would have been greatly reduced had we not invaded Iraq.

There is little or no conclusive evidence that Saddam supported or funded any form or terrorism while he was in power. The events after his eviction proved more difficult for the coalition to identify and neutralize terrorism in Iraq. Had we contained the primary terrorist cells in Afghan then maybe we could have a better grasp on controlling the situation.


No doubt, yours is a plausible and defensible position to some extent, though it is also impossible to know what the situation would be if the Iraq invasion had never occurred. But given that your position is reasonable, I would ask if the War is somehow a legitimate justification for bombing train stations in Spain, for instance. Nevermind whether this a a predictable or expected kind of reaction; is it a justified and legitimate response? Further, do you think the U.S. bears some measure of responsibility for such incidents?International incidents were meant to punish those countries who assisted the U.S. and its allies in the invasion of Iraq.

Try to understand this action, these events, from a Muslim's eyes. You (America) invaded their country for one reason and only one reason. If you fail to understand their mentality or rationale for whatever actions they're taking then you are in good company because the government hasn't figure it out either.

[Unique]

50% unemployment would turn this country (the U.S.) into a war zone also. .

Absolutely, positively without a doubt.

[billythrilly7th]

The violence will not cease as long as we're there, and it would take ten times the troops to "pacify" this insurgency, if it's even possible.

I am totally open to the idea that if we left there would be no more violence.

Open, yet completely and/or 93% unconvinced.

The Big Four:
We stay and we stop insurgency
We stay and we never stop insurgency
We leave and insurgency stops
We leave and bloody, brutal slaughtering civil war breaks out.

Those are the four.

Maybe we should just flip a four sided coin or do a round robin with the coin.

[Unique]

The Big Four:
1)We stay and we stop insurgency
2)We stay and we never stop insurgency
3)We leave and insurgency stops
4)We leave and bloody, brutal slaughtering civil war breaks out.

.

1) We cannot stay indefinitely; we do not have the manpower w/o the draft.
2) The American public will not stand for this.
3) Put that on your Christmas list; that's why they call it a 'Wish' list.
4) It's close to that now. Staying or leaving will not affect this other than 'sooner vs later'

[SpookyWriter]

The Big Four:
We stay and we stop insurgency
We stay and we never stop insurgency
We leave and insurgency stops
We leave and bloody, brutal slaughtering civil war breaks out.

Those are the four.Hate to bust your bubble Billy, but you forgot the fifth, sixth, and seventh.

Fifth: We respect their culture and begin a dialogue with various leaders throughout the middle east to discuss our future participation in their lands.

Sixth: We respect their right to self-rule regardless if we like their form of government or not.

Seventh: We open more trade opportunities and determine our future without reliance on imported oil.

See, we can get along with the rest of the world and not invade them if we just take the time to understand their cultures and lives.

Simple enough?

[billythrilly7th]

See, we can get along with the rest of the world and not invade them if we just take the time to understand their cultures and lives.

Simple enough?

Yeah....doesn't get simpler than that.

Awwwwww.
:Hug2:
Evil America and The Rest of the World.

[Unique]

Yeah....doesn't get simpler than that.

Awwwwww.
:Hug2:
Evil America and The Rest of the World.

You have that almost right.

Evil American and The Rest of the Evil World.

[billythrilly7th]

1) We cannot stay indefinitely; we do not have the manpower w/o the draft.
2) The American public will not stand for this.
3) Put that on your Christmas list; that's why they call it a 'Wish' list.
4) It's close to that now. Staying or leaving will not affect this other than 'sooner vs later'

1. Not true on the manpower part, but of course we can't stay indefinetly.
2. Of course.
3. I agree.
4. I'm talking a civil war the likes of which aren't even close to what is happening now. That would be bad.

It's a tough slog over there.

Well, we'll give it a shot a little bit longer and see if we can win one for the gipper. If not we can leave knowing we tried to do the moral thing and help the Iraqis have a better future, but if they're unwilling to stand up and fight for their right to party, there's nothing we can do about it.

That's the real problem. They have to turn on the insurgents and foreign fighters and say "no mas."

If they don't, there's not much we can do to help them.

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

You have that almost right.

Evil American and The Rest of the Evil World.

So you're in the "Secular Progressive America is Evil" crowd, Unique?

Cool. Good luck with that.

G'night.

[Unique]

So you're in the "Secular Progressive America is Evil" crowd, Unique?

Cool. Good luck with that.

G'night.

No. I'm in the "Moderate the Rapture's Gonna Happen Anyway" crowd.
win it, lose it, turn it into glass -
whatever.
nite

[billythrilly7th]

No. I'm in the "Moderate the Rapture's Gonna Happen Anyway" crowd.
win it, lose it, turn it into glass -
whatever.
nite

lol...whatever that means, I'm glad you're not in the America is evil crowd.

America is not perfect. We've made plenty of mistakes, but we're still pertty darn awesome. Don't let anyone tell ya different.

Billy
:)

[SC Harrison]

I am totally open to the idea that if we left there would be no more violence.



I didn't say it would cease if we left, Billy. I said it won't cease as long as we're there. The two statements are not the same.

Once we leave, (almost) everywhere else except Baghdad will see a little shuffling around, a few more holes dug in the desert, and then sloooow progress towards self-rule. In Baghdad? Sorry. The place is toast. Too many Sunnis facing the Mehdi Army. It'll be like Beirut all over again, but...wait a minute. Look at Beirut now! They've still got a lot to work out, but Parliament is finally growing a pair.

[billythrilly7th]

I didn't say it would cease if we left, Billy. I said it won't cease as long as we're there. The two statements are not the same.


I still think we can bring it down to a minimal level and stabilize the place, but....you may be right.

But, I'd like to give it one more shot. A really good shot. Get some more troops in there. Double time this freakin Iraq army training. Disarm the damn militias. Surround them. If they don't come out. BLOW THEM UP. Sadr can not be allowed to continue. End of story. Then after we do things, if we still can't control the situation...adios. That's it. We gave it our best shot. Didn't work.

:Shrug:

All anyone can ask of themselves in any situation is that you gave it your best shot and then you gotta let the chips fall where they may.

[SpookyWriter]

lol...whatever that means, I'm glad you're not in the America is evil crowd.

America is not perfect. We've made plenty of mistakes, but we're still pertty darn awesome. Don't let anyone tell ya different.

Billy
:)I like Robin Williams too. Just not so funny when you have to actually wear a military uniform and kill someone. Try it and get back with me someday.

[billythrilly7th]

I like Robin Williams too. Just not so funny when you have to actually wear a military uniform and kill someone. Try it and get back with me someday.

I don't see the connection between my quote and your response.

ETA: I despise Robin Williams.

[SpookyWriter]

I don't see the connection between my quote and your response.

ETA: I despise Robin Williams.It's slapstick, get it. Come'on it's all a joke anyway. Just nuke 'em all and be done with it. Call it the big can of black flag defense.

[SpookyWriter]

I still think we can bring it down to a minimal level and stabilize the place, but....you may be right.

But, I'd like to give it one more shot. A really good shot. Get some more troops in there. Double time this freakin Iraq army training. Disarm the damn militias. Surround them. If they don't come out. BLOW THEM UP. Sadr can not be allowed to continue. End of story. Then after we do things, if we still can't control the situation...adios. That's it. We gave it our best shot. Didn't work.

:Shrug:

All anyone can ask of themselves in any situation is that you gave it your best shot and then you gotta let the chips fall where they may.Damn, it's hard not to enjoy your sense of humor. I might actually begin to believe you if I weren't so bull headed. But thanks for the laughs tonight. I honestly love reading what you have to say.

[billythrilly7th]

You're welcome, thank you and good night
:)

Billy = Sick
:(

[SpookyWriter]

Food for thought, Billy.

What if we're right (Iraq is another Vietnam) and you're wrong? Can you sleep at night knowing that an orchestrated conflict for pride or oil is our legacy to the middle east for the next fifty years?

Hmmm...I'd rather not

Thank you

[Unique]

Billy = Sick
:(

I'm saving this one.

[billythrilly7th]

Food for thought, Billy.

What if we're right (Iraq is another Vietnam) and you're wrong? Can you sleep at night knowing that an orchestrated conflict for pride or oil is our legacy to the middle east for the next fifty years?

Hmmm...I'd rather not

Thank you

A. I don't believe I said anywhere in this thread that Iraq was not another Vietnam, so I can't be wrong on that. There's similiarites and non-similiarites.
B. We have a differing opinion on why this war is being fought, so I will sleep very well at night and for the next fifty years.(although I'm an insomniac so, not really, but not because of this issue)
C. If someone orchestrated a war for pride or oil(because we were bone dry and Saddam wasn't selling any to us and we had to go in or we wouldn't be able to get to work and our economy was on the verge of collapse, right) then they will be the ones who have to answer the question of whether they can sleep at night. Maybe one day a war like that will happen and we can ask the orchestrators.

[SpookyWriter]

Nice come back, Billy. Sleep well as is all is well in the world tonight.

[billythrilly7th]

Thank you.

I'm sick, Spooky and you're putting me through the ringer!! I guess it's the least I can do for freedom.

Goodnight!
:)

[SpookyWriter]

Thank you.

I'm sick, Spooky and you're putting me through the ringer!! I guess it's the least I can do for freedom.

Goodnight!
:)Good night Billy. We love ya! Get better and we'll pick this up later.

Cheers,

Spooky

[blacbird]

This has become a nonsense thread. Every war is its own creature, so to postulate that "War X" is the next "War Y" is inherently absurd. The key questions are, What did we do in War X that is similar to War Y, and if it didn't work in War X, what can we do to make it work in War Y?" There, we can find some strong similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, which doesn't imply they are exactly equivalent (despite Robbie's love of insistence on semantic black-and-white exactitude).

So, some similarities: We got into trouble in both places based on inexact intelligence that was misused for domestic political purposes. In both places, we wind up fighting on foreign soil, distant both in geography and culture, with people indigenous to the regions who regard us as foreign invaders. In both places we fail to understand those differences, and get into trouble for doing so. We think, in both places, that we can overcome obstacles with simple application of military technology. In both places, we had complete aerial superiority. In both places, when that doesn't work, we don't really have a Plan B. In both places, we were exhorted for a long while to "Stay the course."

We flarked up Vietnam. We didn't pay attention to how and why we did that when we went to war in Iraq.

Differences? One place was hot and wet and full of plants. The other place is hot and dry and full of sand. In Vietnam we had a nearly unlimited supply of slave military labor, although it got pretty intransigent after seven or eight years of misuse. In Iraq we have a limited supply of semi-volunteer labor, designed for other purposes, which is beginning to get intransigent after nearly four years of misuse. In Vietnam, for quite a while, we had an Administration willing to spend a lot of money on the adventure. In Iraq, we have an Administration not really committed to doing that (despite the figures we've been given).

So, similarities and dissimilarities. But if we can't learn from the mistakes of the former war that do have application to the current one, what can we learn?

caw.

[greglondon]

The Big Four:
We stay and we stop insurgency
We stay and we never stop insurgency
We leave and insurgency stops
We leave and bloody, brutal slaughtering civil war breaks out.

Those are the four.

First of all, this has got to be the most koolaid-laced list I've seen in a while. Second of all, this is only part of game theory. You need to put in the cost and benefit of each.

>We stay and we stop insurgency

Cost? it's going to be at least another couple years at the current rate. which means the civilian causualties and american casualties will be double whatever they are now. Plus the probability of this list item comming true is far less than 50%. We'd get better odds playing a slot machine. "maybe we'll get lucky" is not a strategy, it's sucker math, and Las Vegas loves guys who think they can get lucky.

>We stay and we never stop insurgency

Permanent occupation of Iraq for all eternity? This is not only mathematically useless, it's politically naive. Has anyone read the news lately about Iraq? Our current trajectory has a crash and burn civil war within a year. It will burn so bright, we're all gonna need sunglasses even over here in the US.

>Those are the four.

Those are your four. They are not the only four. Two of them are completely useless for being fantasy. And none of them come with any sort of actual cost associated with that choice, or likelyhood of success of that path.

[Bravo]

last june, bush said that there was going to be a "big push" to stamp out the insurgency.

and yet, more troops, has equaled to more violence.

the past few months have been devastating for iraqi civilians and US troops.

about 45 civilians a day were killed in iraq in oct, up 18% since sept. and 359 US troops since the baghdad "push" began, which is equal to the deaths of that monumental and historic battle of fallujah.

i await bush's next "big push" and his next "bring it on".

bloody idiot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102600264.html

[billythrilly7th]

bloody idiot.

You're English now?

Please notify me of these changes via PM so I can make the necessary changes to your account.

Thank you.

[robeiae]

The Vietcong were called terrorist as were other individuals who fought against conventional armies in various times throughout history. I believe the Romans called the Brits terrorists at the time as had the Chinese done during the Maoist revolts.

Define terrorist? Were the IRA terrorist?I was asking for your opinion, Spooky. You said "Iraq is now the proving ground for terrorism." Does that include all of the insurgents there, or just some of them?


Britain has a history of breeding insurgents who are later portrayed as terrorist. Wasn't Gandhi branded as such for his political views? Although the British government may not have formally accused Gandhi of terrorism, they did have limits on his movements and incarcerated him for a period of time

Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Or Martin Luther King. See, MLK was a thorn in the side of America's established segregation policy in the south.

But enough about individuals. What makes a person take up arms against a foreign invader?

Can I say all insurgents are terrorist? No, and neither can the government.Are you comparing suicide bombers and the like to Ghandi and MLK?

But more to the point, this isn't an answer to my question: "2) Are you both saying that Iraq is breeding terrorists by drawing them into Iraq from other places, breeding terrorists in other parts of the world who remain where they are, or both?"


I would like to think that the ability to train and educate young men in the middle east to conduct terrorist activities would have been greatly reduced had we not invaded Iraq.

There is little or no conclusive evidence that Saddam supported or funded any form or terrorism while he was in power. The events after his eviction proved more difficult for the coalition to identify and neutralize terrorism in Iraq. Had we contained the primary terrorist cells in Afghan then maybe we could have a better grasp on controlling the situation.
So, that's a hopeful "yes"?

International incidents were meant to punish those countries who assisted the U.S. and its allies in the invasion of Iraq.

Try to understand this action, these events, from a Muslim's eyes. You (America) invaded their country for one reason and only one reason. If you fail to understand their mentality or rationale for whatever actions they're taking then you are in good company because the government hasn't figure it out either.Well, we didn't invade every Muslim country, did we? So are we somehow responsible for the creation of more terrorists outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?

And why shouldn't Muslims have to look at things from an American's eyes?

[Bravo]

You're English now?

Please notify me of these changes via PM so I can make the necessary changes to your account.

Thank you.

that's a good chap.

[billythrilly7th]

that's a good chap.

sod off, tosser.

[J. Weiland]

:flag: easy, boys. This thread has turned into a monster.

[Bravo]

well a bloody piss on you too, you wanker.

[J. Weiland]

blimey!

[billythrilly7th]

well a bloody piss on you too, you wanker.

fair enough, blokey.

Thank you.

[Bravo]

if the world arsed about like this, there would be less warmongering cvnts and more liberal shaggin.

[J. Weiland]

I'm getting a beer. Cheers. :D

:e2drunk:

[greglondon]

"2) Are you both saying that Iraq is breeding terrorists by drawing them into Iraq from other places, breeding terrorists in other parts of the world who remain where they are, or both?"

So are we somehow responsible for the creation of more terrorists outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?

And why shouldn't Muslims have to look at things from an American's eyes?

People aren't born terrorists. People think they're doing the right thing.
This is a basic principle of writing your antagonist character.
They don't wake up and say "screw it, I'm gonna blow up someone".
Well, some do, but actually insane people can't be fought by a war,
because more of them are born every day.

But if you invade a country and occupy it for three years,
and do so in such a botched up way that hundreds of thousands
of civilians die under your watch, do you think people might leave
their day jobs and fight that?

You think back when stories like Red Dawn were popular,
that Russia invades the US and all the people who fight them
are just terrorists and psychopaths? Or did the actions of
another change the choices?

Do you have any concept of responsibility?
It means to take on that you are the cause of what's happening.

You think if we invaded a sovereign nation and hundreds of thousands
of civilians die while we occupy it, that people won't quit their
jobs and their families and fight you?

You think they should greet us as liberators no matter what?

Here is a massive fallacy. that our actions are somehow
without consequence. That terrorists are born that way,
and all we're doing is drawing them into a fight in Iraq.
Fight them there, rather than here. What a crock.

Hey, I got an idea. What if the fact that hundreds of thosands
of Iraqi civilans have died on our watch was cause for people
to fight against us?

Were all the Founding Fathers just a bunch of terrorists
from the day they were born? Or did the actions of the King
cause them to resist his unjust measures?

The koolaid is being drunk by the gallon.

[billythrilly7th]

You think back when stories like Red Dawn were popular, that Russia invades the US and all the people who fight them
are just terrorists and psychopaths?

Nope...

We're the "Wolverines!!!!!!"

And we only targeted the military of the foreign countries!!! And we were all Americans!!!

"Wolverines!!!"

[billythrilly7th]

May god bless you, Jed, and all the brave fighters who did what they could, and had their names inscribed on freedom rock, to make sure that this nation shall not perish from the earth.

http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes5/RedDawn39.jpeg
R.I.P.

[robeiae]

People aren't born terrorists. People think they're doing the right thing.No doubt. Of course, there is always the issue of how they arrived at the conlcusion that what they are doing is the "right thing." Is that inconsequential?
But if you invade a country and occupy it for three years,
and do so in such a botched up way that hundreds of thousands
of civilians die under your watch, do you think people might leave
their day jobs and fight that?Certainly.

Do you have any concept of responsibility?
It means to take on that you are the cause of what's happening.Clam down. Your shrillness is about to break my windows. I'm asking how far responsibility extends, in yours and Spooky's opinion, not trying to tell you that you're wrong or right.

You think they should greet us as liberators no matter what?Absolutely not.

Here is a massive fallacy. that our actions are somehow
without consequence. That terrorists are born that way,
and all we're doing is drawing them into a fight in Iraq.
Fight them there, rather than here. What a crock.Who said that? I didn't. So take it up with whoever said it, not me.

[greglondon]

I'm asking how far responsibility extends, in yours and Spooky's opinion, not trying to tell you that you're wrong or right.

We have turned Iraq into a recruiting poster, a cause celebre for
people to be recruited into the cause against America.
We are responsible for that.
Completely.

That's the funny thing about responsibility.
It's either 100% or it's nothing.
The buck stops here.

And the people who become terrorists are completely responsible for
their actions. If they become a suicide bomber or if they attack
US forces or plant roadside bombs, they are completely responsible
for their actions.

And we are completely responsible for creating the cause celebre
that recruited them.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I hate to interject facts, but the majority of civilians now dying in Iraq are being killed...

...

... by other Iraqis!

it's become a civil war, whether they want to call it or not. Religiously-based with purges of neighborhoods that are too much one way or the other, Sunni or Shiite.

last time I checked there wasn't a mass murder taking place at the guns of US troops - it's the home-grown knuckleheads trying to do power plays.

much like Bosnia - as soon as Russia pulled out, all the old grievances came back - your great-grandfather killed my goat, etc. Saddam had everyone terrified to do anything; now that they have freedom they're killing each other over bad blood.

don't really see how more or less troops are going to stop that, unfortunately.

but, hey... don't let me get in the way of your US-bashing.

;)

[billythrilly7th]

I hate to interject facts, but the majority of civilians now dying in Iraq are being killed...

...

... by other Iraqis!



Exactly.

The Wolverines were not fighting the Cougars from the rival high school.

[greglondon]

I hate to interject facts, but the majority of civilians now dying in Iraq are being killed... by other Iraqis!

Wow. That is so deep. I never realized how in tune you are.

So, we went in to Iraq because
(1) Iraq had WMDs
but when they didn't, that's OK
because we really went in because
(2) Saddam was a brutal dicatator who killed his own people
and had to be take down so a democracy could be established.

So, Saddam's a bstrd, we take him out of power,
and create a situation that's so bad that civil war now breaks out
which is far worse thing than Saddam ever did.

But never mind. Iraqis are killing Iraqis, so it isn't our fault.

Except every military plan that looked at invading and occupying
Iraq predicted the chance of Civil War was high.

So when someone drunk gets behind the wheel and causes
a massive accident, do we say he was too drunk to know
any better? Or do we say he's still responsible?

Bush was drunk. He ignored every rational, real-world piece
of evidence that said invasion was not only stupid, but suicide.
He justified it first on WMD's but those turned out to be phantoms.
Then he justified it on the idea that Saddam was a bstrd
and that we were going in to make Iraq a better place.

Now, the civil war that every military planner warned about
has broken out. And do we blame the Iraqis for that?
Are we free of any and all responsibility?

If you drive while drunk, every cop will tell you that the
odds are high that you're going to kill yourself or someone
else. So, if you drive while drunk thinking that you'll take
a chance on maybe making it home in one piece, then
get in an accident, are you no longer responsible because
you had the best of intentions? Despite every warning?

Meanwhile, our cockup in Iraq has become the rallying
cry for the extremists' war against US. It has become
a recruting poster. And it's because we've triggered the
avalanche. We invaded. We went in. Some may have had
the best of intentions. But massive dead civilians trumps
whatever good intentions were brought to Iraq.

And we are responsible for that.

[billythrilly7th]

Meanwhile, our cockup in Iraq has become the rallying
cry for the extremists' war against US. It has become recruiting poster.

The Afghan invasion was a recruiting poster...bla bla bla bla...(but this was the right thing so it's okay)

The Iraq invasion was a recruiting poster...bla bla bla bla....(but this was the wrong thing so it's not okay)

Everytime you fight back against anything from the bully in the playground to the Jihadists in the middle east it shakes up a hornets nest and you risk more heat coming down on you. The bully's friends are now after you or more humps decide to Jihad.

Way of da world.

Like I said, I'm happy that any person in the middle east with an inclination of Jihad has now risen from their slumber and are getting in the game. I don't want them sitting at home, mulling Jihad because we didn't go into Iraq. I want them going "Let's do it."

Let's just get it over with now. Let's get it done so we don't have to fight this for the next 100 years. I want to go back to worrying about tax cuts and welfare and battling the Soviet Union in a cold war. Those were the good old days.

"Let's go back to the age of jive."
Billy Joel

Thank you.

[Sheryl Nantus]

Wow. That is so deep. I never realized how in tune you are.

more than you are, sparky... more than you are.

:D

[SC Harrison]

Meanwhile, our cockup in Iraq has become the rallying
cry for the extremists' war against US. It has become
a recruting poster. And it's because we've triggered the
avalanche. We invaded. We went in. Some may have had
the best of intentions. But massive dead civilians trumps
whatever good intentions were brought to Iraq.

And we are responsible for that.

I agree. And the only way to counteract this phenomena is to:

a) bring a halt to violence and usher in peace and tranquility (impossible), or

b) get the hell out. When the violence continues/escalates, Muslims elsewhere should say, "Wait a minute—the Americans are gone and they're still fighting each other. This is no longer a global issue, it's a domestic struggle for domination."

And yes, many will continue to blame us for setting the stage for a civil war, but the current "call to arms" may fizzle. (fingers crossed)

[billythrilly7th]

And yes, many will continue to blame us for setting the stage for a civil war, but the current "call to arms" may fizzle. (fingers crossed)

We're blamed for everything.

After 9/11...

"America is to blame for supporting middle east dictators for oil! That's why you were attacked."

After Iraq

"America is evil for attacking and overthrowing an evil middle east dictator!"

:Shrug:

There's nothing to say. It's a joke. We win in the end. So, it'll all work out for us. That's for sure.

[Robert Toy]

Pzzzz

[Bravo]

there is absolutely no solution to this mess at this point.

its a disaster and a blunder beyond anything else in recent memory for our nation.

we get out, either it becomes a failed state and training ground a la afghanistan for more terrorists, or iran steps in.

we stay, we have to be even more brutal which will lead to even more sectarian violence and which will lead to even more troops killed and which will still expand iran's influence.

we let the nation fall into 3 parts and still nothing good can happen. baghdad is a mixed city for one thing, oil fields in the north and south are hotly contested and fullscale war can and probably will break out.

forget vietnam. that was fairly contained.

this is much much worse.

[robeiae]

I gave you a point for that. Clam down.

Thanks, Rob. It's a keeper.:D Musta been a slip, of some kind...

[Unique]

Too good not to share (http://tinyurl.com/yguafw)

JMHO - if we hadn't pulled out of Vietnam - we'd still be there.
It started before I was old enough to know and it ended when I was old enough to go. That's too long. YMMV

(yes, Rob, I know it says analysis)

[oswann]

b) get the hell out. When the violence continues/escalates, Muslims elsewhere should say, "Wait a minute—the Americans are gone and they're still fighting each other. This is no longer a global issue, it's a domestic struggle for domination."



Some do now. It's a shame they are not more visible and given more air time to oppose the actions taken by the exteme nutjobs who give them all a bad reputation. When Massoud was killed every moderate muslim should have risen up in outrage, but what happened? Nothing.


Os.

[blacbird]

The Afghan invasion was a recruiting poster...bla bla bla bla...(but this was the right thing so it's okay)

The Iraq invasion was a recruiting poster...bla bla bla bla....(but this was the wrong thing so it's not okay)

You are correct on both counts. So your point is?

caw

[SC Harrison]

Some do now. It's a shame they are not more visible and given more air time to oppose the actions taken by the exteme nutjobs who give them all a bad reputation. When Massoud was killed every moderate muslim should have risen up in outrage, but what happened? Nothing.


Os.

Moderate voices don't sell papers or tv advertising, but they are out there. The problem is, when people aren't served their message on a silver platter, and when an opposing army doesn't magically appear to put a stop to terrorism, they assume the moderates are just a handful of peaceniks. Here's a few:

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

A leading Saudi cleric issued a plea today for Muslims not to heed calls to wage terror attacks in the name of Islam. Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Sudeis, the state-appointed preacher at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, told pilgrims in a sermon marking the feast of Eid al-Adha that scholars must preach moderation to confront militants, who were using "misguided and void" interpretations to justify violence. His sermon, dedicated to the 2.5 million Muslims performing the hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, echoed comments made yesterday by Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al Sheik. The kingdom's grand mufti said the greatest test to the nation of Islam came from its sons who were "lured by the devil" to carry out acts of violence.

Sheikh al-Sudeis said militancy was not a valid interpretation of Islam. "Because Muslims have strayed from moderation, we are now suffering from this dangerous phenomenon of branding people infidels and inciting Muslims to rise against their leaders to cause instability," he said.

"The reason for this is a delinquent and void interpretation of Islam based on ignorance ... faith does not mean killing Muslims or non-Muslims who live among us, it does not mean shedding blood, terrorising or sending body parts flying."

The preacher warned that extremism would ruin the Muslim nation: "This phenomenon has expanded so much that scholars must confront it with concrete proof from Islam to protect our youth from its stench and putridity."

[greglondon]

We're blamed for everything.

There's nothing to say. It's a joke. We win in the end. So, it'll all work out for us. That's for sure.

Saying "we're blamed for everything" is arguing that
we are blameless for anything.

How about owning up to our screw ups, when we make them?
Or can we not screw up?
(except for when the democrats are in power, I'm sure)

we will win in the end?
must be nice to live in that world.
Did that same argument explain Vietnam?

[SpookyWriter]

Saying "we're blamed for everything" is arguing that
we are blameless for anything.We can't be blamed for what isn't our fault.

How about owning up to our screw ups, when we make them?
Or can we not screw up?
(except for when the democrats are in power, I'm sure)We can't screw up what is already screwed up. It's nice to help out though.

we will win in the end?
must be nice to live in that world.
Did that same argument explain Vietnam?We always win. Vietnam is going to become a trading partner someday. They forgave us for the misunderstanding thirty years ago. That's the past. We won the future.

[greglondon]

We can't be blamed for what isn't our fault..

But when Billy says "We're blamed for everything",
he's pulling a strawman that implies nothing is our fault.

We always win. Vietnam is going to become a trading partner someday. They forgave us for the misunderstanding thirty years ago. That's the past. We won the future.

Misunderstanding?

We won the future?

So, with that logic, let's get the hell out of Iraq NOW
because no matter what we do, and no matter what happens,
they'll eventually forgive us and then we'll win "the future".

Hooray!

Oh, but you don't mean that now, do you?

[Cav Guy]

Moderate voices don't sell papers or tv advertising, but they are out there. The problem is, when people aren't served their message on a silver platter, and when an opposing army doesn't magically appear to put a stop to terrorism, they assume the moderates are just a handful of peaceniks. Here's a few:

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

A leading Saudi cleric issued a plea today for Muslims not to heed calls to wage terror attacks in the name of Islam. Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Sudeis, the state-appointed preacher at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, told pilgrims in a sermon marking the feast of Eid al-Adha that scholars must preach moderation to confront militants, who were using "misguided and void" interpretations to justify violence. His sermon, dedicated to the 2.5 million Muslims performing the hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, echoed comments made yesterday by Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al Sheik. The kingdom's grand mufti said the greatest test to the nation of Islam came from its sons who were "lured by the devil" to carry out acts of violence.

Sheikh al-Sudeis said militancy was not a valid interpretation of Islam. "Because Muslims have strayed from moderation, we are now suffering from this dangerous phenomenon of branding people infidels and inciting Muslims to rise against their leaders to cause instability," he said.

"The reason for this is a delinquent and void interpretation of Islam based on ignorance ... faith does not mean killing Muslims or non-Muslims who live among us, it does not mean shedding blood, terrorising or sending body parts flying."

The preacher warned that extremism would ruin the Muslim nation: "This phenomenon has expanded so much that scholars must confront it with concrete proof from Islam to protect our youth from its stench and putridity."

I wonder how long it will be before one of the "true believers" issues a hit order on the guy?

[SpookyWriter]

So, with that logic, let's get the hell out of Iraq NOW
because no matter what we do, and no matter what happens,
they'll eventually forgive us and then we'll win "the future".
If history has shown us anything is that let's not rush and do the job right.

[greglondon]

If history has shown us anything is that let's not rush and do the job right.

Of course.

we should only apply your argument that time heals all wounds when
we've made a mistake long in the past, and we're too gutless to admit
it was a mistake. Instead, it all turned out OK. It was a victory in the
long run. We were never really wrong. Just a different timescale.

The irrelvance of "time heals all wounds" of couse shows up in the
immediate scenarios where we are in the middle of a massive mistake.
then of course, it doesn't apply. Do the job "right", for some definition
of "right".

What it is, then, is nothing more than a train of thought invoked whenever
we have made a mistake. Rather than admit we mucked up, we say
"stay the course" and if we just have the "will" we will eventually win.
Nothing like never having to admit a mistake if history will always
eventually prove us right.

How convenient.

How's that plan working out in describing the CIA's overthrow of
the democratic government of Iran back in 1953?
Is that a mistake, or have we not waited long enough for history
to sort that one out correctly?

I mean since you're invoking historical precedence here,
it seems like this should be a relevent case.

Was that a US mistake?
Or were we right and we just have to wait a little while longer?

[SpookyWriter]

How's that plan working out in describing the CIA's overthrow of
the democratic government of Iran back in 1953?
Is that a mistake, or have we not waited long enough for history
to sort that one out correctly?Seems to be working just fine for the Iranians. Don't you think?

[greglondon]

Seems to be working just fine for the Iranians. Don't you think?

Hooray! We win!

Wow. That's easy enough.

It is a victory because I say so.

Avoiding responsibility was never so easier.

[SpookyWriter]

Hooray! We win!

Wow. That's easy enough.

It is a victory because I say so.

Avoiding responsibility was never so easier.But who gets decide responsibility? That's the real question.

[greglondon]

But who gets decide responsibility? That's the real question.

Right, because that's too slippery of a word to define objectively.

Come on, spooky, say it's all "subjective".
That's always a fun angle to play when things get too stickey.
I think Rob was going on a tear for a while about something or other
being too subjective. Might as well join the party.

On the other hand, if you want to play in the real world,
responsibility would mean you own up to what you did
without excuses. And you acknowledge your actions when
they fail to meet your commitments, like a promise to follow the GC.

ya know,something like:

Yes, we bombed this beach. It was an accident.
And it was completely inexcusable.
We apologize. and here's restitution.


Basically, responsibility is taking ownership of your actions
and the outcomes of your actions. Not laying blame on
anyone else. Claiming it as your own, and sucking up
the damages that it caused.

You know, "the buck stops here" kind of mentality.

But of course, that's too hard to define, isn't it?
Too alien of a concept?
Shrub hasn't demonstrated responsibility for anything
that's happened for the last six years.

Why should the neocons start now...

[Unique]

I wonder how long it will be before one of the "true believers" issues a hit order on the guy?

I do believe that's why they haven't said much so far. Who wants to be a target? Especially a dead target.

[janetbellinger]

Who always wins? Or did I hear that right?

[SC Harrison]

I wonder how long it will be before one of the "true believers" issues a hit order on the guy?

In all honesty, this guy has previously preached the destruction of Israel, Hindus, Americans in Iraq, etc. Like many others though, witnessing the Muslim-on-Muslim killing of the last few years (I believe) has shaken his belief that violence is a key element in strengthening Islam (as a religion), and is merely a tool that men use to take things from each other.

I know that doesn't meet the standard we would like to see in a "moderate", but frankly, any motivation that brings an Islamic leader to call for a halt to violence is good enough for me. I have a feeling there will need to be many compromises made in this war on terror, and not all of them will seem wise, especially to those who dream of "Total Victory" over Islamic fundamentalists.

[dclary]

2 billion lives a month? At this rate we'll be out of people by St. Patrick's Day!

[billythrilly7th]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-11-29-iraq_x.htm

Well, well, well. We may have a plan. What? You mean involve Syria and Iran?

Hope so, cuz according to USA Today, the combined wars are costing us around 2 billion a month, not to mention lives.


There's no "working with Iran and Syria."

It's simply a decision to work and negotiate with terrorists in the hopes of saving face in Iraq.

I really hope we don't put the future security of the free world and Israel ahead of saving face in Iraq.

Oh, Iran and Syria are going to help US?

:laughing:

Wow.

I wonder what they would want in return?

Nuclear weapons, backing down from sanctions, ending support for Israel?

Working with Iran and Syria, two of the most evil, back stabbing, power hungry murdering countries on the planet is a joke.

I'll pull the plug on the whole Iraq thing before I gave into them one iota on a single issue.

Unless someone can come up with a few iotas that I can swallow. I highly doubt it.

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

I could've sworn you were a Baker boy, Billy. It's his idea.

As Dreyfuss said in Jaws, "You got any better ideas?"

Yeah. Kill Sadr and let's the flock out.

Listen, I'm willing to talk to them. Absolutely. I'm willing to hear them out.

So, in that sense, sure I have no problem with that idea.

But let's face it, why in god's name would Iran and Syria help us out in Iraq without MAJOR capitulations on our policies toward them?

They won't.

Ultimately, it's a dead end.

But maybe we can bribe them or something. I'm willing to listen.

:Shrug:

The fact is Iran doesn't know what to do. On one hand, they want to keep the violence going in Iraq forcing us to withdraw, embarassed, on the other hand they see an opportunity to get some stuff from us.

So....uh....yeah... :Shrug:

[billythrilly7th]

Billy, what I think you're missing is the ME philosphy. They see themselves brothers. Islam.

That's a weird brotherhood that has them fighting wars against each other like Iran/Iraq and has sunni blowing up shias and Al Quedas blowing up hotels full of Muslims etc.

I guess you're right. I am missing and/or don't understand the brotherhood of Middle Eastern Islam.

Oh well.

[billythrilly7th]

No it's not that weird. It's almost family mentality. It's brutal but they'll sort it out without us.

Yeah, well, as long as we support Israel, which we should and will, they'll keep us involved a'la 9/11.

So....ultimately we're gonna have to pound them until they say "uncle."

Sad state of affairs.

[blacbird]

I really hope we don't put the future security of the free world and Israel ahead of saving face in Iraq.

Every now and then you say the most amazingly clear things, Thrillsy.

Unfortunately, for the next two years, we're still led by a man who continues to insist that Al-Qaeda is behind the violence in Iraq, which he did in a speech in Latvia just two days ago. Christ, his own military intelligence people estimate that Al-Qaida in Iraq (which is affiliated with Bin-Laden and the boys mainly by sentiment and admiration, thus adopting the name) is responsible for only 1-3% of the current violence there, the rest being assignable to the sectarian warfare that has erupted in the power vacuum we generated. And I don't give sloth spit whether you call that a "civil war" or not, it is what it is, and whatever label you slap across it doesn't change that.

Oh, and then there's the matter of the re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which we are in no way equipped right now to deal with. And how close are we to catching Bin-Laden and Zawahiri? Oh, yeah, and about them Palestinians . . .

Meantime, Janjaweed raiders have probably just killed another few hundred villagers in Darfur and eastern Chad today. Merry Christmas.

caw

[billythrilly7th]

Every now and then you say the most amazingly clear things, Thrillsy.

Everything I say is amazingly clear. It's too bad you're only clear enough to realize that every now and then.

Thank you.
:)

[billythrilly7th]

Iraqi forces will be ready to take over security in June according to Malaki.

Thank you.

[blacbird]

Iraqi forces will be ready to take over security in June according to Malaki.

Yep, he sure 'nuff did say that. To which our response ought to be, "Okeydokey, you got it. Here's the ball."

And how exactly does this differ from what Murtha and other Dems have been calling for, a timetable for turnover to induce the Iraqis to take on that responsibility?

caw

[billythrilly7th]

Yep, he sure 'nuff did say that. To which our response ought to be, "Okeydokey, you got it. Here's the ball."

And how exactly does this differ from what Murtha and other Dems have been calling for, a timetable for turnover to induce the Iraqis to take on that responsibility?

Murtha didn't want a timetable. He wanted everyone "out!"

As far as the more lucid democrats who wanted a timetable, Bush always said, when the Iraqi people can stand up, we'll stand down.

Malachi is saying "we're gonna be ready."

It's a timetable based on events on the ground not random dates on a calendar.

But yes...it's good that the Iraqis have a time where their leader is saying "We're gonna be ready."

I hope friggin so.

[Bravo]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061203/1/458dh.html

Old Rummey knew it wasn't working. I don't know why, but I see him as a tragic figure straight out of Shakespeare.

I hate these kinds of lessons. I hate them because men like Rummey fall so hard, sacrificed as an example to all of us. Hubris is so insidious that we can't see it in ourselves until it's too late.

I feel for him. I hope he's ultimately remembered for better years.

youre a lot nicer than i am.

[Jean Marie]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061203/1/458dh.html

Old Rummey knew it wasn't working. I don't know why, but I see him as a tragic figure straight out of Shakespeare.

I hate these kinds of lessons. I hate them because men like Rummey fall so hard, sacrificed as an example to all of us. Hubris is so insidious that we can't see it in ourselves until it's too late.

I feel for him. I hope he's ultimately remembered for better years.
That's almost an insult to Shakespeare.

Rummy should have been booted long ago.

Actually, he never should have been given the job, in the first place. Definitely should have gone to Colin--a man w/ experience in the field. Double duh on that one.

On the other hand, we never should have gone into Iraq. Ever. Horrendous info by CIA, which was downsized by previous administration.

Should have finished job in Afghanistan. In its entirety. Still haven't.

'Course, now that we're in deep doo-doo, we pull out now...it will be a re-enactment of the fall of Saigon. Not sure where the helo's will take off from, though--y'all remember that scene--people of all ages hanging/falling from the skids...incredibly haunting. Especially w/ the fires in the background.

[billythrilly7th]

Agree with him and his policies or not, like him or not, Rumsfeld is a patriot.

God bless you, Donald.

Thanks for your service to the country and enjoy your retirement.

And in the words of J. Peterman, "Kudos, Donald, on a job....done."

[blacbird]

Agree with him and his policies or not, like him or not, Rumsfeld is a patriot.

So was Joe McCarthy. So was Adolf Hitler. So is Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Being a patriot is not an unalloyed virtue. Especially if you allow your "patriotism" to obscure your judgment and common sense.

caw

[billythrilly7th]

Being a patriot is not an unalloyed virtue.

Whatever that means...

Rumsfeld is the good kind of patriot.

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

Birdfight!!!

:popcorn:

[blacbird]

Whatever that means...


Therein, Thrillsy, you reveal a problem. I suspect most people here have no difficulty interpreting my statement.

caw

[blacbird]

Bbird -

He's a tragic figure; he made mistakes. But imo, that doesn't preclude him from a place in history somewhat apart from Adolph Hitler. You know my political leanings, bbird, but sheesh.

Read closely. I didn't equate him with Adolf Hitler. I was simply trying to make a point (lost on Thrillsy, apparently) that patriotism isn't to be equated with sanctity.

Expressed better by a writer better than I am:

PATRIOT, n. One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.

PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the
last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.


The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce.


caw

[billythrilly7th]

Therein, Thrillsy, you reveal a problem. I suspect most people here have no difficulty interpreting my statement.

caw

I'm not most people.

Thank you.
:)

[robeiae]

Annan's comments. . . .It's almost unbearable to hear about Iraq. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061203/1/458j7.html

At least 30 Iraqis were killed -- a day after a deadly bomb attack in Baghdad -- as outgoing UN chief Kofi Annan said the bloodshed in the violence-wracked country was worse than a civil war.Not to minimize the violence, but Annan is an @ss.

In an interview with the BBC, Annan said: "When we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war -- this is much worse."

Much worse than Rwanda, for starters? But I expect no better from him.

And if he doesn't want to call it a civil war, what doe he want to call it? Nothing, really--he just wants to seem significant.

[robeiae]

Very good points, Rob. But what do you call a situation like this? It's so savage that it seems surreal. I mean, is this anarchy? Or is Iraq dominated by madness, as in Rwanda?I'm not sure why it is supposed to be all that unique, with regard to the violence and such.

Something like one miilion people died in Rwanda in its civil war in just one year. And Iraq has three times the population of Rwanda. Have three million Iraqis died in this conflict in 2006? I don't think so.

And again, that's not to minimize the violence, just to put it in perspective.

[blacbird]

It doesn't make a quark of difference whether the thing is called a "civil war", an "insurrection", or whatever else. It is what it is, and the labeling argument has come about to feed domestic political agendas, and for no other reason. The Bush Administration has been inordinately concerned with labels and slogans from Day One, always with 1.9 eyes on their domestic political interests, and it hasn't served either them or the nation very well.

caw

[robeiae]

It doesn't make a quark of difference whether the thing is called a "civil war", an "insurrection", or whatever else. It is what it is, and the labeling argument has come about to feed domestic political agendas, and for no other reason. The Bush Administration has been inordinately concerned with labels and slogans from Day One, always with 1.9 eyes on their domestic political interests, and it hasn't served either them or the nation very well.I don't disagree. Of course, that's par for the course for pretty much any admin and any political opponent.

The chairman of the UN is clearly playing the same game, though not so well...

[army_grunt13]

I make it a point of not getting involved in these types of discussions, however I do have a few things to add.

First off, Rumsfeld having been a Naval Aviator proved to be a detriment, when the war is being fought on the ground by grunts and Marines. Guys in power will always see to it that their old branches get hooked up. That's just the way it is. If the Army Chief of Staff is an old Infantryman, you can bet all the grunts will be dancing in the streets. As a former aviator, Rumsfeld was all about pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the latest superfighters for the Navy and Air Force to fight an imaginary enemy air force that doesn't exist. Meanwhile, during the first years of the war, guys on the ground had insufficient armor on their vehicles, parents and friends are having to send them body armor, etc. Don't believe me? Ok, here are a couple of examples that I personally witnessed. 1) When we showed up, half our humvees (which by the way were never meant to be used as a combat vehicle anymore than the old jeeps were) were what we called "bait trucks." They had a cargo bed for throwing troops in, with no side armor (hence the bait for the bad guys). Not only that, but there was no floor armor on them. We had a Soldier get his leg blown clean off because a blast shot right through the floorboards of his humvee. He did not survive. While money that could have been spent properly arming the guys doing the actual fighting was instead used to buy unneeded planes that cost over $100 million apiece, this Soldier bled to death from a severed femoral artery. Put a price on that! I'm sure everyone remembers Rumsfeld getting confronted by that Soldier in Kuwait about why we were having to bolt on rusted hunks of metal onto our vehicles because they weren't armored. Guess what, I was there during that conference. It happened at Camp Beuhring in Kuwait, just before we jumped across the border. 2) We had no commo for our teams on the ground! And yet all these "experts" were going ballistic because we were using our own Motorola radios. I saw a cartoon one time that showed a trooper opening up a package from home. Inside is a couple of packets holding Motorolas. The trooper is all ecstatic and says, "Guys, my Mom sent us commo!!!" Try fighting in urban terrain when your teams can't even talk to each other. Talk about a fratricide incident waiting to happen!

What I get tired of is the typical arguments that come from both liberals and conservatives. To be honest, if I hear anybody who identifies themselves as either talking about the war, I shut my ears down to what they are saying. It's the same rhetoric over and over again, coming from people who think they are experts, and yet have no actual first-hand experience to back it up. The other thing that disgusts me is when peoples' patriotism gets questioned because they actually think for themselves. Hey, if somebody doesn't agree with you, that doesn't mean they love their country any less than you do!

Ok, now that the ranting about that is done, here is what I really think. I for one do not regret anything we did over there. I have about zero simpathy for those people that are killing each other, and why should I? Fact is, the very people who I tried to help during the day were some of the same ones trying to blow my ass up that night. If they want to kill each other, so be it. Right now we have a legitimate reason to invade Iran, and we won't do it because we are bogged down in Iraq.

Fact is, war is the ultimate abomination of mankind. However, if you are going to do it, then understand what it is all about. War is punishment against a nation that has wronged you to the point that you are willing cause death and devastation. That does NOT mean trying to rebuild the bastards when it's over! We invaded Iraq to punish Saddam Hussein. Ok, we killed his sons, destroyed his army, and captured him. Mission complete, let's go home. Oh, you say we left chaos and destruction in our wake. Too bad! And guess what, I believe the destruction would not be nearly as bad had we left when the job was done. Not only that, but countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea would be soiling themselves right about now, fearing they could be next. The concept of "total war" has been around since time began. We used it all the way up until the last few decades. Imagine if you will if we had tried to fight Japan in a manner like "Operation Japan Freedom." Wouldn't have worked.

America is the strongest superpower since Rome. Thing is, Rome knew how to handle foreign aggression. That was the very plot of my first book. They invaded Germania from 14 - 16 A.D. on a mission of annihilation to avenge the disaster in Teutoburger Wald. That was how they viewed war. It was either a war of conquest, or one of annihilation. We are trying to be Rome, but in a nicer way. This is the wrong way to think. Our responsibility as a superpower, not to mention to our Soldiers who fight the wars, is to win wars in the same manner as Rome. If you are going to commit to it, then you commit fully, and you show NO mercy. If you don't think that it would be right to unleash your full wrath on another nation, then that means war is not the answer to the situation. If on the other hand you are willing to do so, then it must be done right.

There is no such thing as a humanitarian war, and that is what we are trying to do. Our Soldiers are killers, not nation builders. Leave that work to organizations who specialize in it. Whatever our job specialties may be, the purpose of the American Soldier is to find the enemy and kill him.

So what's the answer? The answer is that the war on terrorism is fighting a very real threat. If we are to succeed, then we can't keep playing the "good guy." I'd rather be alive and win the war, than be a dead good guy! You find who the enemy is, and you destroy them with overwhelming force. This concept of not wanting to use "disproportionate force" is a load of crap. OF COURSE you want to use disproportionate force!

Ok, I'm done ranting. In the end, I think it is time for us to leave Iraq, and start focusing on other targets in the war on terror. Iran needs its ass beat, it does not need us to try and rebuild them. Oh, and anybody who still thinks this is a war about oil is an idiot. If it were, I wouldn't still be paying $2.50 a gallon for gas! No war for oil? Why not? At least give me something tangible for having spent a year in that hell-hole. . .

[billythrilly7th]

The chairman of the UN is clearly playing the same game, though not so well...

Exactly four more weeks for this hump and then it's adios.

Hopefully the next guy won't be as worthless.

[dclary]

We're almost 200 posts in... have we decided if Iraq is Vietnam yet?

[blacbird]

We're almost 200 posts in... have we decided if Iraq is Vietnam yet?

It isn't. No war is the precise equivalent of a previous one. BUT, if you can't learn the lessons taught in a previous war, the danger of repeating them is greatly enhanced. Among the gravest errors in both Vietnam and Iraq has been the assumption that we knew at the outset what we were doing, and failure to appreciate and evaluate the risks of unintended consequences.

Oh, yeah, those and the knee-jerk reflex of painting anyone who expressed reservations or criticisms of strategy and policies as "unpatriotic".

caw

[dclary]

Why do you hate America?

[jst5150]

Greetings from the one person in this thread currently in the Middle East fighting that particular war (and if you tell me I am "too close to the fight" to have an opinion, I swear I'll punch ya), in addition to supporting the effort in Afghanistan (yes, we still have troops fighting every day there) and (one you all forgot) the work in the Horn of Africa:

Just a few things to ponder as you eviscerate information mostly gathered and collected from media reports and presented hereto with mostly good intentions; and come to a decision that would ultimately answer the question and cool this debate:

-- It would be helpful to "walk a mile." You choose the shoes -- politicians, soldiers, Middle Eastern citizenry. I'd recommend walking for about five years or so. Spending three days, two weeks or even six months (in government work especially) just ain't enough to "get it." When you've returned from your walk, you responses here will be dissimilar to those you have posted previously.

-- It's also helpful to note that what the media, the pundits and the political evangelicals feed you is rarely fact. It is rarely accurate. It may be half-fact; quarter-fact and sometimes not fact at all. This is not to say I know more than you, though for small aspects, I do. And so do thousands of decison makers and military leaders a half-mile's pay grade over my head. The key here is the facts are skewed to fit agendas regardless of which angle the come from. Given the briefings I attend each morning and the actual work were doing, what I would tell you is you could be approaching this with a pinpoint myopia if you don't stop to consider all facets of this.

-- The question is polarizing and it is intended to be. The people who pose it are asking you to lean one way or the other. If you cannot or will not, you are of no use to them. They are culling their talking points. If you cannot contribute to that, please move on. So you must answer "like Vietnam" so the "like Vietnam" talking points can spout forth; or answer "not like Vietnam" so they can spout the "not like Vietnam" talking points. What it ignores is this simple fact: is this like Vietnam from what aspect? Politically? Militarily? Socially? Ethnically? Again, because someone's talking points can't be satisfied with a multifaceted answer that needed, you must answer "it is" or "it ain't," or you are marginalized.

However, while I am also young, many of you must be as well. So, just a few thoughts on similarities and differences:

-- Vietnam had a involuntary conscription. Iraq does not. (You may have heard the term "stop loss" and the military using that as a "back-door draft." If you believe this, PM me so I can set you straight.)
-- For Vietnam, the social climate in America was one of vehement opposition. For Iraq, it's moderate and, at worst, trying.
-- Not accounting for allied casualties (yes, Canada and Australia were there, too), for the Vietnam conflict, 58,184. There are still better than 1,800 missing in action. For Iraq, better than 2,500 dead; 1 missing (from Desert Storm). Even at the current pace, the US would have to be continuously engaged for better than 58 years to catch up with the number of casualties from the Vietnam conflict.
-- Vietnam is considered a big fat 'L' in the win-loss column for the U-S of A. And, oh by the way, Vietnam is now one of our best trading partners. What happens in Iraq, Afghnaistan and the Horn of Africa remains to be seen.

Important to note, however, that radicals very much want to reform the caliphite. And those areas have prime real estate to do as much. Also important to note that as China grows stronger economically, and Iran rattles its sabers, having a watch tower nearby either of those places can't hurt.

Finally, I'll end with this: there are few jobs I would say you gotta do it to get it. Military service would be one. Political service another. There are others, I'm sure. Still, to debate this on the face of what the media -- a business out to make a buck with Constitutional support -- is supplying us for information is silly. To make a decision and change societal face based on that information would be more so.

jt

[blacbird]

-- For Vietnam, the social climate in America was one of vehement opposition. For Iraq, it's moderate and, at worst, trying.

Interesting and informative comment. As a Vietnam vet, I have one clarifying caveat to the above statement, however. The Vietnam War situation only became one of public opposition after 1966, after we'd had a substantial number of troops involved in direct combat operations for about three years. And even then, it evolved rather slowly, only becoming "vehement" in early 1968, following the Tet Offensive, when it became clear to a majority of the public that their government wasn't leveling with them about the war, its progress, its goals, even the reason for its undertaking.

We've now been actively involved in combat in Iraq for 3 1/2 years. As in Vietnam, certain aspects of the operation are becoming clear.

caw.

[Sheryl Nantus]

not that history was my best subject, but I don't recall the Vietnamese killing each other over religious beliefs...

[SC Harrison]

Important to note, however, that radicals very much want to reform the caliphite. And those areas have prime real estate to do as much. Also important to note that as China grows stronger economically, and Iran rattles its sabers, having a watch tower nearby either of those places can't hurt.



You're too close to the fight to have an opinion, Jst. :) Just kidding.

I agree with what you're saying about the Caliphate, but I'm not so sure about the watchtower thing. It might be easier to gather humint, but our presence is also fuel for the radicals, who seem to be inserting themselves into nearly every organization in the country.

[dclary]

not that history was my best subject, but I don't recall the Vietnamese killing each other over religious beliefs...

They were killing each other over political beliefs, Sheryl.

[Jean Marie]

Why do you hate America?
who's that question addressed to? it followed blacbird's post, he fought in Vietnam. it was shortly after grunt's post, he's fought in Iraq.

where have you served, lately? just wondering.

and why is it that disagreement ='s hatred of America in your mind, anyway? such a childish argument. and ridiculous.

[Jean Marie]

BoP, thank you for listing Rummy's creds. a fine record he has, indeed. however, it does not get him off the hook for having made a grievous error, IMO.

[jst5150]

Your post is much appreciated. However, you've said nothing to persuade me that our mission in Iraq is a constructive one.
Good. That was not my intent.
Are you saying it isn't like Vietnam, as in not a big L, and in fact winnable?
Neither. I offered fodder for discussion as someone who is here ankle-deep in it. I also bring 19 years of military/government experience in public relations to the table.
If you'd like to let us know exactly how we've got it wrong, as a man in the field so to speak, please be so kind when you get a chance. The best to you, Sir.
That would be arrogant, callous and ill-advised. It would also be far from my intent. See the above note. Further, I am a soldier. I serve according to my government's direction; my direction, therefore, is my government's. One may not like a policy one's employer implements, but one usually tows the company line because one wants and needs the paycheck and the benefits. While military service differs in its veracity, it is an apt comparison nonetheless. "My country, right or or wrong, but always ... my country."
A footnote: You said Vietnam is one of our best trading partners? Are you implying that our current relationship with Vietnam came about because of our protracted military involvement there?
I'm saying time heals all political wounds.
Because if anything, I think it speaks to the squander of an aggressive military policy and the appalling loss over over 58,000 that could have been avoided with the same net result. But maybe I didn't quite understand your point.
Admittedly, I am not that well read to make any of the conclusions. I'm merely stating fact.

[jst5150]

I agree with what you're saying about the Caliphate, but I'm not so sure about the watchtower thing. It might be easier to gather humint, but our presence is also fuel for the radicals, who seem to be inserting themselves into nearly every organization in the country.
There's a fantastic scene in "Patriot Games" when the IRA radicals outwit the satellites. That happens a lot. Also, by which are you more intimidated -- the camera in the corner of the room or the 320-pound, guns of steel, hot-dog package neck bouncer standing 25 feet away?

[jst5150]

Interesting and informative comment. As a Vietnam vet, I have one clarifying caveat to the above statement, however. The Vietnam War situation only became one of public opposition after 1966, after we'd had a substantial number of troops involved in direct combat operations for about three years. And even then, it evolved rather slowly, only becoming "vehement" in early 1968, following the Tet Offensive, when it became clear to a majority of the public that their government wasn't leveling with them about the war, its progress, its goals, even the reason for its undertaking. We've now been actively involved in combat in Iraq for 3 1/2 years. As in Vietnam, certain aspects of the operation are becoming clear. caw.
My only addition to this would be this: how does mass media affect, quell, stoke or simply ignore what may evolve? So much visibility was not a byproduct of Vietnam. Admittedly, the right things were visible. Just not as much of it as now.

[dclary]

who's that question addressed to? it followed blacbird's post, he fought in Vietnam. it was shortly after grunt's post, he's fought in Iraq.

where have you served, lately? just wondering.

and why is it that disagreement ='s hatred of America in your mind, anyway? such a childish argument. and ridiculous.

LOL, chill. It's an inside joke for regular attenders of these threads.

For the record, I joined the USMC in 1987. I was subsequently released in 1988 because of a blown knee from an earlier motorcycle accident. My heart was willing, my body was not.

I tried again, enlisting in the US Navy in 1991. They were scaling down post-Gulf War I, however, and my tenure with them was even shorter than my tenure in the Marines.

Where have I served lately? I am currently in physical training and rehab for a summer 2007 enlistment with the US Army.

What about you?

[dclary]

Yes, and I still fail to see what difference it makes.

I agree here. War is war, regardless of the reason.

[ColoradoGuy]

They were killing each other over political beliefs, Sheryl.
Yes, and I still fail to see what difference it makes.
My favorite Frank Herbert line: "When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way."

[dclary]

Mine was "Paul Atreides! I must leave you here. You're about to become the progeny of a giant future-telling sandworm, and I've been commissioned an officer in star fleet. I shall soon captain the Enterprise!" -- Gurney Halleck

[blacbird]

not that history was my best subject, but I don't recall the Vietnamese killing each other over religious beliefs...

Actually, there was a significant religious element involved in the Vietnam situation. When the French skedaddled in 1954 and the country was divided, we chose to prop up a minority Roman Catholic clique heading the southern half. They were wealthy upper-classers who treated the mainly Buddhist poorer populace with transparent disdain, and were hated accordingly. Never did this "government" have any real popular support, and that made it much easier for the Viet Cong to gain support in the countryside.

caw

[army_grunt13]

There's a fantastic scene in "Patriot Games" when the IRA radicals outwit the satellites. That happens a lot. Also, by which are you more intimidated -- the camera in the corner of the room or the 320-pound, guns of steel, hot-dog package neck bouncer standing 25 feet away? Lots of good points in your posts, Brother. Just curious, what areas have you been to? I like to get viewpoints from those who served in different regions than I did.

I was attached to the 1st Infantry Division in Baquba up until the first round of elections in January 2005. We were then moved up to Kirkuk, where our Brigade fell under the 42nd Infantry Division. The Kurds and Assyrians were great to work with, though I could care less about the rest of them (and that's putting it mildly). For the most part I was stationed on a small patrol base, which in reality was a small cluster of Iraqi houses surrounded by a wall. There were only about 140 of us there, though personally I preferred being away from the main FOB. All told, I was in theater from November 2004 to November 2005.

[English Dave]

My only addition to this would be this: how does mass media affect, quell, stoke or simply ignore what may evolve?

Good point. It depends on your definition of impartiality. The best you can do is listen to news from as many sources as possible, then make your own mind up.

[Cav Guy]

Actually, there was a significant religious element involved in the Vietnam situation. When the French skedaddled in 1954 and the country was divided, we chose to prop up a minority Roman Catholic clique heading the southern half. They were wealthy upper-classers who treated the mainly Buddhist poorer populace with transparent disdain, and were hated accordingly. Never did this "government" have any real popular support, and that made it much easier for the Viet Cong to gain support in the countryside.

caw

One should also remember the Montagnard minority which was persecuted by Vietnamese of all religious and political persuasions, as well as the Nung (who were of Chinese extraction). Vietnam was ethnic as well as religious in character.

[blacbird]

One should also remember the Montagnard minority which was persecuted by Vietnamese of all religious and political persuasions, as well as the Nung (who were of Chinese extraction). Vietnam was ethnic as well as religious in character.

Yup. Far more complex situation than today's public generally recognizes.

caw

[Jean Marie]

LOL, chill. It's an inside joke for regular attenders of these threads.

For the record, I joined the USMC in 1987. I was subsequently released in 1988 because of a blown knee from an earlier motorcycle accident. My heart was willing, my body was not.

I tried again, enlisting in the US Navy in 1991. They were scaling down post-Gulf War I, however, and my tenure with them was even shorter than my tenure in the Marines.

Where have I served lately? I am currently in physical training and rehab for a summer 2007 enlistment with the US Army.

What about you?
I'm a regular, here, and don't find it humorous.

I'm a first responder. Have been for 10 years.

Thank you.

[English Dave]

I'm a regular, here, and don't find it humorous.

I'm a first responder. Have been for 10 years.

Thank you.

So what's your excuse? Send me a postcard from Iraq.

[SC Harrison]

There's a fantastic scene in "Patriot Games" when the IRA radicals outwit the satellites. That happens a lot. Also, by which are you more intimidated -- the camera in the corner of the room or the 320-pound, guns of steel, hot-dog package neck bouncer standing 25 feet away?

Yeah, but they retasked the satellites (because they knew the bad guys knew about them), caught the terrorists unawares, sent in the SAS, killed everybody in the camp, then disappeared quickly. Cool movie, by the way. :)

The thing is, we've turned a covert war into an overt one, and we've given more credence to the radicals' claims that they are defending against a new Crusade. We're making their point for them, and legitimizing them in the process.

As far as the camera vs the monster bouncer, keep this in mind—the camera represents a wide range of possible ramifications, while the bouncer is a quantifiable threat.

[TheGaffer]

Jean Marie, clary's "why do you hate America" phrase is indeed one that's morphed into a joke. Blowhards on the right for a while there (in 02-03) were using this one constantly to attack people who disagreed with the president or his policies. So it became a joke to just say it over and over again anytime a disagreement boils down to something trivial. The phrase has been completely stripped of its meaning - thankfully.


It's also helpful to note that what the media, the pundits and the political evangelicals feed you is rarely fact. It is rarely accurate. It may be half-fact; quarter-fact and sometimes not fact at all. This is not to say I know more than you, though for small aspects, I do. And so do thousands of decison makers and military leaders a half-mile's pay grade over my head. The key here is the facts are skewed to fit agendas regardless of which angle the come from.

Can you expand on the first part of this more JST? As a member of the fourth estate I'm interested more in your thoughts (not about the pundits and the political evangelists. I know about their POV - more about the media that's trying to present this as straight-forward as possible). While the media is indeed a money-making operation the idea had always been that if you lose your credibility your $$$ suffer. This may no longer be the case (for a long time, media organizations considered the news division a loss-leader, figuring the good work would offset the expense, to be made up with interviews with Liberace, Madonna and Britney Spears and shows like "Who Wants to Bang My Wife for $135 million!!!?!!????") It's not the case anymore and I believe the media has suffered for it. Also, there are quite a few people I do read who are on the ground in Iraq (reporters) and I've spoken to a couple who have come back who have a good take on the situation too. They're seeing things from a ground-level that you are - but of course have to take in the bigger picture as well. Again, I'm just curious about your opinions here.

[Jean Marie]

So what's your excuse? Send me a postcard from Iraq.
I said: I'm a first responder and have been for 10 years. (my current age prevents me from serving in Iraq--thus, 1st responder)

Oh wait, you don't know what that is.

Google is your friend--and look, Mac's put a Google search bar right on the AW page :)

Thanks, Gaff

[army_grunt13]

Good point. It depends on your definition of impartiality. The best you can do is listen to news from as many sources as possible, then make your own mind up. What was really weird was going out on a mission, only to come back and get an email from my Dad, detailing that exact mission as told on Fox News or CNN. He would always ask me if I was involved in that one, and what REALLY happened (what I was allowed to say, anyway). There were a couple of times where I would read the news article and think, "oh, so THAT'S what really happened!" :e2smack:

Kind of cool, but kind of scary at the same time; that people back home were able to see the war almost in real-time.

[Unique]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061206/1/45aoy.html

Gates says we're not winning. Step forward.

But he isn't for negotiations with Iran. Step backward.

But he'll talk to Syria. Step forward.

No timetable for withdrawal. Step backward.

Smaller forces in Iraq. Step forward.

Nobody knows what the hell to do.

It sounds like dancing. Maybe we should try that.

[jst5150]

Can you expand on the first part of this more JST? As a member of the fourth estate I'm interested more in your thoughts (not about the pundits and the political evangelists. I know about their POV - more about the media that's trying to present this as straight-forward as possible).

Media conglomerates want their media holdings to make money. News bullpens want to present news. Television personalities want to continue being television personalities. Television news producers want to continue to get share while holding the 25 to 54 year old dem in place. Holding that dem makes them money. See the start of this paragraph. News bullpens filled with news people lose.

As for that "rarely present facts" comment, every reporter has an angle; somehow they want that information to fit their "angle." Rarely would theychange their "angle," so, in despite of whatever facts may be collected, the "angle" from which the reporter tells the story is still his. And there will be omitted facts or facts that only go so far to tell that story. And to every reporter's defense, not everything can be told in one sitting.

While the media is indeed a money-making operation the idea had always been that if you lose your credibility your $$$ suffer.
There's a Fox News joke here, but I'll bypass it. And that loss is short-lived to a TV audience. To that end, I should be been crystal clear: it's television news that's the demogogue here; not print.

This may no longer be the case (for a long time, media organizations considered the news division a loss-leader, figuring the good work would offset the expense, to be made up with interviews with Liberace, Madonna and Britney Spears and shows like "Who Wants to Bang My Wife for $135 million!!!?!!????") It's not the case anymore and I believe the media has suffered for it.
Because of the 24-hour news cycle, which curiously only last about 13 hours, then it seems the largest personalities cannot be bothered past this part of the cycle.
Also, there are quite a few people I do read who are on the ground in Iraq (reporters) and I've spoken to a couple who have come back who have a good take on the situation too.
I agree. That's why the late Ed Bradley, Andy Rooney, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw are credible and clear. Andy Rooney, by the way, is a former reporter for Stars and Stripes.
[quote=TheGaffer]They're seeing things from a ground-level that you are - but of course have to take in the bigger picture as well. Again, I'm just curious about your opinions here.

[Jean Marie]

It sounds like dancing. Maybe we should try that.
It's the fox-trot.

[MacAllister]

I wanna hear the Fox News joke.

[dclary]

That's it.

[ColoradoGuy]

Me too.

[dclary]

No, really, that's it.

You say "Fox news."

And everyone laughs.

Get it?

[robeiae]

How is Mark Fuhrman a criminal (not that I'm a fan of the guy)?
How is Oliver North a criminal?

[robeiae]

Um, well Rob. Mr. Mark lied under oath, and do you not remember the Iran-Contra affair?Um, well "criminal" is a label for those convicted of a crime. Technically, I guess you can call Mark Fuhrman a criminal, but in much the same way someone with a handful of parking tickets is a criminal--what did he get, like a $250 fine? How is Ollie North a criminal? All charges against him were dismissed. Or did you not follow the Iran-Contra affair?

[SC Harrison]

How is Mark Fuhrman a criminal (not that I'm a fan of the guy)?


How about taking almost thirty years to match a bloody golf club to the owner of said golf club? If incompetence were a crime, Fuhrman would have been locked away a long time ago.

[TheGaffer]

As for that "rarely present facts" comment, every reporter has an angle; somehow they want that information to fit their "angle." Rarely would theychange their "angle," so, in despite of whatever facts may be collected, the "angle" from which the reporter tells the story is still his.

This I have to come back at you with. Reporters on the ground often change their angle when a story they think is there is really just not there.

If the idea is general on the level of "people are unhappy about XXX," well, you can always find 3 people to justify your angle, so to speak. Quote them, quote a talking head and you're done, 500 words on the news editor's desk, blah blah blah, let's go get a drink.

But the more specific, the more it has to be right, not wrong. And the closer you are to a ground-level situation, the more likely you are to need to reflect that situation more accurately and put aside preconceived notions. The further you get from this, the more you're just reflecting your own views -- whether you're Tom Friedman, Laura Ingraham, Ted Rall, Pat Buchanan or anyone else.

This is perhaps why, in retrospect, the best reporting coming out of Iraq is from those who have written books - George Packer, Tom Ricks, Anthony Shadid, Sy Hersh - rather than, as you do rightly point out, stories that cannot tell the entire picture in one sitting.

Where I will agree with you on the "angle" is when upper-level editors, particularly at magazines with their own mandate to "reflect trends" rather than simply tell a story about one thing happening at a given moment, will try to massage and crush a lump of coal until it forms that diamond they say is their "angle." TV does this too, even more broadly, as you mention.

[dclary]

I usually use criminal for those who COMMIT a crime, not those who are convicted of one.

That puts Furhman and North squarely in the criminal category.

Sadly, given the pish-posh things that are illegal these days, it puts lots of us in that category.

[blacbird]

I usually use criminal for those who COMMIT a crime, not those who are convicted of one.

That puts Furhman and North squarely in the criminal category.

Sadly, given the pish-posh things that are illegal these days, it puts lots of us in that category.

Not Thrillsy. Just ask him.

caw

[oswann]

[quote=dclary]I usually use criminal for those who COMMIT a crime, not those who are convicted of one.
[quote]

To be convicted the committing of the crime is proven by a judge and jury. No one takes into account if you think they are guilty or not to have the title of criminal attached to them.


Os.

[TheGaffer]

Sadly, given the pish-posh things that are illegal these days, it puts lots of us in that category.

It's not our fault you insist on urinating in public.

[robeiae]

Then given your definition of a criminal, O.J. Simpson should be joining Fox News shortly.

As I said.Okay then, tell me you know that all the commentators on the other networks have never been convicted of a crime or committed a crime? I bet you don't know that at all.

And I really don't care much about Fox--don't watch it. If you had said "Fox News only employs right-wing jerks," or "weenies," or "@ssholes," I would have kept my trap shut. Labeling someone as a "criminal" is pretty harsh, though, at least imo. It suggests that they are active in this regard. As Dclary said, a good chunk of the population can be labeled as a criminal, whether you go by convictions or comissions. Hell, everyone who has posted on this thread ('cept me) might be a criminal. Should we do a background check?

[SC Harrison]

Hell, everyone who has posted on this thread ('cept me) might be a criminal. Should we do a background check?

Go ahead! The Witness Protection program is great, because you get to start over with a clean slate, they get you a cushy job, nobody knows...dammit!

Agent Jeffries is gonna be pissed this time...

[Jean Marie]

What did you expect from him, BoP? An apology? Yeah, right.

He's gonna go back to the private sector and write a book:
If I Had Another Chance

[army_grunt13]

What did you expect from him, BoP? An apology? Yeah, right.

He's gonna go back to the private sector and write a book:
If I Had Another Chance Wouldn't surprise me a bit. "Gee, never mind how many people have died because of my fuck ups, let's make a bit of money off it!"

Sad thing is, you slap a celebrity's name, any celebrity's name, on a book and it will be on the top 10 lists. Just look at Jimmy Carter's book on Palestine. Jews are furious because apparantly it is completely slanted (I haven't read it, so I can't judge it myself), it's getting horrid reviews, plus he's getting nailed for plagiarism, and yet it is still selling like crazy.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Rumsfeld does the book thing. Hell, McNamara did after Vietnam, and how many of our Soldiers died because of HIS policies? That's a sad truth that I have learned over the years, in the big, historical picture, the lives of our Soldiers don't matter a damn, because as individuals they will be forgotten by history. . .

[English Dave]

That's a sad truth that I have learned over the years, in the big, historical picture, the lives of our Soldiers don't matter a damn, because as individuals they will be forgotten by history. . .

Isn't that just the way? From time immemorial persuasive people with an agenda have convinced others to die for them instead of doing us all a favour and doing it themselves?

[billythrilly7th]

Of course Rummy is going to write a book.

It's the American Way.

[army_grunt13]

Of course Rummy is going to write a book.

It's the American Way. Yeah, the only other book I know of from the Second Gulf War (of course I don't go looking for them either) is the Jessica Lynch story. Don't EVEN get me started on that one! Funny thing is, everyone knows who she is, but how many people know who Sgt First Class Paul Smith was?. . .that's what I thought.

SFC Smith was the first, and so far only, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient from the Iraq War. During the battle for the Baghdad airport, SFC Smith became a one-man stronghold, fending off Iraqi forces that had his unit grossly outnumbered. He saved the lives of numerous Soldiers in his Platoon, while at the same time killing approximately 50 Iraqi troops and wounding countless more. He was killed while firing a .50 caliber machine gun from atop a disabled personnel carrier.

It's sad that people made out Jessica Lynch to be some sort of hero that even she admitted she wasn't (she never even fired a single round from her weapon), with book deals and made-for-tv movies, etc. Yet here we have a true hero, whose selfless actions saved the lives of his men, while sacrificing his own. I wonder when they'll get around to telling his story. . .

[English Dave]

Yeah, the only other book I know of from the Second Gulf War (of course I don't go looking for them either) is the Jessica Lynch story. Don't EVEN get me started on that one! Funny thing is, everyone knows who she is, but how many people know who Sgt First Class Paul Smith was?. . .that's what I thought.

SFC Smith was the first, and so far only, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient from the Iraq War. During the battle for the Baghdad airport, SFC Smith became a one-man stronghold, fending off Iraqi forces that had his unit grossly outnumbered. He saved the lives of numerous Soldiers in his Platoon, while at the same time killing approximately 50 Iraqi troops and wounding countless more. He was killed while firing a .50 caliber machine gun from atop a disabled personnel carrier.

It's sad that people made out Jessica Lynch to be some sort of hero that even she admitted she wasn't (she never even fired a single round from her weapon), with book deals and made-for-tv movies, etc. Yet here we have a true hero, whose selfless actions saved the lives of his men, while sacrificing his own. I wonder when they'll get around to telling his story. . .

Or Johnson Beherryah the only living recipient of the VC [Britains highest award for military bravery] since 1969. Vietnam. Nope you weren't the only guys there.

Johnson was born in Grenada incidentally.

[robeiae]

I don't think we have to worry about Condi for president.She wants to be the NFL Commissioner, not President. More power in the former...

[Unique]

I don't know if barbaric is the right word. What's weirder than absurd?

I've never understood the point of the trial - as if it weren't a foregone conclusion to the outcome.

Why they didn't shoot him in the head when they found him in the hole puzzled me. They needed an excuse for a circus?

[blacbird]

I have a funny feeling that the real problem with the Bush administration is it's fundamental belief system that the public is stupid.

Judging from the current leaders elected here in the U.S., they are correct in that belief.

caw

[English Dave]

I don't know if barbaric is the right word. What's weirder than absurd?

I've never understood the point of the trial - as if it weren't a foregone conclusion to the outcome.

Why they didn't shoot him in the head when they found him in the hole puzzled me. They needed an excuse for a circus?

The bugger didn't fight it out like his stupid sons, which posed a problem.

The main problem being stupid people are easy to kill.

[robeiae]

"We have no hardliners ... We have only one motive and that is we want our country safe and at peace.". . . .
That's what the Taliban said. And the Syrians. And the Iranians.

[dclary]

That's what the Taliban said. And the Syrians. And the Iranians.

And the nazis, oddly enough.

[robeiae]

And the Soviets.



And Sting.

[robeiae]

My point is that you seem naive. Sorry.

You take at face value those statements. Just as you took Ahmaninejad's statements. You believe them fully. You believe they are honest. Then you posit that the U.S. is lying. Or that the U.S. is less than truthful.

Why?

[alices]

:popcorn:

[robeiae]

Now until there is a demonstrable threat, I'm tired of US accusations. Actually, let me narrow that down: I'm tired of this administration's accusations because the accusations are laced with religious bigotry and are posited as an excuse for future military action.All you did was link to a story. And that story is one sided. Where is your research to show that story is right? Have you done any?

So you can be tired, but so what? I submit neither of us know enough, here. Show me that I'm wrong, please.

[robeiae]

http://allafrica.com/stories/200612150631.htmlMore of the same. If they were al-Queda, would they admit it?

[robeiae]

Read on. The second link is CIA.What do you mean?

ETA: Ah! you added to the last post.

[robeiae]

http://allafrica.com/stories/200612150631.html
[qoute]
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html#Govt
What am I supposed to see in the second link?

As to this:Spare me, Rob. I've had enough of your condescending crap. You're the one who called me naive. You're the one who should be finding links.
Well, I said you seem naive. And you do.

And I don't need to find links. I didn't say "this guy is right, 'Dubya' is wrong." You did. And your proof? Because he said so.

Now, the story might be right. I don't know. But I'm not taking your word for it. Why are you taking his?

[robeiae]

Everything you want to know about Somalia. Did you see any reference to Al Qaeda in the second link? Any reference at all to radical Islam? No? The CIA put it out. Updated 12/12/06.Ahh.