How Can Anyone Defend GWB?

[Snacks]

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

Amazing. Yet so many people defend him and the Republican party. He should be impeached, even if its just as a statement and a mark against him. Thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraq have been lost because of his lies. We arent any safer. I would bet we are in more danger because of what this asshole has done.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Easy. You just say he's brainless, means well, and is the puppet of Cheney and the Neocons who try to stay out of the spotlight while Fall Guy in the form of the President takes all the heat. Whether you agree or not is moot; but that's a way to defend him.

[A.J.]

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

Translation: "shitty intelligence was to blame". Make George Tenet give back that Presidential Medal of Freedom.

[Snacks]

Translation: "shitty intelligence was to blame". Make George Tenet give back that Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I knew that was coming and knew you would defend him.

[sailor]

it's better than the lincoln tunnel

[topless_mike]

hey!
we havent been attacked since 9/11.
those 10 planes enroute to the us were saved thanks to intelligence.

i think he's a bumbling idiot and a sad excuse for a president, but he's kept us safe.
just my opinion.

[epo]

Bush's Administration has done two things right:


Attacked Afghanistan.
Banned ephedra.


Other than that, he has been a colossal clusterfuck.

[A.J.]

I knew that was coming and knew you would defend him.

I wasn't defending him. I was pointing out the Administration's defense.

[A.J.]

Bush's Administration has done two things right:


Attacked Afghanistan.
Banned ephedra.


Other than that, he has been a colossal clusterfuck.

The Afghanistan war plan was half-assed and we're still paying for that....gee, kind of like with Iraq.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I support the Afghanistan theater of war to this day, but that's just because the guys over there probably are likely to have had more to do with 9-11 than Iraq did. I'm a simple man like that.

[sailor]

i miss ephedra

[Zorro]

The problem with this stuff is no one believes there is such a thing as a "non-partisan non-profit". Republicans will claim it's a group with an ax to grind... statements taken out of context...mis-interpretations...etc. Dems would do the same if it were on them. Truth no longer exists or if it does it no longer matters.

[Furtherman]

i miss ephedra

Me too. Miss 'ol Ripped Fuel.

http://www.dietpillresearch.com/Ripped_fuel.jpg

[Brad_Rush]

Karl Rove was just that good. He did such an amazing job of selling Bush to some people that even looking at the world today they still see him through rose colored glasses.

Plus I don't think things have gotten as bad yet as they are probably going to. If that recession hits soon you'll see his poll numbers hit the floor.

[epo]

The Afghanistan war plan was half-assed and we're still paying for that....gee, kind of like with Iraq.

I totally agree with that sentiment. It was the right thing to do, but that should have been finished years ago.

[Kevin]

i miss ephedra

Poser

[K.C.]

hey!
we havent been attacked since 9/11.
those 10 planes enroute to the us were saved thanks to intelligence.

i think he's a bumbling idiot and a sad excuse for a president, but he's kept us safe.
just my opinion.

First, it's not like this country has been in constant peril...nothing happened on this soil between Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the first WTC attack in '93.

And the reason for that was the Soviet Union.

The Soviets occupied everything in that part of the world, so terrorism was focused predominately on them and their occupations of parts in the world.

As soon as the Soviets collapsed, it was inevitable terrorist groups would start looking for a way to rid their areas of U.S. presence (it didn't help us all that much that Reagan and Bush I helped arm these people to begin with).


So the bottom line is that as long as the U.S. is the most dominant foreign presence in that region, terrorism will be an issue.

And as far as Bush keeping us safe goes, not really...he created a temporary diversion in Iraq. When we eventually give up in Iraq, it will strengthen Al Qaeda's influence and make it that much more difficult to make sure everything is secure.



And doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1980, they were terrorised by Bin Laden's groups to the point of withdraw, and then eventually everyone in that region rebelled against them and ripped the country apart....and now 25 years later, our answer to enforcing peace and security is invading Afghanistan and Iraq????????

[Zorro]

First, it's not like this country has been in constant peril...nothing happened on this soil between Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the first WTC attack in '93.

And the reason for that was the Soviet Union.

The Soviets occupied everything in that part of the world, so terrorism was focused over there.


As soon as the Soviets collapsed, it was inevitable terrorist groups would start looking for a way to rid their areas of U.S. presence (it didn't help us all that much that Reagan and Bush I helped arm these people to begin with).


So the bottom line is that as long as the U.S. is the most dominant foreign presence in that region, terrorism will be an issue.

And as far as Bush keeping us safe goes, not really...he created a temporary diversion in Iraq. When we eventually give up in Iraq, it will strengthen Al Qaeda's influence and make it that much more difficult to make sure everything is secure.


Huh?

[A.J.]

So the bottom line is that as long as the U.S. is the most dominant foreign presence in that region, terrorism will be an issue.

"Don't forget our carte blanche support of Israel also being a factor!"

http://bush2004.com/images/bush_grimaces.jpg

[K.C.]

"Don't forget our carte blanche support of Israel also being a factor!"

http://bush2004.com/images/bush_grimaces.jpg


It's all related....the issue of American presence in the region is tied in to the Israel issue.

[EliSnow]

hey!
we havent been attacked since 9/11.
those 10 planes enroute to the us were saved thanks to intelligence.

i think he's a bumbling idiot and a sad excuse for a president, but he's kept us safe.
just my opinion.

The lack of an attack between 9/11 and now is not necessarily a sign that he's kept us safe.

There was 8 years between the two World Trade Center attacks. Does that mean our government was keeping us safe during that time period.

I do think some of the government's actions since 9/11 have helped our safety including increased security measures at home, greater intelligence coordination domestically and overseas, and our Afghanistan attack which crippled Bin Laden's network.

But those things would have happened with or without Bush. And I don't think invading Iraq has kept us safe, especially in the long run.

[FUNKMAN]

hey!
we havent been attacked since 9/11.
those 10 planes enroute to the us were saved thanks to intelligence.

i think he's a bumbling idiot and a sad excuse for a president, but he's kept us safe.
just my opinion.

after the first wtc bombing in 1993 we didn't get attacked for another 8 years until George's administration in 2001. and that's without going to war, spending a trillion dollars in a foreign country that was not a threat to us, losing 3500 more american lives, tens of thousands of iraqi lives, and about 35,000 americans being crippled, burned, and permanently disfigured...

this "he's kept us safe" is really an odd way of looking at things. not saying it is George's fault but we avg 15,000 murders a year in this country. So since 2001 there have been approx 90,000 people murdered in this country by our own hands but it doesn't phase people's psyche. But let some foreign guys take out a small % of the 90,000 and people shit in their pants...

[EliSnow]

The Afghanistan war plan was half-assed and we're still paying for that....gee, kind of like with Iraq.

The problem there was that W's eyes were on Iraq the whole time. If we would have concentrated on Afghanistan and getting that done right, then we'd be in a different ball game right now.

[Zorro]

Chief Petty Officer Richard Costelow,

Signalman Seaman Recruit Cheron Luis Gunn,

Seaman James Rodrick McDaniels,

Seaman Recruit Lakiba Nicole Palmer,

Operations Specialist 2nd Class Timothy Lamont Saunders,

Ensign Andrew Triplett,

Seaman Apprentice Craig Bryan Wibberley,

Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class, Kenneth Eugene Clodfelter,

Mess Management Specialist Seaman Lakeina Monique Francis,

Information Systems Technician Seaman Timothy Lee Gauna,

Engineman 2nd Class Mark Ian Nieto,

Electronics Warfare Technician 3rd Class Ronald Scott Owens,

Engineman Fireman Joshua Langdon Parlett, Churchville,

Fireman Apprentice Patrick Howard Roy,

Electronics Warfare Technician 2nd Class Kevin Shawn Rux,

Mess Management Specialist 3rd Class Ronchester Mananga Santiago,

Fireman Gary Graham Swenchonis Jr., Rockport

[CofyCrakCocaine]

The problem there was that W's eyes were on Iraq the whole time. If we would have concentrated on Afghanistan and getting that done right, then we'd be in a different ball game right now.

Correction: Iraq was being eyed by all of the Neo Conservatives, many of them having been previously principal and background members of the Bush administration at one point or another, just one of whom was W. They friggin' drafted a pledge to take out Hussein and turn Iraq into Baby America in the 90's and tried to lobby Clinton into doing it.

He's basically following their instructions...so if we have to blame Bush, make sure we at least are aware of everyone involved in crafting that disastrous foreign policy plan, as well as those who enforced them. There's no way the Donald Rumsfelds, Cheneys, and Wolfowitzes didn't influence Bush's resolve for going after a non-essential target. Make sure they catch the hellfire too, or else they'll just get another fall guy eventually to hide behind while writing policy.

[EliSnow]

Correction: Iraq was being eyed by all of the Neo Conservatives, many of them having been previously principal and background members of the Bush administration at one point or another, just one of whom was W. They friggin' drafted a pledge to take out Hussein and turn Iraq into Baby America in the 90's and tried to lobby Clinton into doing it.

He's basically following their instructions...so if we have to blame Bush, make sure we at least are aware of everyone involved in crafting that disastrous foreign policy plan, as well as those who enforced them. There's no way the Donald Rumsfelds, Cheneys, and Wolfowitzes didn't influence Bush's resolve for going after a non-essential target. Make sure they catch the hellfire too, or else they'll just get another fall guy eventually to hide behind while writing policy.

You may be right, but the fact is that he's the President of the United States. If he "adopted" their goal, and committed our country to that goal, he cannot get away from his responsibility.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

You may be right, but the fact is that he's the President of the United States. If he "adopted" their goal, and committed our country to that goal, he cannot get away from his responsibility.

I have no illusions about his responsibilities and thereby agree, I just fear that he'll be the only one held to any real long-term scrutiny that actually ends his political career. Americans generally have ADD when it comes to cleaning house... to use an exaggerated comparison, it'd be like wanting to remove Hitler but forgetting about Goebbels and Goering.

[badmonkey]

The lack of an attack between 9/11 and now is not necessarily a sign that he's kept us safe.

There was 8 years between the two World Trade Center attacks. Does that mean our government was keeping us safe during that time period.

I do think some of the government's actions since 9/11 have helped our safety including increased security measures at home, greater intelligence coordination domestically and overseas, and our Afghanistan attack which crippled Bin Laden's network.

But those things would have happened with or without Bush. And I don't think invading Iraq has kept us safe, especially in the long run.

The World Trade Center wasn't attacked again for 8 yrs. The U.S. has been attacked almost once per year or every other year since.


11/13/1995 U.S. Military Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is Bombed
7 people killed

06/25/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia are Bombed
19 US soldiers killed. 500 others wounded.

08/07/1998 U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania are simultaneously Bombed
224 people killed. More than 5,000 injured.

10/12/2000 USS Cole Bombed
17 US Navy seamen killed

List Of Foiled Terrorist Plots Since 9/11 (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Terrorism.New.York.2.244858.html)

[EliSnow]

The World Trade Center wasn't attacked again for 8 yrs. The U.S. has been attacked almost once per year or every other year since.


11/13/1995 U.S. Military Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is Bombed
7 people killed

06/25/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia are Bombed
19 US soldiers killed. 500 others wounded.

08/07/1998 U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania are simultaneously Bombed
224 people killed. More than 5,000 injured.

10/12/2000 USS Cole Bombed
17 US Navy seamen killed

List Of Foiled Terrorist Plots Since 9/11 (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Terrorism.New.York.2.244858.html)


I could also list a lot terrorist attacks against Iraq in the U.S. to counter this.

And people have pointed to terrorist attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq as proof that Bush is doing things right because at least they are not attacking us in our homeland.

I guess my point is that for some arguments made to say Bush has made us safer since 9/11 rely on facts that were equally true for the Clinton administration.

And I'm not saying that to say Clinton made us safe. I'm saying that the reasons why we haven't seen an attack on our homesoil since 9/11 are complex, and aren't necessarily a a good indicator of our long term safety from such attacks.

[badmonkey]

I was just correcting your statement that we had 8 years without attacks after the first attempt at WTC. There were terrorist attacks on the U.S. after the 1993 world trade center bombing and right up to the September 11th attacks.

That's all I said.

[EliSnow]

I was just correcting your statement that we had 8 years without attacks after the first attempt at WTC. There were terrorist attacks on the U.S. after the 1993 world trade center bombing and right up to the September 11th attacks.

That's all I said.

I understand.

When I was talking about the 8 years, I meant domestic attacks, which is what I think Topless Mike was referring to when he said we haven't been attacked since 9/11.

I left out the domestic part.

[HBox]

I think the Secret Service defends him. They kind of have to. Its their job.

[EliSnow]

I think the Secret Service defends him. They kind of have to. Its their job.

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/images/smilies/rimshot.gif

[mikeyboy]

I laughed.

[HBox]

Tip your waitresses people.

[JerseySean]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

Amazing. Yet so many people defend him and the Republican party. He should be impeached, even if its just as a statement and a mark against him. Thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraq have been lost because of his lies. We arent any safer. I would bet we are in more danger because of what this asshole has done.

Many of these same claims were made by Bill Clinton. He didnt take us to war but made the same claims. Therefore, faulty intelligence

[thejives]

You know what is really sick.

In 20 years or so when W. dies, all of these fuckers will be waving flags and remembering how he saw the country through the early years of the war on terror. There'll be pictures of him up everywhere and democrats and republicans will be talking about how funny he was and how he had nicknames for fucking everyone.

And that list of dead soldiers will just be there.
Sitting there.
While a bunch of jackasses file past the casket with respectful looks on their faces.

Just sick.

[Zorro]

You know what is really sick.

In 20 years or so when W. dies, all of these fuckers will be waving flags and remembering how he saw the country through the early years of the war on terror. There'll be pictures of him up everywhere and democrats and republicans will be talking about how funny he was and how he had nicknames for fucking everyone.

And that list of dead soldiers will just be there.
Sitting there.
While a bunch of jackasses file past the casket with respectful looks on their faces.

Just sick.


Never happen...GWB has eclipsed Jimmy Carter as the worst President of the modern error(pun). He'll have a Nixonian funeral at Crawford and that'll be it.

[thejives]

Never happen...GWB has eclipsed Jimmy Carter as the worst President of the modern error(pun). He'll have a Nixonian funeral at Crawford and that'll be it.

I dunno.
Wait and see.
He'll get at least as big a deal as Ford. And Ford did nothing.

[Jujubees2]

I dunno.
Wait and see.
He'll get at least as big a deal as Ford. And Ford did nothing.

The hell he didn't. He provided Chevy Chase with lots of material!

[Zorro]

I dunno.
Wait and see.
He'll get at least as big a deal as Ford. And Ford did nothing.

Ford was a beloved member of Congress before he was VP.

[thejives]

There are a lot of beloved members of congress and then VPs who don't end up on CNN 24/7 for their funerals.

Presidents do that.

It'll start this summer at the Republican convention.
All of them will be holing signs "Thank You W."

This country has no ability to follow through with it's political judgements.
Or memory.

[scottinnj]

You know what is really sick.

In 20 years or so when W. dies, all of these fuckers will be waving flags and remembering how he saw the country through the early years of the war on terror. There'll be pictures of him up everywhere and democrats and republicans will be talking about how funny he was and how he had nicknames for fucking everyone.

And that list of dead soldiers will just be there.
Sitting there.
While a bunch of jackasses file past the casket with respectful looks on their faces.

Just sick.


Be quiet. A whole lot of people will be doing the same thing sooner or later for Carter, and the list of dead special forces soldiers will be there too. And during the mourning period and the funeral, very little will be said of the 444 days of shame America endured because of that bumbling boob. But we will give him the respect he deserves because of the good character he has become post presidency. Even though he does shoot his mouth off from time to time about foreign policy problems we are having now that are as bad as it was when he screwed the pooch.

[scottinnj]

I dunno.
Wait and see.
He'll get at least as big a deal as Ford. And Ford did nothing.

He pardoned Nixon. Doesn't that count for something? And I hear his golf score was the envy of the ex-presidents.



Wacka Wacka!

[thejives]

Be quiet.

No.

I knew when this thread asked who would defend Bush you would come by to point out Democrats do bad things too. As if it was an argument.

As disgusting as this president's conduct and reckless rush to war is (again, the real subject of this thread), he'll get all the pomp we give to presidents just because enough time has passed and people will gloss over the negatives to lionize a man whose repeated lies have left tens of thousands of soldiers wounded and about 4,000 dead in Iraq.

But who knows.
Maybe some charity work when he gets out of office will give people like you something to focus on at his funeral.

You can grumble darkly when Carter dies.
I'll grumble darkly when Bush dies.
They'll both be pandered to.

[scottinnj]

No.

I knew when this thread asked who would defend Bush you would come by to point out Democrats do bad things too. As if it was an argument.

As disgusting as this president's conduct and reckless rush to war is (again, the real subject of this thread), he'll get all the pomp we give to presidents just because enough time has passed and people will gloss over the negatives to lionize a man whose repeated lies have left tens of thousands of soldiers wounded and about 4,000 dead in Iraq.

But who knows.
Maybe some charity work when he gets out of office will give people like you something to focus on at his funeral.

You can grumble darkly when Carter dies.
I'll grumble darkly when Bush dies.
They'll both be pandered to.

I don't think he's going to be lionized. At least I hope not. The point I was making was not if he should be or not. The problem I have with your argument is the "dead soldier list"


Should we dig up FDR and re do the funeral because of the dead that occured because of WWII? Especially because of strategic mistakes in Europe and the Pacific that cost the lives of tens of thousands of American troops that could have been spared if some more careful planning had taken place in the White House and FDR's War Cabinet.

I won't be grumbling at Carter's funeral. I'll be sad that a humanitarian died, and out of respect for the proceedings I'll overlook the failures.

[scottinnj]

Be quiet.

No.



Sorry, I shouldn't have started it out with a snide, snotty jab at you. Sometimes I forget the difference between board protocol and political arguments at work where things like that are expected and welcomed between freinds who can see each other, not freinds who can only express to each other via a keyboard.

[thejives]

Sorry, I shouldn't have started it out with a snide

no worries. just don't instigate for the sake of instigating. I know you genuinely care about your arguments, and I know you're a cool guy.

Should we dig up FDR and re do the funeral because of the dead that occured because of WWII? Especially because of strategic mistakes in Europe and the Pacific that cost the lives of tens of thousands of American troops that could have been spared if some more careful planning had taken place in the White House and FDR's War Cabinet.

See, here's where we part companies.
You're comparing strategic blunders in a WWII with what I consider to be an unnecessary optional war in Iraq.

The list is more glaring for Bush because the soldiers never had to leave the country (again, the reason this thread was started). Not because they were misused once they were in the field.

[scottinnj]

no worries. just don't instigate for the sake of instigating. I know you genuinely care about your arguments, and I know you're a cool guy.



See, here's where we part companies.
You're comparing strategic blunders in a WWII with what I consider to be an unnecessary optional war in Iraq.


Well here's a philisophical question for you. What if post-invasion Iraq had gone swimmingly? Parades and balloons and kissing soldiers vis a vie Patton rolling into Palermo. Would people be complaining about the invasion being optional?

[epo]

The Center for Public Integrity released a study today about the Bush Administration & the Iraq War. They have tracked at least 935 instances of the administration lying about the war.

Link to website here. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/)

Seriously, this man is a disgrace upon history.

[badmonkey]

The Center for Public Integrity released a study today about the Bush Administration & the Iraq War. They have tracked at least 935 instances of the administration lying about the war.

Link to website here. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/)

Seriously, this man is a disgrace upon history.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx?act=directors

big surprise

[epo]

http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx?act=directors

big surprise

Fight the sources all you want, but the facts stand for themselves.

Bush is the biggest disgrace this nation has seen since Andrew Johnson.

[badmonkey]

Fight the sources all you want, but the facts stand for themselves.

Bush is the biggest disgrace this nation has seen since Andrew Johnson.

Yes.. i get it. You hate Bush.

[epo]

Yes.. i get it. You hate Bush.

I didn't hear you: Are you saying that report was lying?

[thejives]

Well here's a philisophical question for you. What if post-invasion Iraq had gone swimmingly? Parades and balloons and kissing soldiers vis a vie Patton rolling into Palermo. Would people be complaining about the invasion being optional?

That's the point, man.
They knew a post invasion Iraq would not go swimmingly.
They lied about it and said it would so we would go.

[high fly]

Translation: "shitty intelligence was to blame". Make George Tenet give back that Presidential Medal of Freedom.

AJ, would you care to comment on the role of the Office of Special Plans et up by Doug Feith?
Here's the facts.
The OSP was set up because the Bush administration did not like the pre-invasion intelligence, so they sent amateurs to the CIA to comb through discredited rumors and reports from cranks and then present them as finished, analyzed intelligence.

That is how the uranium from Niger claim came about, to take one example.

Passing the buck back down the chain of command is wretched.


The fact is, the Bush administration began with an outcome and then sought anything to support it and discarded anything contrary, and so CIA, DIA, DOE and INR intelligence reports were shelved.

Oh, and along with them, they refued to heed studies by their own intelligence and military, as well as an abundance of studies by top notch think tanks that told them to prepare for an insurgency.

[donnie_darko]

Well here's a philisophical question for you. What if post-invasion Iraq had gone swimmingly? Parades and balloons and kissing soldiers vis a vie Patton rolling into Palermo. Would people be complaining about the invasion being optional?

you seem to be missing the point here. People were against the war before it started.

and do you really believe the founding fathers wanted the president to hold congress hostage to sponsor frivolous wars?


i just don't understand why people are so adamant to defend the president, it's as if a lot of you have a personal stake in his life. I just wish i could muster the passion you people have for a man who has so obviously led us astray.

And to in anyway compare the war in iraq with ww2 is a sad joke.

[high fly]

hey!
we havent been attacked since 9/11.



I believe I saw EliSnow make the same point elsewhere.

Folks, this is where we have a display of the power Rush Limpbaugh and Shawn Manatee have over people in this country.

Or maybe Eli and topless have been in isolation somewhere the last 6 years or so.


* All of the news shows, including Fox, had lead stories about the anthrax that was mailed to people and killed several. That wasn't a terrorist attack?

* All of the news shows, including Fox, had lead stories about the D.C. area snipers. That wasn't a terrorist attack?

* All of the news shows, including Fox, had lead stories about the copycat sniper in Ohio who was shooting people on the highway. That wasn't a terrorist attack?

* All of the news shows, including Fox, had lead stories about the shoebomber who was stopped as he tried to ignite his shoe, but that wasn't a terrorist attack?




Yet despite these cases, we have a number of people in America who believe there has not been a terrorist attack here since 9/11.

It is amazing the way they are able to deny reality because of what right-wing pundits have trained them to say.

[scottinnj]

That's the point, man.
They knew a post invasion Iraq would not go swimmingly.
They lied about it and said it would so we would go.


We part company again. I don't believe they "lied" us into the war. With all the circumstantial evidence, the intelligence community made a mistake using the knowledge that he had at one time WMDs as the catalyst for all the research and conclusions.

[thejives]

We part company again. I don't believe they "lied" us into the war. With all the circumstantial evidence, the intelligence community made a mistake using the knowledge that he had at one time WMDs as the catalyst for all the research and conclusions.

And here we are at the old impasse.
To me, it's obvious that the intelligence community was shopped and herded into fitting misguided administration policy. But, hey, you can blame the CIA if you want.

And W. should never have an apologist.

[ATMfromChico]

I'm not going to defend Bush. I thought he was a tremendous force in the first few months after 9/11. However I think the major mistake he made was to try and make everyone "happy" with his incursion into Iraq. He tried to make nice and have everyone stay after the initial fighting in order to create a free government in Iraq. Stupid. The intelligence was probably valid that there was a problem, or recently had been a problem in Iraq. We should have gone in like we did, check as much of the landscape out as possible. Destroy any resistence, weapons, and pull Hussein out by his eyelids and then gone the fuck home. Should have let Iraq deal with the fallout and put their own country back together again. If America had done a smash and grab, instead of a stick and stagnate we would have made a bigger impression on Iran and the other countries that would love to hurt us. They would think "shit, if America thinks we're up to something they'll come break our toys, and leave us in shambles . . .that would suck! Just a thought.

[high fly]

We part company again. I don't believe they "lied" us into the war. With all the circumstantial evidence, the intelligence community made a mistake using the knowledge that he had at one time WMDs as the catalyst for all the research and conclusions.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked AJ, would you please tell us the reason they set up the Office of Special Plans under Doug Feith and tell us how that office functioned?


You are unable to face the facts of what the intelligence said.

The Oct. 2002 NIE said Saddam would not give WMD to terrorists, but the Bush administration said they would.

The CIA told the Bush administration starting a few days after 9/11 that there was no Iraq/al Qaeda connection, but the Bush administration said there was.

The intelligence said Iraq could not launch a WMD attack on us 45 minutes after the order was given and the Bush administration said they could.

The best nuke experts said the aluminum tubes were nout suitable for centrifuge use, and when tested those tunbes fell apart in a centrifuge, but the Bush administration said the opposite.

When Saddam's in-law defected, he told us Iraq's nuke program was shut down in 1990, Bush said he told us the opposite.

Our best UAV experts at the Air Force said Saddam's UAVs could not carry chem/bio weapons or the equipment to disperse them, but Bushies said the opposite.

etc etc etc

[A.J.]

AJ, would you care to comment on the role of the Office of Special Plans et up by Doug Feith?

We really need to install sarcasm tags.

[EliSnow]

I believe I saw EliSnow make the same point elsewhere.

Folks, this is where we have a display of the power Rush Limpbaugh and Shawn Manatee have over people in this country.

Or maybe Eli and topless have been in isolation somewhere the last 6 years or so.


* All of the news shows, including Fox, had lead stories about the anthrax that was mailed to people and killed several. That wasn't a terrorist attack?

* All of the news shows, including Fox, had lead stories about the D.C. area snipers. That wasn't a terrorist attack?

* All of the news shows, including Fox, had lead stories about the copycat sniper in Ohio who was shooting people on the highway. That wasn't a terrorist attack?

* All of the news shows, including Fox, had lead stories about the shoebomber who was stopped as he tried to ignite his shoe, but that wasn't a terrorist attack?




Yet despite these cases, we have a number of people in America who believe there has not been a terrorist attack here since 9/11.

It is amazing the way they are able to deny reality because of what right-wing pundits have trained them to say.

Although not stated, topless Mike and I were referring to domestic terrorist attacks by foriegn terrorist groups. However, with regard to the above, I think only one was a terrorist act, as terrorism is defined and understood by those who know what they are talking about.

Terrorism is defined in Webster's Universal College Dictionary as the use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce for political purposes. The key thing is that the intent is for politicial purposes. You have to separate acts that caused terror (which would include the Virginia Tech killings and Columbine) from terrorist acts which by definition are done for political purposes. Indeed, this is why responsible groups almost always take credit for the attack. Because they want people to know who did it and why.

With regard to the above incidents, I believe the only terrorist act was the shoebomber attempt, which failed.

The anthrax incidents never were credited to a specific person or group, so we don't know what the purposes were. The sniper attacks were not for political purposes but rather were for monetary gain/personal reasons.

And as for Republican pundits training me what to say, I have never watched or listened to a republican pundit, and have rarely watched pundits of any kind. Rather, my view of what qualifies as terrorism comes from studying military, political, and intelligence history from some excellent professors while in college 15 years ago.

[EliSnow]

Although not stated, topless Mike and I were referring to domestic terrorist attacks by foriegn terrorist groups. However, with regard to the above, I think only one was a terrorist act, as terrorism is defined and understood by those who know what they are talking about.

Terrorism is defined in Webster's Universal College Dictionary as the use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce for political purposes. The key thing is that the intent is for politicial purposes. You have to separate acts that caused terror (which would include the Virginia Tech killings and Columbine) from terrorist acts which by definition are done for political purposes. Indeed, this is why responsible groups almost always take credit for the attack. Because they want people to know who did it and why.

With regard to the above incidents, I believe the only terrorist act was the shoebomber attempt, which failed.

The anthrax incidents never were credited to a specific person or group, so we don't know what the purposes were. The sniper attacks were not for political purposes but rather were for monetary gain/personal reasons.

And as for Republican pundits training me what to say, I have never watched or listened to a republican pundit, and have rarely watched pundits of any kind. Rather, my view of what qualifies as terrorism comes from studying military, political, and intelligence history from some excellent professors while in college 15 years ago.

BTW, I apologize for a little bit of the attitude in the above e-mail, but one of my pet peeves is how, following 9/11, people use "terrorism" to describe violent attacks that do not have a political impetus.

Another pet peeve is when people say "literally" when they still mean "figuratively."

[high fly]

Although not stated, topless Mike and I were referring to domestic terrorist attacks by foriegn terrorist groups. However, with regard to the above, I think only one was a terrorist act, as terrorism is defined and understood by those who know what they are talking about.

Terrorism is defined in Webster's Universal College Dictionary as the use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce for political purposes. The key thing is that the intent is for politicial purposes. You have to separate acts that caused terror (which would include the Virginia Tech killings and Columbine) from terrorist acts which by definition are done for political purposes. Indeed, this is why responsible groups almost always take credit for the attack. Because they want people to know who did it and why.

With regard to the above incidents, I believe the only terrorist act was the shoebomber attempt, which failed.

The anthrax incidents never were credited to a specific person or group, so we don't know what the purposes were. The sniper attacks were not for political purposes but rather were for monetary gain/personal reasons.

And as for Republican pundits training me what to say, I have never watched or listened to a republican pundit, and have rarely watched pundits of any kind. Rather, my view of what qualifies as terrorism comes from studying military, political, and intelligence history from some excellent professors while in college 15 years ago.



A class in logic will inform you that in order to defeat a universal statement, only one example is needed.
This is a rule in debate, as well.



There are many different definitions of terrorism, within our government there are at least 3 or 4.

There have been acts of terror by anarchistic sorts or other nihilistic people who did not have a specific political agenda, but nonetheless intended to terrorize.
But taking the above example, how is it you are able to rule out the anthrax attacks as acts of terorism when you admitedly don't know the motive?
(Other than your self interest in salvaging your argument which by the rules of logic and debate has been defeated)



That you have rarely watched or listened to right-wing pundits and still utter false cliches they have trained people with is an indication of how easy you are to program.

[EliSnow]

A class in logic will inform you that in order to defeat a universal statement, only one example is needed.
This is a rule in debate, as well.

Are you talking about the shoebomber example? I think I said above that I didn't consider it a domestic attack. Regardless, my discussion with topless was not to substantiate any claims that there has been no domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11.

It was to say that, even assuming that were true, that "fact" does not mean Bush has made us safe, because there were no domestic terrorist attacks by foriegn groups between the first WTC attack and the second. And we know we weren't safe then.

BTW, I do realize there was a domestic terrorist attack by a domestic group during that time in Oklahoma City.



There are many different definitions of terrorism, within our government there are at least 3 or 4.

There have been acts of terror by anarchistic sorts or other nihilistic people who did not have a specific political agenda, but nonetheless intended to terrorize.
But taking the above example, how is it you are able to rule out the anthrax attacks as acts of terorism when you admitedly don't know the motive?
(Other than your self interest in salvaging your argument which by the rules of logic and debate has been defeated)

Because my definition of terrorism, from Webster's and my Ivy League education, is one done with a political agenda. Without knowing the agenda of the anthrax perp, I can say it was a terrorist attack. Maybe it was, but no one knows what the motive was.

Would you say the Tylenol tampering in the '80's was a terrorist attack? That's equivalent to the antrhax attacks. I wouldn't say that it was a terrorist act.


That you have rarely watched or listened to right-wing pundits and still utter false cliches they have trained people with is an indication of how easy you are to program.

No, it means my beliefs are based on other things.

At least I have a definition of terrorism based on actually looking into the subject. I'm not programmed. I make a distinction between acts causing violence for no motive/personal gain/monetary advantage and those done for political motives, as does a number of other well respected authors and experts in the area.

[high fly]

I'm not going to defend Bush. I thought he was a tremendous force in the first few months after 9/11.


Immediately after 9/11 he and the neocons began looking for an excuse to invade Iraq even before we invaded Afghanistan and in spit of the CIA telling them there was no al Qaeda/Iraq connection to 9/11.
In December, 2001, formal orders went out to plan for the invasion of Iraq and Task Force 11, a unit specially trained, equipped and supported to pursue Osama bin Laden was ordered out of Afghanistan and prepared to deploy to Iraq.
Likewise, other units were not deployed to Afghanistan because they were thought to be needed for Iraq.

In Afghanistan, the ground commander was denied use of batallions of Marines and the 10th Mountain division which were in theater, and was also denied artillery and Apache attack helicopters. These denials came from the civilian combat amateurs appointed by Bush to the Defense Department.
When aerial surveillance platforms spotted groups of people fleeing the battlefield across the mountains to Pakistann, requests to kill them by the commanders in Afghanistan were also denied. It was suggested that in the dead of winter in waist-deep snow at 10,000 feet, the infrared imagery may have been picking up shepherds and their sheep.

Bush promised to hit them with everything we had and he bunted instead.

Bush can not be held responsible for tactical decisions, but he is responsible for his strategy of going in with the least force possible, failing to provide the troops and equipment needed to get the job done, and having an exit strategy.
He is responsible for ignoring history and culture and believing he could set up a government over a people impossible to govern, and purchase the loyalty of people who admire those who switch sides in warfare.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not going to defend Bush. I thought he was a tremendous force in the first few months after 9/11. However I think the major mistake he made was to try and make everyone "happy" with his incursion into Iraq. He tried to make nice and have everyone stay after the initial fighting in order to create a free government in Iraq. Stupid. The intelligence was probably valid that there was a problem, or recently had been a problem in Iraq. We should have gone in like we did, check as much of the landscape out as possible. Destroy any resistence, weapons, and pull Hussein out by his eyelids and then gone the fuck home. Should have let Iraq deal with the fallout and put their own country back together again. If America had done a smash and grab, instead of a stick and stagnate we would have made a bigger impression on Iran and the other countries that would love to hurt us. They would think "shit, if America thinks we're up to something they'll come break our toys, and leave us in shambles . . .that would suck! Just a thought.

History shows not only does that fail, but it often createst a greater threat in the long run.

After WWI, that was the general idea of the winning powers...well, we all saw how that turned out. Because of the outcome of WWI, the US after WW2 adopted a new policy of helping rebuild the beaten countries to help steer them away from a repeat of what just happened. It worked swimmingly. We've since ignored that policy and it's now bitten us in the ass in Afghanistan and now very likely in Iraq.

[EliSnow]

History shows not only does that fail, but it often createst a greater threat in the long run.

After WWI, that was the general idea of the winning powers...well, we all saw how that turned out. Because of the outcome of WWI, the US after WW2 adopted a new policy of helping rebuild the beaten countries to help steer them away from a repeat of what just happened. It worked swimmingly. We've since ignored that policy and it's now bitten us in the ass in Afghanistan and now very likely in Iraq.

QFT.

[Zorro]

History shows not only does that fail, but it often createst a greater threat in the long run.

After WWI, that was the general idea of the winning powers...well, we all saw how that turned out. Because of the outcome of WWI, the US after WW2 adopted a new policy of helping rebuild the beaten countries to help steer them away from a repeat of what just happened. It worked swimmingly. We've since ignored that policy and it's now bitten us in the ass in Afghanistan and now very likely in Iraq.

I agree with your analysis of the Marshall Plan and MacArthurs reworking of Japanese society, but I think you make two signifigant errors in applying this to Afghanistan. One we were not the ones at war with them and aided the Afghanies in defeating the Soviets. Secondly the Taliban are bat shit crazy fucking nuts... they were trying to bring their country back to the stone ages, so I really doubt any offer of help would have changed things.

[EliSnow]

I agree with your analysis of the Marshall Plan and MacArthurs reworking of Japanese society, but I think you make two signifigant errors in applying this to Afghanistan. One we were not the ones at war with them and aided the Afghanies in defeating the Soviets. Secondly the Taliban are bat shit crazy fucking nuts... they were trying to bring their country back to the stone ages, so I really doubt any offer of help would have changed things.

I think you miss his point. He saying that once we invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power, we employ a MacArthur Plan approach.

In WWII, we employed this approach after we won militarily. Not before a military conflict.

[TheMojoPin]

I agree with your analysis of the Marshall Plan and MacArthurs reworking of Japanese society, but I think you make two signifigant errors in applying this to Afghanistan. One we were not the ones at war with them and aided the Afghanies in defeating the Soviets. Secondly the Taliban are bat shit crazy fucking nuts... they were trying to bring their country back to the stone ages, so I really doubt any offer of help would have changed things.

We used the Afghanis to try and mire down the Soviets and then split as soon as the Soviets retreated. No, it's not explicitly the same, but the principle is still clearly the most viable option. The Taliban was able to come to power expressly because the country was so shattered in the wake of the Soviet invasion. A US-driven rebuilding effort would have gone a long way to ever keep them from taking power and ideally given us that strategic Middle Eastern/Asian ally we so desperately crave.

[TheMojoPin]

I think you miss his point. He saying that once we invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power, we employ a MacArthur Plan approach.

Both, actually. We steered the Afghani response against the Soviets that our up and splitting as soon as the Sovets left is still a massively shortsighted fuckup.

We fucked it up again in 2001-2003, but it was a repeat fuckup.

[EliSnow]

We used the Afghanis to try and mire down the Soviets and then split as soon as the Soviets retreated. No, it's not explicitly the same, but the principle is still clearly the most viable option. The Taliban was able to come to power expressly because the country was so shattered in the wake of the Soviet invasion. A US-driven rebuilding effort would have gone a long way to ever keep them from taking power and ideally given us that strategic Middle Eastern/Asian ally we so desperately crave.

Okay, I didn't realize Mojo's point, and thus, didn't get Zorro's reply.

[A.J.]

Bush can not be held responsible for tactical decisions, but he is responsible for his strategy of going in with the least force possible, failing to provide the troops and equipment needed to get the job done, and having an exit strategy.

The worst part of that was that none of the generals stood up to say what a shitty, half-assed plan the Afghanistan plan was. (I know Army COS Shinseki and others did before the Iraq invasion). As far as I'm concerened they were all gutless politicos who screwed over the warfighters.

[mendyweiss]

What time do the neked girlies come on ?

[A.J.]

The Taliban was able to come to power expressly because the country was so shattered in the wake of the Soviet invasion. A US-driven rebuilding effort would have gone a long way to ever keep them from taking power and ideally given us that strategic Middle Eastern/Asian ally we so desperately crave.

Instead, the Saudis filled the void and pumped in all the extremist preachers and scholars.

[TheMojoPin]

Instead, the Saudis filled the void and pumped in all the extremist preachers and scholars.

Well, we never had the upper hand in that relationship.

[Yerdaddy]

Be quiet. *SNAP!* A whole lot of people will be doing the same thing sooner or later for Carter, and the list of dead special forces soldiers will be there too. And during the mourning period and the funeral, very little will be said of the 444 days of shame America endured because of that bumbling boob. But we will give him the respect he deserves because of the good character he has become post presidency. Even though he does shoot his mouth off from time to time about foreign policy problems we are having now that are as bad as it was when he screwed the pooch.

I can't see the comparison of the hostage crisis - or the helicopter/sandstorm tragedy - and the Iraq war. Iraq was a war of choice. Carter would have had to have predicted the Iranian revolution which is more like requiring Bush to have predicted 9-11. However bad our intelligence services were fucked up and how little Bush had done to rectify the situation, no credible expert has claimed Bush could have predicted 9-11. Same goes for Carter and Iran.

[Yerdaddy]

Well here's a philisophical question for you. What if post-invasion Iraq had gone swimmingly? Parades and balloons and kissing soldiers vis a vie Patton rolling into Palermo. Would people be complaining about the invasion being optional?

Interesting question. Maybe I'll sleep on it tonight (along with the usual puddle of man-batter, tears and Cheese Wiz) and post something about it later.

But in the mean time I have to say that it's been a moot question because by the time of the invasion, when I was lobbying against the war one of my primary arguments was that the Army War College, the Oil industry trade associations, and a number of former military and intelligence leaders were warning, based on their assessment of the level of pre-war planing by the White House, that this would not go well. So while the public was keeping it's hopes up based on the daily news reports of grateful Iraqis selling BetaMax machines in the open, the guys I was reading were wondering when the Iraqi military would debut its fedayeen insurgency strategy and how quickly the administration would pull its head out of Levi Strauss (the philosopher - not the jeans)'s ass when it had no administration in the country and no plans to cope with anything other than the barage of Improvised Floral Devices.

So I haven't considered the rosy scenerio of the warmongers-with-competance in a long time, but I'll give it a shot. Later.

[Yerdaddy]

http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx?act=directors

big surprise

big surprise

[Jujubees2]

Well here's a philisophical question for you. What if post-invasion Iraq had gone swimmingly? Parades and balloons and kissing soldiers vis a vie Patton rolling into Palermo. Would people be complaining about the invasion being optional?

Yes, I would. There was no proof of Saddam Hussein being any type of threat to this country. It would be as if the US invaded Cuba and over threw Castro. People may be dancing in the streets but it still wouldn't be something the US had to do.

[ATMfromChico]

History shows not only does that fail, but it often createst a greater threat in the long run.

After WWI, that was the general idea of the winning powers...well, we all saw how that turned out. Because of the outcome of WWI, the US after WW2 adopted a new policy of helping rebuild the beaten countries to help steer them away from a repeat of what just happened. It worked swimmingly. We've since ignored that policy and it's now bitten us in the ass in Afghanistan and now very likely in Iraq.

Trust me I'm only a devil's advocate here. But there is something here that is far different than World War II. The war was fought to gain power, real estate and financial stability. And while there was a religious component (ie the genoicde of the jews and others) it was not fought with a major religious component. The terrorists we fight, as we all know, despise America for what they perceive as a simmering pot of decadance and unclean living. They are programmed from what they receive from our media and their own. While we used conventional warfare to penetrate both arenas and get to where we are, the Marshall plan does not help to rebuild a foundation of trading, trust, and allied thinking. These people are even more pissed. Now we sit in their country, they feel their crusade has more need of being carried out, and they won't simply sit there and watch their country be rebuilt by the decadent Americans they hate. We're not in the same world as the time after WWII. We are dealing with countries that would rather have their religion rule their lives than democracy. It is what they have known for centuries. Which is one of the reasons we have separation of church and state here. Imagine what type of crusades we would be on right now if hard line Christianity was in charge of all facets of government.

[EliSnow]

Trust me I'm only a devil's advocate here. But there is something here that is far different than World War II. The war was fought to gain power, real estate and financial stability. And while there was a religious component (ie the genoicde of the jews and others) it was not fought with a major religious component. The terrorists we fight, as we all know, despise America for what they perceive as a simmering pot of decadance and unclean living. They are programmed from what they receive from our media and their own. While we used conventional warfare to penetrate both arenas and get to where we are, the Marshall plan does not help to rebuild a foundation of trading, trust, and allied thinking. These people are even more pissed. Now we sit in their country, they feel their crusade has more need of being carried out, and they won't simply sit there and watch their country be rebuilt by the decadent Americans they hate. We're not in the same world as the time after WWII. We are dealing with countries that would rather have their religion rule their lives than democracy. It is what they have known for centuries. Which is one of the reasons we have separation of church and state here. Imagine what type of crusades we would be on right now if hard line Christianity was in charge of all facets of government.

You're overstating a lot here.

First, with regard to WWII, one could have argued that the Germans hated democracy because they got rid of a very democratic republic (Weimar republic) for a hard line dictatorship. Yet, we sought to create a more durable democracy there.

But most of the Muslim world, and Iraq, are not these religious zealots. Just as not all Germans were racist Nazis.

We are trying to re-build Iraq so that we can create a stable nation of those Iraqis that don't automatically hate America. If we did as you suggest, which was go in, invade, create damage, etc., suddenly we'll have every Iraqi hating us, and seek revenge.

That's what happened after WWI. Hitler was able to gain power by playing on Germans' anger at the reparations and other things imposed on Germany after the war.

[high fly]

The worst part of that was that none of the generals stood up to say what a shitty, half-assed plan the Afghanistan plan was. (I know Army COS Shinseki and others did before the Iraq invasion). As far as I'm concerened they were all gutless politicos who screwed over the warfighters.

It is a pleasure to be in agreement with you, AJ.
This is very hard to do, but a general has to keep his loyalties straight and nor be awed by power.

There were retired military people who questioned it.
And I recall an editorial by Robert Kagan circa Oct. 2001 saying we should not try to occupy and govern a country that is ungovernable.
He said we should go in, kill the enemy and get out.

Somewhere in the first chapter or two of Imperial Hubris, written by the former chief of the bin Laden station at the CIA said the same things, that we wwre picking sure-fire losers.

[high fly]

Originally Posted by high fly
A class in logic will inform you that in order to defeat a universal statement, only one example is needed.
This is a rule in debate, as well.


Are you talking about the shoebomber example? I think I said above that I didn't consider it a domestic attack. Regardless, my discussion with topless was not to substantiate any claims that there has been no domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11.


Let's not move the goal posts.
That specifically was the statement.
It was false.



It was to say that, even assuming that were true, that "fact" does not mean Bush has made us safe, because there were no domestic terrorist attacks by foriegn groups between the first WTC attack and the second. And we know we weren't safe then.

BTW, I do realize there was a domestic terrorist attack by a domestic group during that time in Oklahoma City.


There was also the killing of CIA employees at the entrance to CIA HQ in January, 1993 by Mir Aimal Kansi.
You can look it up.
Clinton trained a team of Pashtun Afghans to go after him and also employed a nifty operation by the CIA and FBI to lure Kansi to Pakistan where he was snatched and brought back, tried and executed in Virginia.
While it appears Kansi acted alone, he certainly had a support network at home.

I have a rather lengthy list of other terrorists prosecuted by the Clinton administration.







Because my definition of terrorism, from Webster's and my Ivy League education, is one done with a political agenda. Without knowing the agenda of the anthrax perp, I can say it was a terrorist attack. Maybe it was, but no one knows what the motive was.

Would you say the Tylenol tampering in the '80's was a terrorist attack? That's equivalent to the antrhax attacks. I wouldn't say that it was a terrorist act.


I recognize an attempt to slip away insttead of addressing your error directly and admitting the statement was false.
They don't teach logic at them thair "Ivy League" schools, it seems.

And yes, the Tylenol poisoning was a terrorist operation.

To catch up, I recommend 11) TERRORISM, ASYMETRIC WARFARE AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION [I]Defending the U.S. Homeland,[I] by Anthony Cordesman (Praeger, 2002).
He gives the various definitions of terrorism by various government agencies and lists terrorist attacks like the Tylenol dillio. It's quite a dry read, but extremely informative.

On page 83, for example, you would read of the July 20 and 22, 1993 pipe-bomb attacks carried out by the American Front Skinheads in Tacoma Washington.

Then in September of 1994 that guy in a Cessna tried to crash into the White House.

And there was the bombing attack at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.

Some people think TWA 800 was sabotaged.

Then there was the powder mailed to the B'Nai B'Rith building in D.C. with a note making it appear to be anthrax. It wasn't, but the event was key in getting things rolling for programs to deal with such an event.

A lot of people considered the bombings of the abortion clinic and the bar carried out by Eric Rudolf to be acts of terrorism.

And fortunately there were a number of WMD attacks within the U.S.that were broken up before they could be carried out.

[TheMojoPin]

You're overstating a lot here.

First, with regard to WWII, one could have argued that the Germans hated democracy because they got rid of a very democratic republic (Weimar republic) for a hard line dictatorship. Yet, we sought to create a more durable democracy there.

But most of the Muslim world, and Iraq, are not these religious zealots. Just as not all Germans were racist Nazis.

We are trying to re-build Iraq so that we can create a stable nation of those Iraqis that don't automatically hate America. If we did as you suggest, which was go in, invade, create damage, etc., suddenly we'll have every Iraqi hating us, and seek revenge.

That's what happened after WWI. Hitler was able to gain power by playing on Germans' anger at the reparations and other things imposed on Germany after the war.

Excellent points.

So much of the Middle East has shown it's incredibly open to being exposed to western pop culture and products, etc.. The problems arise when people are deprived these and other "positive" perceptions of the West and America and are only or mostly inundated with anti-Western rhetoric in contrast to this. Only relatively very few keep these negative perceptions when actually exposed to the "Western world." We would go a LOT further in terms of making everyone safer and gbetter off by encouraging "velvet revolutions" like the one Iran will go through in the next 10-15 years as opposed to storming in, fucking the place up, proving that everything bad said about us is "true" and then handpicking the leaders we want.

[ATMfromChico]

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="3"]You're overstating a lot here.

First, with regard to WWII, one could have argued that the Germans hated democracy because they got rid of a very democratic republic (Weimar republic) for a hard line dictatorship. Yet, we sought to create a more durable democracy there.

But most of the Muslim world, and Iraq, are not these religious zealots. Just as not all Germans were racist Nazis.

Please understand that I am not trying to make sweeping statements about the people in these countries as a whole. In Iraq alone there are a multitude of sects, and within those sects are countless people who are generous of spirit and heart. People who have families and love and enjoy life as we do.

I am speaking to the number of organized people who want nothing more than to bring an end to their perception of Western Culture. These people are the ones that seed anger against us with people who probably want nothing more than to be left alone by everyone. Just as in this country it is the most extreme factions of our parties that make the most noise and often end up guiding, to a point, the direction our government takes.

Heck there are parts of the Islamic belief that I can understand and identify with. Just as there are portions of Christianity that I can do the same. And Hinduism and Buddism. But it is the extreme factions of any country that can cause the most damage because they are determined to attack, kill, and bring war. While the majority either cares only enough to grumble but do nothing.

Bush used our hurt and pain in order to focus our anger to bring wrath to our perceived enemies. And it was important for us to ferret out those who could cause a true problem to us. However I still do not agree that the Marshall plan is a good idea with this culture because the standpoint is different. The militant factions will seed more anger and dissent by us remaining in the country than if we had come in, done our business, and then departed.

[EliSnow]

Let's not move the goal posts.
That specifically was the statement.
It was false.


I'm not trying to move the goalposts. I'm putting my comments into context.

The statement about terrorist attacks after 9/11 was Topless'. Rather than directly saying it was false, I attempted to show that if it was true, it's not a sign that "Bush has kept us safe."

Also, for your other points, you have your definition of terrorism, backed by others and I have mine.
That's fine, but my problem with your posts is the assumption that my point is the result of programming by the right-wing propaganda machine. It's not. I think I've stated enough thoughts on this board showing my beliefs are the result of critical thinking, and not the result of swallowing "false cliches."

I'll leave it at that.

[TheMojoPin]

Bush used our hurt and pain in order to focus our anger to bring wrath to our perceived enemies. And it was important for us to ferret out those who could cause a true problem to us. However I still do not agree that the Marshall plan is a good idea with this culture because the standpoint is different. The militant factions will seed more anger and dissent by us remaining in the country than if we had come in, done our business, and then departed.

The Marshall Plan was done to help win over the people who, almost 30 years prior, had gone home pissed off, militant and full of dissent. It was done to win over people who even in defeat posed FAR more of athreat to Western stability tha Islamic extremists do, or ever have.

[high fly]

You're overstating a lot here....

.But most of the Muslim world, and Iraq, are not these religious zealots. Just as not all Germans were racist Nazis.

We are trying to re-build Iraq so that we can create a stable nation of those Iraqis that don't automatically hate America. If we did as you suggest, which was go in, invade, create damage, etc., suddenly we'll have every Iraqi hating us, and seek revenge.



That is also what is happening right now.
Besides install democracy, our task is also to shoehorn all the advancement of Western thought that came during the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason onto a feudal civilization.

Here is a selection from Imperial Hubris, page 203-204 --- "In both Afghanistan and Iraq we have won the war but we stand in danger of losing what we won because our foreign policy suffers from the King George Syndrome. Freedom is neither a spontaneous nor a universal aspiration. Other goods captivate the minds of other people from other lands, order, honor, and tribal loyalties being the most obvious. And because these goods orient thse peoples no less powerfully than freedom orients us, we are apt to be sorely surprised when people who are liberated turn to new tyrants who can assume order; to terrorists who die for the honor of their country or Islam; and to tribal warlords whose winner-take-all mentality is corrosive to the pluralism and toleration that are the hallmarks of modern democracy."

[EliSnow]

That is also what is happening right now.
Besides install democracy, our task is also to shoehorn all the advancement of Western thought that came during the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason onto a feudal civilization.

Here is a selection from Imperial Hubris, page 203-204 --- "In both Afghanistan and Iraq we have won the war but we stand in danger of losing what we won because our foreign policy suffers from the King George Syndrome. Freedom is neither a spontaneous nor a universal aspiration. Other goods captivate the minds of other people from other lands, order, honor, and tribal loyalties being the most obvious. And because these goods orient thse peoples no less powerfully than freedom orients us, we are apt to be sorely surprised when people who are liberated turn to new tyrants who can assume order; to terrorists who die for the honor of their country or Islam; and to tribal warlords whose winner-take-all mentality is corrosive to the pluralism and toleration that are the hallmarks of modern democracy."

I agree that the way we gone abiut "rebuilding" Iraq is flawed. But are you suggesting we shouldnKt have made any attempt to rebuild after invading?

I think we should never invaded in part because of the chances we would succed at rebuilding. But since we did invade, think the only way to salvage something was to do something to rebuild.

[high fly]

I'm not trying to move the goalposts. I'm putting my comments into context.

The statement about terrorist attacks after 9/11 was Topless'. Rather than directly saying it was false, I attempted to show that if it was true, it's not a sign that "Bush has kept us safe."

Also, for your other points, you have your definition of terrorism, backed by others and I have mine.
That's fine, but my problem with your posts is the assumption that my point is the result of programming by the right-wing propaganda machine. It's not. I think I've stated enough thoughts on this board showing my beliefs are the result of critical thinking, and not the result of swallowing "false cliches."

I'll leave it at that.


Fair enough.
As for Iraq, I was for it and then came to be against it before we invaded largely due to arguments put forth on this board.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the so-called "Global War on Terror" we have gotten too big with our ambitions and bitten off more than we can chew.
In Iraq and Afghanistan we should have gone in, taken care of businees and gotten out.

"How can our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution. Have we not suffered enough from Pan Am 103 to the World Trade Center to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam - not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle." [quote made before 9/11]

"With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which the Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon...
We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we shall meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."

--- both quotes from notorious leftie Pat Buchannon

[EliSnow]

Fair enough.
As for Iraq, I was for it and then came to be against it before we invaded largely due to arguments put forth on this board.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the so-called "Global War on Terror" we have gotten too big with our ambitions and bitten off more than we can chew.
In Iraq and Afghanistan we should have gone in, taken care of businees and gotten out.

"How can our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution. Have we not suffered enough from Pan Am 103 to the World Trade Center to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam - not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle." [quote made before 9/11]

"With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which the Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon...
We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we shall meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."

--- both quotes from notorious leftie Pat Buchannon

I agree with much but not all of this. I think having a "War on Terror" is a mistake the same way the "War on Drugs" is a mistake. You can't have a war against a concept, condition, or a problem. You can't have clear, objective goals that can define victory in such a war. The only victory is where there is no terrorism, and that will never happen.

I think Afghanistan was necessary, but should have been conducted differently, and our efforts afterwards, and resources used to invade Iraq should have been used to rebuild Afghanistan.

And no invasion of Iraq.

But not that we're there, I think getting out and leaving a mess would be worse in the long term than at least trying to help rebuild. Not saying installing a Western democracy/civilization, but helping the Iraqs create some stable government(s) and restoring an infrastructure that helps them survive.

[high fly]

More from Michael Scheuer's Imperial Hubris

Page 205 --- "As a people, Americans have a heritage to be proud of and one that is worth defending with their children's lives. It is not, however, a heritage whose experiences, heroes, wars, scandals, sacrifices, victories, mistakes, and villains can be condensed, loaded on a CD-ROM, and given to non-Americans with an expectation that they will quickly and at little expense become just like us. This is a debilitating fantasy of how the rest of the world and its peoples live and work. Far worse it shows a profound ignorance of America, one that mocks those who fought and died resisting tyrannical monarchies and churches, secession, foreign rule, slavery, segregation, discrimination, the union of church and state, and a thousand other issues for which blood was shed to fuel the incremental but still incomplete perfecting of American democracy."

[Rorschach]

bush will go down in history as the greatest president the usa ever had. at least he had the balls to go after those fucks not like you pussy assed liberals

[epo]

bush will go down in history as the greatest president the usa ever had. at least he had the balls to go after those fucks not like you pussy assed liberals

Who are "those fucks"?

[high fly]

Sorry, I posted while you posted.
Nice to be in agreement.
The biggest problem I think in the Bush strategy is the effort is dffused, rather than concentrated.
Are we at war with Shining Path? The Tamil Tigers? Hamas?

We keep thinking bigger is better and as a result we increase the size of our SEALs and Delta Force until they become big, slow-moving behemoths rather than the small, agile forces they need to be.
We announce "Marshall Plans" and such, and use an unconventional war to pump up purchases of conventional equipment.

[Rorschach]

Who are "those fucks"?

you know who

[epo]

you know who

No I don't. Who are "those fucks?"

[Rorschach]

No I don't. Who are "those fucks?"

stop trying to goad me you pinko

[high fly]

bush will go down in history as the greatest president the usa ever had. at least he had the balls to go after those fucks not like you pussy assed liberals


Sorry, this "bit" has been done.....

[high fly]

Originally Posted by Rorschach
you know who

No I don't. Who are "those fucks?"


The Mexicans who attacked us on 9/11 and made tax cuts for the rich mandantory....

[epo]

stop trying to goad me you pinko

Why are you personally attacking me?

You must hate America.

[DiabloSammich]

Why are you personally attacking me?

You must hate America.


Fuck Hawkwind.

[EliSnow]

Why are you personally attacking me?

You must hate America.

He's a board character. I think Rorshach in Watchmen actually did say things about "pinkos" and "liberals."

[epo]

Fuck Hawkwind.

:lol:

[underdog]

bush will go down in history as the greatest president the usa ever had. at least he had the balls to go after those fucks not like you pussy assed liberals

Are you Shapopo Joe?

[scottinnj]

stop trying to goad me you pinko

LEAVE EPO ALONE!!!!!




http://media.canada.com/8c8b3290-2b08-4dc6-8e3e-2cc645fdfe05/070920_crocker.jpg



Leave him alone!!

[high fly]

Fuck Hawkwind.



Bitch about Hawkwind all you want, just leave Steeleye Span out of it..........

[JerseySean]

AJ, would you care to comment on the role of the Office of

That is how the uranium from Niger claim came about, to take one example.

.

Dont be racist, Cheney isnt black, sorry Earl

[TheQuestion]

He's a board character.

He's a character alright.

And he's been ripping me off for years.

[TheMojoPin]

He's a character alright.

And he's been ripping me off for years.

That's because he was supposed to be you.

Alan Moore wanted to use the old Charlton Comics chaacters for Watchmen, but DC decided they waned to add them to their universe.

Moore and Gibbons originally conceived of a story that would take "familiar old-fashioned superheroes into a completely new realm."[5] Initially, Moore looked towards the defunct MLJ Comics line of superheroes for inspiration. "I'd just started thinking about using the MLJ characters — the Archie super-heroes - just because they weren't being published at that time, and for all I knew, they might've been up for grabs. The initial concept would've had the 1960s-'70s rather lame version of the Shield being found dead in the harbor, and then you'd probably have various other characters, including Jack Kirby's Private Strong, being drafted back in, and a murder mystery unfolding. I suppose I was just thinking, "That'd be a good way to start a comic book: have a famous super-hero found dead." As the mystery unraveled, we would be led deeper and deeper into the real heart of this super-hero's world, and show a reality that was very different to the general public image of the super-hero. So, that was the idea."[6]

Dick Giordano, who had worked for Charlton Comics, suggested using a cast of old Charlton characters that had recently been acquired by DC. However, the Charlton heroes were being slowly integrated into the normal DC continuity. Because Moore and Gibbons wanted to do a serious storyline in which some of the newly acquired characters would die and the world would be drastically altered by story's end, using the Charlton heroes was not feasible. Giordano then suggested that Moore and Gibbons simply start from scratch and create their own characters. So while certain characters in Watchmen are loosely based upon the Charlton characters (such as Dr. Manhattan, who was inspired by Captain Atom; Rorschach, who was based upon the Question; and Nite Owl, who was loosely based on the Blue Beetle), Moore decided to create characters that ultimately would scarcely resemble their Charlton counterparts.

[Great Tiger's Turban]

He's a character alright.

And he's been ripping me off for years.

Who hasn't ripped you off? Oh thats right me, I am the best one here

[Yerdaddy]

I'm not going to defend Bush. I thought he was a tremendous force in the first few months after 9/11. However I think the major mistake he made was to try and make everyone "happy" with his incursion into Iraq. He tried to make nice and have everyone stay after the initial fighting in order to create a free government in Iraq. Stupid. The intelligence was probably valid that there was a problem, or recently had been a problem in Iraq. We should have gone in like we did, check as much of the landscape out as possible. Destroy any resistence, weapons, and pull Hussein out by his eyelids and then gone the fuck home. Should have let Iraq deal with the fallout and put their own country back together again. If America had done a smash and grab, instead of a stick and stagnate we would have made a bigger impression on Iran and the other countries that would love to hurt us. They would think "shit, if America thinks we're up to something they'll come break our toys, and leave us in shambles . . .that would suck! Just a thought.

You sound like a guy who always rushed home and did all your homework really quickly so you could spend the rest of your day playing video games. What I mean to say is that you make well-written concise but clearly ill-considered insane ideas. John's Hopkins should devote a whole research wing to studying how you came to be you.

Your major premise: we should have gone in, done what we wanted - get Saddam, destroy weapons and resistance - and leave. That actually was the administration's war plan, with the necessary addition of installing a replacement regime - Ahmed Chalabi and his merry band of exiles - which you seem to have thought unnecessary. They, like you, thought this would be easy. What you seem to have not noticed is this:

1) Getting Saddam, which was our #1 focus following the collapse of his government, took more than 8 months from the fall of Baghdad. In the mean time a full-fledged insurgency (several actually) staged offensives against us using the weapons they stockpiled and we refused to secure because we were planning on leaving anyway. They successfully carried out a strategy of driving out the international elements of the coalition capable of addressing the needs of the Iraqi people and providing the only element of international legitimacy of the coalition occupation by blowing them up - and demonstrating that the coalition could not provide security for them, or anyone else. Without a plan for occupation, the piecemeal governing bodies headed by ideological appointees made disasterous messes that we then had to clean up - like disbanding the military and declaring Baath Party members from ministers down to school teachers inelligible to take part in running the country. Our strategy for dealing with the insurgency was to watch the movie about the French methods for dealing with an Algerian insurgency by rounding up young men and torturing them for information called "The Battle of Algiers" and implimenting it exactly in Abu Ghraib and other prisons. Problem is, they forgot to read the post-script at the end of the film that stated that, while the strategy succeeded in crushing the insurgency, it infuriated the people so badly they rose up and kicked the French out within five years.

2) The search for weapons in Iraq took 18 months.

3) The idea that a country can forcefully remove the institutions of government in another country and then abandon it's people to their fates is tantamount to genocide. Imagine an America where every pro sports franchise and college athletic team simultaneously won a national championship and every cop in the country has been given the week off. What we did in the first months of the occupation, and which you're proposing we should have done even moreso, is to leave the people of Iraq to the mercy of the most violent forces in the country. It is, and was, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and it was a moral crime committed by this country on the Iraqi people. What you're proposing is that we can make wars with absolutely no responsibility to the people of a country, and that is immoral and insane.

Furthermore, it is incredibly stupid to advocate the creation of a failed state in the heart of the Middle East when the existence of a failed state in Afghanistan and southern Pakistan is what allowed al-Qaeda to form and to train and plan the attacks of 9-11 and every other attack on the US and other targets.

You are a true neocon, sir. You should seriously consider submitting your resume to the Giuliani campaign today. I guarantee you'll be considered for a cabinet-level posistion on the basis of this post alone.

Your ideas on the Muslim world are equally well-expressed and ill-informed. Nothing personal; I say this based entirely on the merits of the arguments you posted.

[ATMfromChico]

You sound like a guy who always rushed home and did all your homework really quickly so you could spend the rest of your day playing video games. What I mean to say is that you make well-written concise but clearly ill-considered insane ideas. John's Hopkins should devote a whole research wing to studying how you came to be you.

Thanks for the glowing review. I never claimed to be a pundit, expert, or the member of a high level think tank. And who can ever express their opinions clearly enough? But I will clarify a few things.

I have never in my life claimed to be right even twenty percent of the time. And, argue as you will, the situation we face in the middle east is one of opinion. Each of us could base an arguement on reports, military evidence (released to us as the public), and what our media tells us in one form or another. And all the information we receive is flawed in one way or another. There is no objective forum of pure fact that we can draw conclusions upon. Not to mention we all have our opinions, passions, and beliefs.

For me I am an independent. I claim no party line, nor do I claim that I don't blow smoke out of my ass a good portion of the time.

That said, here is what I think about Iraq.

I think there was intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction there. I think Bush and his inner circle had other motivations for wanting to enter into Iraq. I have no idea what they are, but no one other than he and that circle do. Using faulty intelligence he rallied the American people (and other's in the coalition) to enter into Iraq. This is all old news. We know there were no major weapons found. They might have been ferried to Syria or elsewhere, or could have been destroyed long before our entrance. Once we were there. We did our search, found nothing and then should have gotten the hell out.

Why? Because any threat in Iraq was destroyed. Yes over time they could rebuild a network and try and hurt us. If that happened we could go right back in.

But let's be intellectually honest here. The factions that have power in the middle east hate our guts. If we leave them alone, they hate us. If we go in and destroy their power, they hate us. If we go in smash things and bring them to their knees and then turn around and rebuild their country, they hate us. And I am not speaking of the common man and woman that try to lead their lives peacefully without real malice towards us. I speak of those in power. And most in power in the middle east are based on a religious platform.

There are a few examples of places that embrace Western culture (ie Dubai) but most do not. Most hate our guts and would love to see us fall into obscurity. I'm not saying all these people want us walking around our country headless, but on the other hand they wouldn't mind if we fell into third world status.

So when I say that I think it is better for us to go in, take care of our objective of eliminating an immediate threat, and then leaving. I mean it. Sounds stupid to some, sure. But we live in a time when America really has no friends. Allies yes. Friends no. And we had better make an impression that we don't want to be fucked with. Because this business of trying to act like we care about other countries and their well being is a lie. We don't. Sure, we may care about the downtrodden, poor, and repressed in other places but we have enough of that at home to take care of.

In the end, in my flawed and insane opinion, we should either pull back into a defensive isolationist position, or make a statement to those who would want to harm us and let them settle the dust and fix their country after we have made said statement.

[TheMojoPin]

So when I say that I think it is better for us to go in, take care of our objective of eliminating an immediate threat.

How does that apply to Iraq?

[ATMfromChico]

How does that apply to Iraq?


With Iraq I am speaking to what was perceived as the immediate threat at the time of incursion. The bill of goods saying that there were weapons of mass destruction in the country. Once we entered, scoured the country and discovered the weapons were either non-existent, destroyed or moved elsewhere it was time to get the hell out. And yes I know Bush also talked about helping the people of Iraq get rid of the current leadership and put in a "democratic" government, but that was to help grease the wheels of the American public to make it seem more appealing to go in and do what we did.

Again, once we knew there was no longer a threat, perceived or otherwise, it was time to get the hell out and move on. If a threat popped up again, then go back and take care of it.

It is the prolonged exposure to such hate against our people that brings such a high body count to our soliders.

[Yerdaddy]

Thanks for the glowing review. I never claimed to be a pundit, expert, or the member of a high level think tank. And who can ever express their opinions clearly enough? But I will clarify a few things.

I have never in my life claimed to be right even twenty percent of the time. And, argue as you will, the situation we face in the middle east is one of opinion. Each of us could base an arguement on reports, military evidence (released to us as the public), and what our media tells us in one form or another. And all the information we receive is flawed in one way or another. There is no objective forum of pure fact that we can draw conclusions upon. Not to mention we all have our opinions, passions, and beliefs.

For me I am an independent. I claim no party line, nor do I claim that I don't blow smoke out of my ass a good portion of the time.

Translation: no data is perfect; therefore no piece of evidence is more authoritative or trustworthy than any other; therefore no opinion is any more or less valid than any other regardless of the quality of information that informed it; therefore my opinion is valid even though I have little or no evidentiary basis for it.

Your premise is false. There are principles by which sources of information can and must be considered more authoritative than any other. Would you allow a brain surgeon to operate on you after shunning medical school for the DeVry Institue on the basis of "medical schools don't know everything about the human body so any college is as good as another"? No rational person would accept that logic, yet that is the logic you say applies to international events. Your depiction of how the war happened and should have happened reflects that you believe understanding political subjects does not benefit from intellectual rigor or even incorporation of any evidence sources into the formation of your opinions. Unless you were to rethink and reject this absurd ant-intellectualist principle, (as demonstrated by your refusal to even consider any of the challenges that I and others posed to your posts), you're basically acknowledging that it would be pointless to try to change your opinions. They're yours and you love them and nobody's going to take them away from you! But for the benefit of the curious I'll point out some flaws in them.

That said, here is what I think about Iraq.

I think there was intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction there.
There was intelligence that Iraq had WMD. But for every line of argument the administration made about WMD there was stronger evidence that the intelligence presented to the public that supported the case of the presence of WMD was filtered outside of the normal vetting processes of the professional intelligence establishment. Like Hi Fly stated, the Office of Special Plans was created by the administration and staffed by political appointees to process raw intel data into the conclusions the administration wanted by preventing the professionals from assessing the quality and meaning of the data. The professionals didn't have a chance to determine whether Iraq had WMD or not. That much was clear prior to the Iraq invasion to anyone who was open to the possibility that Iraq was not an imminent threat. The strongest evidentiary case was not that Saddam had or didn't have WMD but that we were being lied to by our public officicals.
I think Bush and his inner circle had other motivations for wanting to enter into Iraq. I have no idea what they are, but no one other than he and that circle do. Using faulty intelligence he rallied the American people (and other's in the coalition) to enter into Iraq. This is all old news.

Your approval of the President of the United States lying to the American people to gain approval for a war - especially one of choice in a time of a broader confrontation with transnational terrorism and after the worst attack on US soil - should be disturbing to anyone who values American democracy.

We know there were no major weapons found. They might have been ferried to Syria or elsewhere, or could have been destroyed long before our entrance. Once we were there. We did our search, found nothing and then should have gotten the hell out.

The idea that Saddam had WDM but shipped them off to Syria has been put forward by some pro-Bush nut-jobs before. It will outlive us all as a right-wing conspiracy theory. However, both the David Kay and Brad Dulfier Reports, (the two heads of the US weapons inspection team), stated that there was no evidence to support this claim.

Why? Because any threat in Iraq was destroyed. Yes over time they could rebuild a network and try and hurt us. If that happened we could go right back in.
Using circular logic ATM won't even consider the possibility that Iraq was not a threat to us. Creepy.

But let's be intellectually honest here.

That made me spit my Lok Lak out of my nose. It's very spicy!

The factions that have power in the middle east hate our guts. If we leave them alone, they hate us. If we go in and destroy their power, they hate us. If we go in smash things and bring them to their knees and then turn around and rebuild their country, they hate us. And I am not speaking of the common man and woman that try to lead their lives peacefully without real malice towards us. I speak of those in power. And most in power in the middle east are based on a religious platform.

There are a few examples of places that embrace Western culture (ie Dubai) but most do not. Most hate our guts and would love to see us fall into obscurity. I'm not saying all these people want us walking around our country headless, but on the other hand they wouldn't mind if we fell into third world status.

(Dubai is funny. Why does Dubai get a pass? Because they've devoted themselves to becoming a playground for corporate executives? Why not Jordan, where every police car in the coutry is a Crown Victoria - a gift of the United States - and the King played on the national soccer team and has finally had his joint press conferences next to Bush curtailed because he speaks better English than Bush? Or Lebanon where women in Beirut wear bandages on their noses to make people think they had plastic surgery and are more attractive? Or Kuwait, which has more Starbucks per capita than any state in America? Or Qutar, where A.J. drank more beer and got closer to getting laid than he ever did in the US?)

A common premise that fans of military aggression have used throughout human history. In WWII it was crazy posters depicting the real threat of Axis Power countries as made up of inhuman savages bent on our destruction. Since 9-11 it's been the postulate that all Muslims, or the ones that matter - like all of their religious or political leaders - or the Islamic religion itself, all harbor an irrational and absolute hate of America and are devoted to our destruction. It's a convenient theory because if it's true then any and all actions we take against them are justified; they are not rational actors and so the morality or immorality, or the rationality or irrationality of our choices will not effect the actions of our "enemy". Wouldn't our choices be easier if this were true? And what if the more likely scenario - that Muslims and Muslim leaders are rational human beings who do judge America by how it's actions effect them, or even that most Muslim leaders are in fact more pro-US than anti-US for whatever reasons? This possibility is why we need evidence and it should be obvious to anyone who cares that the overwhelming evidence shows that most Muslims "that have power in the Middle East" don't "hate our guts" but instead love our money, our guns, our military and political protection, our strippers, our action movies, our luxury goods, our architects, our investment bankers, our national debt, Italy's tailors, Russia's prostitutes, everybody's Champaign and fine aged double-malt Scotch, our Baywatch, our Sienfeld, Friends, Frasier and Inside Edition, they LOVE disco, Brittney Spears, and Celine Dion, and in fact, in my experience - based on the amount they know about these guys compared to how much Americans know - they love Jesus, Abraham, Moses and every other Biblical hero even more that American Christians do. Based on my two years in the Middle East, I know that the ordinary Muslims overwhelimingly do not hate America. Based on any objective look at the lives of the royal families and political leadership of Muslim coutries one must conclude that most of them would be devistated to see America, and all that they love from America, disappear. Those people are definitely NOT the ones we need to worry about. Half of them probably wouldn't give a shit if their own countries were wiped off the maps if only so they don't have to leave thier French villas and Manhattan penthouses to visit those shit-holes.

So, yeah. Again... no idea what he's talking about.

So when I say that I think it is better for us to go in, take care of our objective of eliminating an immediate threat, and then leaving. I mean it. Sounds stupid to some, sure. But we live in a time when America really has no friends. Allies yes. Friends no. And we had better make an impression that we don't want to be fucked with. Because this business of trying to act like we care about other countries and their well being is a lie. We don't. Sure, we may care about the downtrodden, poor, and repressed in other places but we have enough of that at home to take care of.

In the end, in my flawed and insane opinion, we should either pull back into a defensive isolationist position, or make a statement to those who would want to harm us and let them settle the dust and fix their country after we have made said statement.

Read this last bit in a German accent and ask if it couldn't have been pulled from the screenplay of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"?

Bottom line = evidence matters.

[TheMojoPin]

With Iraq I am speaking to what was perceived as the immediate threat at the time of incursion.

I ask again, how does that apply to Iraq in terms of being a threat to us?

Secondly, if your concern is that our extended actions cause resentment that harms our troops, how do you possibly think that bursting into countries, smashing things up and then leaving makes us any safer? If anything, it only sets the stage for us having to do it agan and again and again based on these kindasortamaybebutnotreally "immediate threats."

[Yosammity]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/193529076_a431ef95f1.jpg?v=0

[A.J.]

Or Qutar, where A.J. drank more beer and got closer to getting laid than he ever did in the US?

"Oh, it's twue! It's twue!"

Well, except for my last week there...it was the start of Ramadan.

[ATMfromChico]

:surrender::devil2:

Okay, okay I give. My apologies to Yerdaddy and Mojo, and any others that I vexed and frustrated with my circular and insane logic for the past few days. I really did not mean to be such a pain in the ass, but I could not help myself.

When I saw the thread and they way it was progressing I thought to myself that it would be interesting to answer it and follow a train of logic that someone would conceive of from a bunch of soundbites and articles that political pundits would throw out. In essence I became a soundbite machine that had grains of truth mixed with spin. In otherwords what you might expect your "normal" person on the street to say if asked specific questions and had no facts to back themselves up.

I really am sorry. I wan't trying to be an asshole, but was curious to see what it would do to those who base their arguements on fact and research. Out of all the bullshit that espoused from my proverbial mouth there was one thing I really believed. I don't believe that the Marshall plan can be successfully implemented in Iraq without too high a cost in American lives.

Here's what I think about Iraq, really.

After 9/11 I was with a lot of American people who wanted nothing more than revenge. When Bush brought up Iraq I knew there was something fishy about it, but we when were fed the line about weapons of mass destruction there was enough blood lust left in me, and a lot of other Americans, to go ahead and suspend my nagging doubts and support the incursion into that country.

When the invasion was complete and the reports starting coming in with no weapons found I knew that I had been duped. I can't say I know why Bush wanted to enter Iraq. I'm not the type to believe the line it was for Oil, and Big Oil companies. I don't buy the line that it was to finish what his father had started. I'm not really sure why they hell we had to do what we did, but the cost of lives was far too much for what we have gained. In my humble, and truthfull, opinion.

The one part of my past convoluted arguements I still hold to is that the Marshall plan will not work in Iraq. With Germany and Japan, after WWII, there was a certain predictive outcome based on logic and rationality. And that is because a beaten people need to see something positive happening after their country has been ground into dust. When they see their cities being rebuilt it helps to give them hope for the future as well as releiving some of the resentment held against the conquering countries.

However, in the case of the Middle East the religious component is a variable factor because people who believe they are on a crusade do not base their decisions rationally. They care not if we rebuild them, or if we help them regain some modicum of "civilization". They believe we are a morally corrupt empire that must be destroyed. It would be akin to having a big casino in Las Vegas rebuilding a fundamentalist church that was knocked over in a tornado. Trust me I am not making this blanket statement of all the inhabitants of Iraq. Just those who really want us dead and buried.

So in the end my opinion is that Iraq is FUBAR. We stuck out foot in a pile of dogshit and really need to find a way to wipe off our shoe without getting it on the new carpet.

Again Yerdaddy and Mojo I'm sorry I stretched your patience a bit, but I wanted to see what a man on the street, soundbit espousing, broken logic voter would sound like in this thread. I promise I won't be doing that again.

:innocent:

[TheMojoPin]

Dude, no need to apologize. You didn't do anything wrong. It was a good ol' debate.

[scottinnj]

Yeah, ATMChico, welcome to the board. I am sort of on your side of the argument about this, but me and Mojo and Yerdaddy have been around the block with this subject before, so I sat back and lurked this thread reading your progress. You handled yourself rather nicely. I look forward to a tag team with you versus those two. BATTLE ROYALE!!!

[Yerdaddy]

:surrender::devil2:

Okay, okay I give. My apologies to Yerdaddy and Mojo, and any others that I vexed and frustrated with my circular and insane logic for the past few days. I really did not mean to be such a pain in the ass, but I could not help myself.

When I saw the thread and they way it was progressing I thought to myself that it would be interesting to answer it and follow a train of logic that someone would conceive of from a bunch of soundbites and articles that political pundits would throw out. In essence I became a soundbite machine that had grains of truth mixed with spin. In otherwords what you might expect your "normal" person on the street to say if asked specific questions and had no facts to back themselves up.

I really am sorry. I wan't trying to be an asshole, but was curious to see what it would do to those who base their arguements on fact and research. Out of all the bullshit that espoused from my proverbial mouth there was one thing I really believed. I don't believe that the Marshall plan can be successfully implemented in Iraq without too high a cost in American lives.

Here's what I think about Iraq, really.

After 9/11 I was with a lot of American people who wanted nothing more than revenge. When Bush brought up Iraq I knew there was something fishy about it, but we when were fed the line about weapons of mass destruction there was enough blood lust left in me, and a lot of other Americans, to go ahead and suspend my nagging doubts and support the incursion into that country.

When the invasion was complete and the reports starting coming in with no weapons found I knew that I had been duped. I can't say I know why Bush wanted to enter Iraq. I'm not the type to believe the line it was for Oil, and Big Oil companies. I don't buy the line that it was to finish what his father had started. I'm not really sure why they hell we had to do what we did, but the cost of lives was far too much for what we have gained. In my humble, and truthfull, opinion.

The one part of my past convoluted arguements I still hold to is that the Marshall plan will not work in Iraq. With Germany and Japan, after WWII, there was a certain predictive outcome based on logic and rationality. And that is because a beaten people need to see something positive happening after their country has been ground into dust. When they see their cities being rebuilt it helps to give them hope for the future as well as releiving some of the resentment held against the conquering countries.

However, in the case of the Middle East the religious component is a variable factor because people who believe they are on a crusade do not base their decisions rationally. They care not if we rebuild them, or if we help them regain some modicum of "civilization". They believe we are a morally corrupt empire that must be destroyed. It would be akin to having a big casino in Las Vegas rebuilding a fundamentalist church that was knocked over in a tornado. Trust me I am not making this blanket statement of all the inhabitants of Iraq. Just those who really want us dead and buried.

So in the end my opinion is that Iraq is FUBAR. We stuck out foot in a pile of dogshit and really need to find a way to wipe off our shoe without getting it on the new carpet.

Again Yerdaddy and Mojo I'm sorry I stretched your patience a bit, but I wanted to see what a man on the street, soundbit espousing, broken logic voter would sound like in this thread. I promise I won't be doing that again.

:innocent:

No need to apologize. Actually, your posts weren't entirely believable without reference to the Fox "News" talking points cliches like "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and "the librul media won't tell you all the good stuff about I-raq." So if you want to sell it better next time just pretend you hate liberals more than you hate terrorists.

The only thing about your real opinion I still disagree with is that a "Marshall Plan" wouldn't work when some Muslims feel they're on a Crusade. If you compare the occupations of Germany and Japan to Iraq the supposed differences in the populations aren't that different but the difference in the effort we made to secure and rebuild the countries are massive.

Being that we were the sole occupying force - wih the British - Japan is a better analogy. The Japanese were every bit as fearful and hateful of us as the Iraqis, (meaning there was a range of moderate to extremists to the same degree). For generations during its imperialist period the Japanese were taught and had generally accepted the ideas that they were racially, culturally and religiously superior to any other including us, and that they were destined to rule Asia and beyond. They were also taught that we were barbarians and would butcher them to the last man, woman and child if they didn't fight to the death. That's how you got kamikaze pilots, human waves of Japanese fighting in massive suicide attacks, and mass suicides in Japan prior to our impending occupation. Our firebombing of almost every city in Japan with huge numbers of casualties didn't help that perception a bit.

It's easy to portray al-Qaeda or Islamic extremism as some new and special kind of crazy, but it's really neither.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is actually greatly diminished now that the administration has finally put couterinsurgency professionals like Patraeus in charge. Following proper counterinsurgency tactics they made alliances with former enemies the Sunni tribes and supported them in fighting - and largely defeating - another enemy, al-Qaeda in Iraq. Military counterinsurgency experts like Patraeus have been advocating strategies like this from the beginning but the administratin ignored them for three years preferring to fight the war for domestic political consumption instead. Who knows what could have happened if we had rational people in the White House from the time of the invasion?

The other religious extremist groups which have siezed political power, (Muqtada al-Sadr and SCIRI), came to political power in the security vaccuum we created by not having enough forces or even ording what we had to secure the country after the fall of Baghdad. Widespread crime and violence prevailed in Iraq for the first three years, and still does to a lesser degree now. This is because the administration ignored the most basic of lessons from past occupations - that maintaining security and rule of law are the most important factors in being able to obtain any of your objectives in an occupied zone. We threw that out the window and when it came time for the elections we reluctantly supported the Iraqi people did what every other people have done in that situation - they voted for the group they thought could protect them from the violent crime and terrorism they had suffered for a year and they voted for groups with the most fearsome armed militias - SCIRI and al-Sadr's Badr Brigades.

The way we handled the occupations of Japan and Iraq almost couldn't be more different. Military doctrine dicates a certain number of troops are needed to provided to secure a population. Our 150,000 troop average we've maintained is a fraction of what the Army War College suggests is the minimum necessary to secure Iraq. It is also a fraction of the ratio 300,000 soldiers provided Japan with.

After that you've got numerous examples of wrong decisions that demonstrate the people knew nothing about the Japanese occupation. When MacArthur disbanded the Japanese security forces he had disarmed them and provided security with American forces. The Bush admin did neither. MacArthur maintained and supported the Japanese administration of their own country. We virtually disbanded virtually the entire Iraqi professional class by declaring the entire Baath party - from ministers to school teachers - from participation in the running of their country. Most of MacArthur's decisions came from him in consultation with his staff of trained and experienced professionals. The Bush administration stocked the CPA with loyal conservative ideologues - a bunch of college republican frat boys - with no experience, while the experienced professionals in the State Department were exculeded or marginalized.

In short, I think, contrary to standard liberal conventional wisdom, you CAN create democracy through the barrel of a gun. We did it in Japan. Problem in Iraq is that we never really tried. And we failed even beforehand to make sure we had rational people running in our foreign policy in the first place. So I think it's fairer to say America cannot create a democracy at the barrel of a gun at this time. And it had little to do with the conditions on the ground in Iraq at the time of invasion.

So you don't have to apologize. I love to hear myself type.

[Bulldogcakes]

The Center for Public Integrity released a study today about the Bush Administration & the Iraq War. They have tracked at least 935 instances of the administration lying about the war.

Link to website here. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/)


Most pretentious name ever for a liberal watchdog group? Gets my vote.

[cougarjake13]

its hard to defend everything bush has done

we had to do something after 9-11

going to iraq wouldnt have been my 1st chocie

[TheMojoPin]

Most pretentious name ever for a liberal watchdog group? Gets my vote.

Ah, yes, the important stuiff.

[epo]

Most pretentious name ever for a liberal watchdog group? Gets my vote.

Fine, it's a pretentious name. I'll ask you to the same thing I asked BadMonkey:

Are you saying that report was wrong?

[A.J.]

After that you've got numerous examples of wrong decisions that demonstrate the people knew nothing about the Japanese occupation. When MacArthur disbanded the Japanese security forces he had disarmed them and provided security with American forces. The Bush admin did neither. MacArthur maintained and supported the Japanese administration of their own country. We virtually disbanded virtually the entire Iraqi professional class by declaring the entire Baath party - from ministers to school teachers - from participation in the running of their country. Most of MacArthur's decisions came from him in consultation with his staff of trained and experienced professionals. The Bush administration stocked the CPA with loyal conservative ideologues - a bunch of college republican frat boys - with no experience, while the experienced professionals in the State Department were exculeded or marginalized.

See also, Germany 1945:

REPORTER: It's said you're still using former Nazis in key positions. Despite the denazification policy.

PATTON: Well, if I'm supplied with trained personnel. . .I'll get rid of the Nazis. Until then, I'll use them to keep the railroads and telephones working.

[TheMojoPin]

See also, Germany 1945:

Like I pointed out earlier, America's post-WW2 treatment of the Axis rebuilding was done in direct contrast to the attitude taken after WWI...the latter which we did exactly in Iraq an Afghanistan.

[ATMfromChico]

I wanted to make a few more points regarding the Marshall plan and how it related to Japan and Europe. In the European theatre it had a two fold effect. The first was to help rebuild the countries we had brought to their knees and keep the after effects of WWI from happening again. At the same time we were also in the midst of trying to stymie the encroachment of communisim by having these countries not only rebuild, but side with us.

With Japan they had been fighting since 1937. And at the end of WWII they were entrenched and ready to fight the United States in a direct invasion into their country. They had withstood, with varrying success, the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities and were rallied to fight the long fight. Until the dropping of the two atomic bombs. At that point they gave an unconditional surrender. They were done.

In Iraq there was really never an uncondtional surrender, but rather the fracture of whatever leadership Hussein had managed to hold over his forces. When our invasion was complete the conventional part of the war was done, but the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people were not that of a war weary people. There were, and are many fractious portions of the population with different opinions of us being there. However the portion that wants us harmed, dead, and out of their country were not beaten in spirit.

These portions of the country do not want us to rebuild, or help them. And yes, a large portion of them base this on not only a generic hatred of us being conquerors, but also a religious basis believing we are a corrupt nation that soils their land.

The Marshall plan worked after WWII because the majority of those within those countries embraced the help and were tired of conflict (note I say the majority). This cannot be said of Iraq. Beyond the conflict they have with the US they have their own power struggles that date back centuries. With religion playing a major part of the scenario we cannot rely on rational thought to bring us the results we desire.

[TheMojoPin]

I wanted to make a few more points regarding the Marshall plan and how it related to Japan and Europe. In the European theatre it had a two fold effect. The first was to help rebuild the countries we had brought to their knees and keep the after effects of WWI from happening again. At the same time we were also in the midst of trying to stymie the encroachment of communisim by having these countries not only rebuild, but side with us.

It could easily be argued that approaching Afghanistan and Iraq in an even remotely similar fashion would go a long way to stemming the tide against a similar "spectre of our enemies." Actions speak much louder than words, and the people that "hate us" in the ME tend to do so because of rhetoric more than anything else.

With Japan they had been fighting since 1937. And at the end of WWII they were entrenched and ready to fight the United States in a direct invasion into their country. They had withstood, with varrying success, the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities and were rallied to fight the long fight. Until the dropping of the two atomic bombs. At that point they gave an unconditional surrender. They were done.

This is a very, very, VERY contested and often rejected view of Japan at the end of WW2. There is abundant evidence that the Japanese were prepared and even attempting to surrender or seek peace before the atomic bombs were dropped...they simply didn't want to unconditionally surrender. America's response was essentially unconditional or bust and took the opportunity to intimidate the Soviets with what amounted to field combat tests for America's new ultimate weapon.

In Iraq there was really never an uncondtional surrender, but rather the fracture of whatever leadership Hussein had managed to hold over his forces. When our invasion was complete the conventional part of the war was done, but the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people were not that of a war weary people. There were, and are many fractious portions of the population with different opinions of us being there. However the portion that wants us harmed, dead, and out of their country were not beaten in spirit.

They were the hearts and minds of a people who thought we basically screwed them over in the first Gulf War.

These portions of the country do not want us to rebuild, or help them. And yes, a large portion of them base this on not only a generic hatred of us being conquerors, but also a religious basis believing we are a corrupt nation that soils their land.

Most of it has to with us dismissing entire segments of the population and banning them from the rebuilding and new government process. It also has to do with basically "firing" scores of soldiers without first securing their weapons or the arms caches around the country...almost identical to how Germany was treated after WW1.

The Marshall plan worked after WWII because the majority of those within those countries embraced the help and were tired of conflict (note I say the majority). This cannot be said of Iraq. Beyond the conflict they have with the US they have their own power struggles that date back centuries. With religion playing a major part of the scenario we cannot rely on rational thought to bring us the results we desire.

I think much of this hinges on America having a halfassed plan for all stages of the invasion and occupation. I think there was too many expectations along the lines of what you were saying in terms of getting in and getting out. All we did was reinforce the negative perceptions that we created or encouraged ater the first Gulf War. It's not like the Germans and Japanese went nuts with glee when the Allies marched in. Winning the hearts and minds actually takes effort beyond just storming in messing stuff up.

[epo]

This is a very, very, VERY contested and often rejected view of Japan at the end of WW2. There is abundant evidence that the Japanese were prepared and even attempting to surrender or seek peace before the atomic bombs were dropped...they simply didn't want to unconditionally surrender. America's response was essentially unconditional or bust and took the opportunity to intimidate the Soviets wih what amounted to field combat tests for America's new ultimate weapon.



We have a winner.

[Yerdaddy]

I wanted to make a few more points regarding the Marshall plan and how it related to Japan and Europe. In the European theatre it had a two fold effect. The first was to help rebuild the countries we had brought to their knees and keep the after effects of WWI from happening again. At the same time we were also in the midst of trying to stymie the encroachment of communisim by having these countries not only rebuild, but side with us.

With Japan they had been fighting since 1937. And at the end of WWII they were entrenched and ready to fight the United States in a direct invasion into their country. They had withstood, with varrying success, the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities and were rallied to fight the long fight. Until the dropping of the two atomic bombs. At that point they gave an unconditional surrender. They were done.

In Iraq there was really never an uncondtional surrender, but rather the fracture of whatever leadership Hussein had managed to hold over his forces. When our invasion was complete the conventional part of the war was done, but the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people were not that of a war weary people. There were, and are many fractious portions of the population with different opinions of us being there. However the portion that wants us harmed, dead, and out of their country were not beaten in spirit.

These portions of the country do not want us to rebuild, or help them. And yes, a large portion of them base this on not only a generic hatred of us being conquerors, but also a religious basis believing we are a corrupt nation that soils their land.

The Marshall plan worked after WWII because the majority of those within those countries embraced the help and were tired of conflict (note I say the majority). This cannot be said of Iraq. Beyond the conflict they have with the US they have their own power struggles that date back centuries. With religion playing a major part of the scenario we cannot rely on rational thought to bring us the results we desire.

If you're really saying a majority of Iraqis were not "tired of conflict" and "wants us harmed, dead, and out of their country" then that's verifiable and wrong. The Brookings Institute has compiled the many public opinion surveys of Iraqis, (and other sets of data on power and water supplies, coalition troop levels, etc.), since October 2003. (http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx) Here's a sample from the earliest one - October 2003:

POLLING BAGDHAD PUBLIC OPINION 10/30/2003

Question Findings

Will Iraq be in a better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion?
Better off: 67%
Worse off: 8%

Is Iraq better off now than it was before the invasion?
Better off: 33%
Worse off: 47%

Was ousting Saddam worth the hardships endured since the invasion?
Yes: 62%
No: N/A


Would you like to see U.S. troops stay longer than a few more months?

Stay longer: 71%
Not stay longer: 26%

Are there circumstances in which attacks against U.S. troops can be justified?

Yes: 19%
No: N/A
Sometimes justified: 17%

Have you been afraid at times to go outside your home during the day within the past four weeks?
Yes: 60%
No: N/A

You should consider that when this survey was taken the anti-occupation insurgencies were in full swing, causing many civilian casualties as well as uncertainty about the future and present prospects for Iraq. America had never restored rule of law and at that time kidnappings and criminal killings were at a level never experienced by the people of Iraq at the time. Most importantly the coordinated Sunni terrorism campaign to provoke the majority Shiia into open warfare, (where they stood a better chance of victory than an electoral system given they only made up 20% of the population but dominated the military under Saddam and controlled its weapons stockpiles), was at it's height. In August the UN headquarters was bombed, killing the UN head of mission, Sergio de Mello, (a great loss to victims of conflict the world over), and immediately afterwards the Immam Ali Shrine in Najaf was attacked by a suicide bomber killing between 85 and 125 Shiia worshippers.

Point is, there were many reasons for Iraqis to feel insecure and angry at America for unleashing these violent forces, but wide majorities still supported us.

You cannot say that majorities of Iraqis were against us from the start, due to religion or any other reason. The support of the people was, from the beginning, there for us to lose and lose it we did by our own actions and inactions.

Honestly, if you're basing your idea of why we failed in Iraq on religion you've got a lot more homework to do to understand how much a factor religion has actually been - as well as how our own conduct has effected the religiosity of the people of Iraq over the last five years.

[Yerdaddy]

Oh, and welcome to the board, and the debates!