The Enemy

LOL, your taking a page out Stockingfull's book and sidestepping...

I'll ask it again....

Richard S. wrote:Do you realize you are suggesting the very same thing that created the conditions for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to flourish in Afghanistan?

Richard S. wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:You are playing right into their hands, by keeping your head buried firmly in the sand & other places!

I've seen Stockingfull suggest we take a different approach but I'm pretty sure neither he or anyone else I've seen suggesting that mention what this different approach might be... So what it this magical solution we keep hearing about?

Without going a single post farther, I'll speak for myself on this:

First, when our forefathers wanted the Brits out of our country, they ran in "insurgency" (that many considered "guerrilla" or "terrorist" in its day) until the Brits left. And, when they did, we stopped attacking them. So the strategic concept of removing our finger from the eye of the Muslim holy land by getting out is a big part of thinking differently. Because it will remove a huge part of their motivation to attack us and to recruit. (And I know that we weren't there before 9/11 and "the attack still happened" and that's a patently phony argument because we're not now in Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries where the terrorists came from anyway.) And besides, if less military and more diplomacy don't work, we'll be in no worse a situation than we are now. We cannot possibly cover every source of people who wish us harm at the moment. We are, however, in a much better defensive position than we were prior to 9/11/01, when we learned the harsh lesson that our island wasn't the fortress we had thought, so I don't think withdrawal is anywhere near as risky as it's being sold by the chickenhawks who are running this debacle.

Second, we've just gotta stop this Lone Ranger BS. We are part of an international community and we have to seek -- and more importantly, seriously listen to -- the counsel of our allies, lest we be perceived, correctly, as the "ugly American" imperialists we now are portrayed as by our enemies. So no more going it alone would be the second major prong of a new approach.

spc wrote:The President explaining the enemy. Listen up people.

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx ... 9e3042fe84

... which brings us up to Dubya's tantrum du jour.

Richard, if you really want to see a dodge, watch it. The Prez takes a couple follow-up questions about "whether we're winning," feigns being ticked off and transforms them into his "hard work" mantra about how important it is to win -- without ever responding to the question whether we're in fact winning.

And, for that performance, I think you should give old GWB the "Stockingfull Side-Step Award" ("SSSA").

And, if he keeps this up, goddam it, I'm going to look into the possible unauthorized practice of law.

stockingfull wrote:First, when our forefathers wanted the Brits out of our country, they ran in "insurgency" (that many considered "guerrilla" or "terrorist" in its day) until the Brits left. And, when they did, we stopped attacking them. So the strategic concept of removing our finger from the eye of the Muslim holy land by getting out is a big part of thinking differently. Because it will remove a huge part of their motivation to attack us and to recruit. (And I know that we weren't there before 9/11 and "the attack still happened" and that's a patently phony argument because we're not now in Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries where the terrorists came from anyway.)

And going back to your original comparison to the American Revolution it's not the same. We had no intentions of following the Brits to Britain once they left. This is completely different, once the Brits let we had what we wanted, these people want us dead no matter where we live. They don't care who they kill to achieve this goal no matter where they live and that includes their neighbors that lived across the street...."lived" is not a typo.

As far as us being in Saudi Arabia as being the reason for the attack, screw them, who are they to dictate where we do or do not go especially when we've been invited their by the rulers of that country. That's besides the fact this has been ongoing for almost 4 decades, it didn't start with 9/11. I'll refer you to the extensive list at the start of this thread which isn't even a complete accounting. It's not just the U.S. or people of the Christian faith facing this menace but people all around the world of different religions whatever they may be. The U.S. may be the prime target but that's usually the case when you're the 500 pound gorilla.

And besides, if less military and more diplomacy don't work, we'll be in no worse a situation than we are now.

I'll ask it again do you realize that the suggestion to leave Iraq will create the same situation that allowed Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to flourish in Afghanistan? The big difference now is the the stakes are enormous. Iraq is an industrialized nation with oil to finance whatever they want. It's no coincidence these extremists took root in Basra.

Richard S. wrote:And going back to your original comparison to the American Revolution it's not the same. We had no intentions of following the Brits to Britain once they left.

They intend to attack us here in the US whether we stay in Iraq or not. Keeping our men pinned down in an Iraqi civil war is not preventing them from "following us, but merely creating more terrorists to attack us wherever we are.".....They know where we live. The majority of Al Queada is not even in Iraq, that's just a convenient place to kill us.
Or, is the real plan to keep a ready supply of "sacrificial lambs" in Iraq forever, with the hopes that they will be satisfied to kill a few a Americans a day & leave us alone at home?
We need to redeploy out of Iraq, go after Al Queda where they live, strengthen our defenses right here in the US, build up our military again & start using our heads & stop listening to this administration who have been wrong at everything they have done!

When you ask this....."I'll ask it again do you realize that the suggestion to leave Iraq will create the same situation that allowed Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to flourish in Afghanistan?"......You are just buying into another Bush/Rove scare tactic which is flat wrong. Iraq & Afghanistan are totally different & we would still be in the area to fight them, just not targets on the ground & "Ugly Americans" viewed as occupiers in Iraq.

Richard, are you watching the excellent PBS series "Carrier," profiling CVAN 68, the USS NIMITZ?

Our strike capabilities from the Gulf over there are so precise, and our "force flex" so effective, that they say we can put a bomb in somebody's back pocket. Yet we now are going for months without dropping a single bomb, because the downside of getting that wrong, even with the chances so slight, exceeds the upside in the long run, even a couple years ago when it was filmed. And that's with this Administration.

So it seems to me that it follows that the notion that we wouldn't, or won't be able effectively to keep an eye after we leave on weapons-building occurring on any scale which could have meaning to our security here is, therefore, another neocon hob-goblin. Unless our leaders are either as ill-motivated, or stupid, or both, as they were when Colin Powell was sent to the UN to explain how "WMD" were being manufactured in trailers.

And hopefully, that problem will be fixed this fall.

Besides, the Sunni-AQ side and the Shiia-Quds side (see, I'm already better-versed than John McCain ) will be so busy for the foreseeable future slaughtering each other that we won't have to sacrifice our guys to help them do that.

Hey, Richard, let's not get too far down the thread here before you respond to my "SSSA" post.

Sure wouldn't want to see you get the award for a "passive side-step."

stockingfull wrote:Yet we now are going for months without dropping a single bomb, because the downside of getting that wrong, even with the chances so slight, exceeds the upside in the long run, even a couple years ago when it was filmed.

That is probably more an issue with timing, any of the targets they have now are going to be long gone even before they have chance to scramble a plane or get one in striking distance. Most anything they are attacking now will be targets of opportunity.

stockingfull wrote:Hey, Richard, let's not get too far down the thread here before you respond to my "SSSA" post.

Sure wouldn't want to see you get the award for a "passive side-step."

If you're speaking to me I didn't post that link, I didn't even look at it... I'm sure GWB is just as good as every other politician at not answering direct questions. It's rare I ever see anyone of them give a straight answer. The debates are like watching a comedy show...

Devil5052 wrote:When you ask this....."I'll ask it again do you realize that the suggestion to leave Iraq will create the same situation that allowed Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to flourish in Afghanistan?"......You are just buying into another Bush/Rove scare tactic which is flat wrong. Iraq & Afghanistan are totally different & we would still be in the area to fight them, just not targets on the ground & "Ugly Americans" viewed as occupiers in Iraq.

I'm not buying into anything, that is a conclusion I came to myself. You are correct, they are different, Iraq is leap years ahead in technology and resources.

stockingfull wrote:Our strike capabilities from the Gulf over there are so precise, and our "force flex" so effective, that they say we can put a bomb in somebody's back pocket. Yet we now are going for months without dropping a single bomb, because the downside of getting that wrong, even with the chances so slight, exceeds the upside in the long run, even a couple years ago when it was filmed. And that's with this Administration.

You have no clue what is involved to put one of those bombs or missiles on target (you won't learn everything on PBS) and you have no clue what happens when those bombs or missiles go astray. Stick to Law and politics, it sounds like you know a lot about that.

Richard makes a very good point. The targets that we all wish a bomb from an aircraft or a missile from a ship out in the Arabian Gulf will destroy instead of putting our ground forces in harms way will be long gone before the bomb or missile gets there. For most of those targets even CAP is too slow.
When a naval aircraft is invented that will fly at 186,000 miles/second with precision air brakes....then we can fight this war from aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea. Until then we have to depend on some extremely brave Volunteers.

(And I know that we weren't there before 9/11 and "the attack still happened" and that's a patently phony argument because we're not now in Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries where the terrorists came from anyway.)

I may be reading this wrong but do you honestly believe we were not over there (Southwest Asia) before 9/11? In what context do you mean "I know that we weren't there..."?

BugsyR wrote:You have no clue what is involved to put one of those bombs or missiles on target (you won't learn everything on PBS) and you have no clue what happens when those bombs or missiles go astray. Stick to Law and politics, it sounds like you know a lot about that.

Richard makes a very good point. The targets that we all wish a bomb from an aircraft or a missile from a ship out in the Arabian Gulf will destroy instead of putting our ground forces in harms way will be long gone before the bomb or missile gets there. For most of those targets even CAP is too slow.
When a naval aircraft is invented that will fly at 186,000 miles/second with precision air brakes....then we can fight this war from aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea. Until then we have to depend on some extremely brave Volunteers.

I just don't accept the "you should know what I know" arguments about why we need a ground presence there. We did a pretty good job in Bosnia w/o ground troops.

BugsyR wrote:I may be reading this wrong but do you honestly believe we were not over there (Southwest Asia) before 9/11? In what context do you mean "I know that we weren't there..."?

What I meant, and mean, is that we weren't policing Saudi Arabia when 19 of the 22 9/11 terrorists came out of there, or Afghanistan, where OBL was, etc., so it doesn't wash that we have to be on the ground there to prevent terrorist attacks. Besides, we simply cannot be on the ground everywhere Al Qaeda or some other nut group wanting to attack us might be. Remember, if there are 1.3 Billion Muslims and if they all are obliged by their religion to want us dead, we've got a helluvalot bigger problem than we're gonna solve in Iraq.

I just don't accept the "you should know what I know" arguments about why we need a ground presence there. We did a pretty good job in Bosnia w/o ground troops.

Hence the reason why I said "Stick to Law..."! You don't have to accept "you should know what I know" because obviously...you don't know so therefore you assume. Bosnia was a totally different type of war and warfare. I'm not on an anthracite web site picking apart Laws saying "this law should be written this way" simply because I don't have the experience or knowledge to write such things. What I do is offer common sense as to why such ideas as pulling out all of the troops and using aircraft and bombs to do the job instead cannot be used at this time to continue fighting this war. Pull all of our troops out??? I'll support that 100% if our government decides to do that. But IF they decide that, then I say pull all of the Armed Forces out of the entire region. NOT just the ground forces in Iraq.

What I meant, and mean, is that we weren't policing Saudi Arabia when 19 of the 22 9/11 terrorists came out of there, or Afghanistan, where OBL was, etc., so it doesn't wash that we have to be on the ground there to prevent terrorist attacks. Besides, we simply cannot be on the ground everywhere Al Qaeda or some other nut group wanting to attack us might be. Remember, if there are 1.3 Billion Muslims and if they all are obliged by their religion to want us dead, we've got a helluvalot bigger problem than we're gonna solve in Iraq.

As for policing other countries, I understand your analogy but it doesn't wash with me. It is over exaggerated and what I assume was used as political sarcasm, however…
#1 "Remember, if there are 1.3 Billion Muslims and if they all are obliged by their religion to want us dead..." I find this as stereotyping a religion because of present world issues. Personally, I don't believe they are obliged to want us dead. If this was absolutely what they believed we would already be stuck in that “helluvalot bigger problem”. My Muslim friends haven't killed my Christian arse yet (I don’t hang with fanatics). Obviously you have never traveled to a Muslim country. I highly suggest you go. Turkey was absolutely wonderful and United Arab Emirates was amazing (especially Dubai). (Take enough $$$$, study up on Persian rugs and gold…you won’t regret it.) (Never been to Saudi…don’t want to go…no alcohol. Met several in Bahrain though…nice people) One thing you will find there are human beings…just like you…some will believe the same as you…some will be Christian…a lot will be Muslim…some will be Atheist…you might even find one that believes in Darwin You may even form a new perspective about people that are not American.

#2 “we weren't policing Saudi Arabia…” Ah....yeah.....I don’t think there is a country anywhere in the world, especially any of our allies, that is willing to allow us to “police” their country. Not good politics or international relations (common sense). But since we’ve been on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq…everyone in New York, Washington D.C., and the fields of western PA have been safe from any similar terrorist attack.

Now on the other hand…if we would have went to war with the Taliban and OBL in Afghanistan right after the USS Cole attack….maybe 9/11 would have been prevented???? That’s a question that can be argued but never answered.

Unfortunately we have to depend on and place trust in our allies and non-allies to police their own countries. AQ I believe is all over the world. I believe there are still cells in the USA. You are absolutely right… “we simply cannot be on the ground everywhere Al Qaeda or some other nut group wanting to attack us might be” …but I seriously believe we surely slowed down AQ by doing what we did and are doing now.

Almost all the other Presidents we have had, including Bush one, realized what a horrible situation it would be (for generations of Americans to come) to have innocent Iraqi children standing over the dead, mangled bodies of their parents while watching the large, gun toting American GI's march around their neighborhoods. Kids don't understand the geo-political reasons for anything but conclude that all Americans are Devils!.....I can't imagine a worse situation to put our forces in, & our nation will suffer the consequences of these young Iraqi kids, now filled with murderous hatred towards all Americans for a lifetime. Be smart enough to at least put an Arab face on the street to street fighting!!......... This is the true GW Bush legacy & one we will all be paying for the rest of our lives!

Devil5052 wrote:Almost all the other Presidents we have had, including Bush one, realized what a horrible situation it would be (for generations of Americans to come) to have innocent Iraqi children standing over the dead, mangled bodies of their parents while watching the large, gun toting American GI's march around their neighborhoods. Kids don't understand the geo-political reasons for anything but conclude that all Americans are Devils!.....I can't imagine a worse situation to put our forces in, & our nation will suffer the consequences of these young Iraqi kids, now filled with murderous hatred towards all Americans for a lifetime. Be smart enough to at least put an Arab face on the street to street fighting!!......... This is the true GW Bush legacy & one we will all be paying for the rest of our lives!

Do you have a reference or is this just another of your opinions? Do you have an experience of visiting the middle east in person or just on the media driven tube? I guess we can forget all those kids that stood over the bodies of their parents that were killed by the Hussein family? OR better yet...let's forget all the kids actually killed by the Hussein family.

BugsyR wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:Almost all the other Presidents we have had, including Bush one, realized what a horrible situation it would be (for generations of Americans to come) to have innocent Iraqi children standing over the dead, mangled bodies of their parents while watching the large, gun toting American GI's march around their neighborhoods. Kids don't understand the geo-political reasons for anything but conclude that all Americans are Devils!.....I can't imagine a worse situation to put our forces in, & our nation will suffer the consequences of these young Iraqi kids, now filled with murderous hatred towards all Americans for a lifetime. Be smart enough to at least put an Arab face on the street to street fighting!!......... This is the true GW Bush legacy & one we will all be paying for the rest of our lives!

Do you have a reference or is this just another of your opinions? Do you have an experience of visiting the middle east in person or just on the media driven tube? I guess we can forget all those kids that stood over the bodies of their parents that were killed by the Hussein family? OR better yet...let's forget all the kids actually killed by the Hussein family.

If S. Hussein killed their parents they would hate him. If we kill their parents they will always hate us.( & be willing to kill themselves just to kill us with them) Do you really think it's a smart idea to have American GI's going door to door in Iraq? (A smart idea would be to have Arab kids see other Arabs killing their family. (George Bush senior understood this, & so did Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney....They were right then, but horribly wrong now.)
Be honest now, if we could go back in time & give S. Hussein back his country........Wouldn't you do it:? (I would, along with 78% of my fellow citizens & the majority of both Houses of Congress. OK....so the war was a mistake, but we are not solving anything by continuing the mistake. Re-deploy & go after Al Queada, who is not who were are fighting on the streets of Bagdad.

If S. Hussein killed their parents they would hate him. If we kill their parents they will always hate us.( & be willing to kill themselves just to kill us with them) Do you really think it's a smart idea to have American GI's going door to door in Iraq? (A smart idea would be to have Arab kids see other Arabs killing their family. (George Bush senior understood this, & so did Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney....They were right then, but horribly wrong now.)
Be honest now, if we could go back in time & give S. Hussein back his country........Wouldn't you do it:? (I would, along with 78% of my fellow citizens & the majority of both Houses of Congress. OK....so the war was a mistake, but we are not solving anything by continuing the mistake. Re-deploy & go after Al Queada, who is not who were are fighting on the streets of Bagdad.

I will answer your questions but I'm waiting for an answer to mine:
1. Do you have a reference for is this statement? "Almost all the other Presidents we have had, including Bush one, realized what a horrible situation it would be (for generations of Americans to come) to have innocent Iraqi children standing over the dead, mangled bodies of their parents while watching the large, gun toting American GI's march around their neighborhoods. Kids don't understand the geo-political reasons for anything but conclude that all Americans are Devils!"

Especially where you insinuate that all Americans are Devils because of the gun toting G.Is.

2. Do you have an experience of visiting the middle east in person or just on the media driven tube?

If S. Hussein killed their parents they would hate him. If we kill their parents they will always hate us.( & be willing to kill themselves just to kill us with them)

This is opinionated and formed from watching too much "hate" media and reading too much anti-war propaganda on the web.

Do you really think it's a smart idea to have American GI's going door to door in Iraq?

Yes, but most people in America learn about this on the boob tube without getting the whole story or really why they have to go door to door and the average American forms an opinion based on some talking media head that is earning a helluvalot of $$$$ while a lower class salaried G.I. is protecting the media's rich arse. If there is media involved there is ratings to worry about. Ratings bring in the $$$$$...you said it yourself.
If it's a classified mission...you will never hear about it...unless you have a relative there and they don't know how to silence themselves. I know, some people don't accept the "you should know what I know" argument. Oh well.

A smart idea would be to have Arab kids see other Arabs killing their family.

They already have....for many many many years. Today a lot of those Arab kids see American G.I.s protecting them and their families and they form a warm friendly relationship with Americans.

Be honest now, if we could go back in time & give S. Hussein back his country........Wouldn't you do it:?

No...If I could magically change "History" I'd go farther back and take his family out during Desert Shield/Storm. And to be even more honest with changing history...I just want to go back 1 week and buy the winning tickets to Power Ball, Treasure Hunt, Mix and Match, Cash 5, and Match 6. First thing I would do is throw a huge "I'm Proud of all you American G.I. Devils" party.

This is the true GW Bush legacy & one we will all be paying for the rest of our lives!

Once again...Bush is just the fall guy for what America allowed him to do.

Wouldn't you do it:? (I would, along with 78% of my fellow citizens & the majority of both Houses of Congress

Quote from a Senator...."If I would have known then, what I know today, I would have never voted to allow us to invade Iraq!" ....The Democrat audience went crazy with cheers. I laughed at their ignorance. I saw that on the boob tube and thought "If I knew yesterday, what the Power Ball numbers were going to be last night...."

78% of your fellow citizens....today
majority of both Houses...today

What the hell were you all thinking back in 2003. I know what I was thinking off the coast...."please don't send us, please don't send us...."
It's so easy today for everyone to say..."I don't support this war and I didn't back then either". I can even hide, lie, and say it myself "I didn't support going to war with Iraq back in 2003...this war never should have started!"
Truth is, I didn't want it to start. I said it before, I wanted OBL first. The war started anyway, permitted by our Congress, and as an American Volunteer Service Member, I fulfilled my oath of enlistment and followed the orders of those appointed over me. For that I am very proud of. As for our government making choices and decisions with this Iraq War, I trust their decisions because they know a whole lot more than I do....but as an American....I don't have to like their decisions...but I will support.