http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush


So, all you Iraq war fans and supporters-B757300, Jcs17, DL021, James86, and all the other conservative members. Take a cue from your president-even he says how that the situation there isn't so great.

I have to agree with you on this one. Things AREN'T going too well.

It's just too bad that most war protesters are/were not against the war per se, but they hate(d) Bush and used this as an excuse to pounce all over him.

Maybe someone finally needs to come out and say that maybe Iraqis don't want democracy. These are people who have, for generation after generation have been duking it out over lean-to shantys in the desert. They know no other existance.

Personally I didn't mind Bush too much before the war. I didn't really think highly of him, but I didn't think bad of him either. Then when the war started, shi-ite hit the fans, I kinda had the thought that it would turn out like vietnam, and lo and behold here we are.

Now with talk of Iran, I really sincerely hope that Bush doesn't pull a Nixon and invade the country covertly like Tricky Dick did to Cambodia. If this were to happen, I'd probably end up getting drafted.

I can honestly say that I don't know if I'd dodge or not, I might go fight if I'm drafted but I won't be happy about it.

It's just too bad that most war protesters are/were not against the war per se, but they hate(d) Bush and used this as an excuse to pounce all over him.

I have to disagree, Matt. I think most people who say they are against the war are vehemently against it, and it only re-inforced the image they have of Bush. The two feed off each other.

Matt D: I have to agree with you on this one. Things AREN'T going too well.

Surprise, surprise...  



Matt D: It's just too bad that most war protesters are/were not against the war per se, but they hate(d) Bush and used this as an excuse to pounce all over him.

Ridiculous. The factual arguments - which have all turned out to be correct beyond a doubt - were already reason enough. The universal disdain for Bush is a result of his blatant refusal to listen to anything rather than a cause for the complaints.


Matt D: Maybe someone finally needs to come out and say that maybe Iraqis don't want democracy. These are people who have, for generation after generation have been duking it out over lean-to shantys in the desert. They know no other existance.

Maybe some people will have to learn that dropping cluster-bombs and kicking down doors isn´t the proper way to convince others of the merits of democracy...  

I love it when others say that they (the people in the country) 'want' democracy, yet don't understand why its not working or why they don't 'grasp' the concept. Pretty simple on paper but harder to put into effect. We've had a handy 200 years to iron it out a bit, but still countries that are most likely to plung into civil war are emerging democracies.

The most dangerous transition is from long term dictatorship to a democracy.

Every crackpot faction has a voice and begins organizing. This is what happens when freedom comes popping out of its push-up bra, things get wobbly really fast. That's only the beginning of the usual chain of events that we've seen before in Latin America, Easter Europe and Afghanistan. Where do we go from here is my question?

ALL of this (Iraq) harkens back to fmr Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (his name is on your money) when that rich old white conservative disclosed that he was absolutely shocked that at Dubya's 1st cabinet meeting (8 months before 9/11) Dubya starts asking 'How can we get in Iraq?'.. still.. to this day we don't know what propelled him to raise and push that question so doggedly!

1)Our nation had not been attacked...

2) Saddam was still a ruthless dictator... as was Lil' Kim (Jong Il -- who still is)

3)Yet more innocent civilians were being slaughtered in the Congo and Sudan.

So it could not have been 'a humanitarian issue' at the time he asked the question... because if it was.. he would have asked his buddies the Saudis.. to step it on the 'democracy thing' because we're gonna be 'selling it in a neighbor near you....'

For those of you who feel compelled to burp out 'That's old news. We're there now, so let's just finish it'...

Well don't you think it wise to know how it happened in the 1st place... so YOU don't get duped ...AGAIN! It's called history, and when you don't learn from it the 1st time... you asking to get bitten in the ass a second time.

BN747

It seems to me that people like to damn Bush no matter what -- regardless of what he says. That's what I like to do, anyway.

History? You'd be better off if you read some I'd say based on historical facts when the United States fails to act.

We acted and now you are in it just like the rest of us up to your little neck and there is nothing you can really do except hope we win this fight.

Errrr, you do want to win don't you?

Bush has acknowledged that Americans' resolve has been shaken by grisly scenes of death and destruction. Yeah...people like the pigeon84 who cries and cries but does nothing.

Again, bright boy, I've asked you before: what would you like me to do? All I've heard from you Corporal_Rabb, is bitching about that I do nothing? What are you doing, besides bitching at me? I do what I can: make my views known. That's really all I can do, isn't it?

You're such a Bush sycophant, it's really amusing.

Yeah pidgeon, sure you do! Aid and comfort to the enemy..

With all respect, you can go to hell for such remarks, my friend. If exercising my constitutional rights to protest my government when I think it is wrong is aiding and comforting the enemy, then let's just trash that document and the Bill of Rights, shall we? You critisized Mr. Clinton, I'm sure, for all you were worth, but when I do the same to this president, I'm some kind of traitor?  

Stick it where the sun don't shine, Corporal_Rabb. You're the absolute worst kind of American, who wants everyone to say "seig heil" and goose step with this man in Washington. Sorry, but I'll continue to be patriotic, and voice my opinion on what I think our government is doing wrong.

You'd be better off if you read some I'd say based on historical facts when the United States fails to act.

Maybe you, Corporal_Rabb, ought to read up on history about what happens when a nations strikes pre-emptively and without real justification. But I don't think you're smart enough to figure it out.

We acted and now you are in it just like the rest of us up to your little neck and there is nothing you can really do except hope we win this fight.

Errrr, you do want to win don't you?

What you can't figure out in that little brain held up by a smaller is neck is that 'There is no winning' ...

This is a battle that can't be won. Sure the troops can ultimately come home from Iraq and Afghanistan.. but what's going happen HISTORY (your apparent weakness) will undo everything our troops have done. The people there have 'their way of doing things' and they will sink back into their long and storied way of getting this done.. as culturally and distasteful to us as it may be...


In a fight you shouldn 't be in... in the 1st place... there is never a winner.. grow the fcuk up and learn something.

Even when we do win... we still lose. The US vs Iraq (insurgents).. the US can beat any nation on the planet.. winning is not the question..idiot! It's learning from History...AGAIN!

BN747

Commander Rabb, please stop while your behind my friend. You are just making this situation look worse. Your cover up's are getting old just like the Administrations. Face it, the war isnt going the right way.

[Edited 2004-12-21 06:02:42]

BN747 The defeatest. Give in do you?

We should have known! In my book there is nothing worse.

Rabb,

Is this your book?    

I think the problem now is how to solve the issue. I think nobody in his right mind is interested in a USA looking like a paper tiger (which will happen if the US pulls out unconditionally like in Somalia). But on the other hand, the insurgents and militants are slowly winning, like the Vietcong in Vietnam, simply because they are willing to sacrifice huge amonts of their own population.
Also, I think nobody in his right mind would like to have an anarchy in Iraq, where OBL and other radicals can find a lawless space to train and retreat, like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Also, everybody should be happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein.

Now, the problem is that Bush´s attitude is seen over here as being arrogant and power hungry.
Almost all Europeans resent his "giving us the finger" attitude. I think with a new president Krry, there might have been a chance to get massive European support to get Iraq and Afghanistan sorted, with full UN approval.
I think e.g. Schroeder is secretly happy about Bush winning the election, because else Kerry would have asked for military support, which Schroeder couldn´t have denied, giving Schroeder lots of trouble at home.

The thing is that the current US administration drove the campaign into the mud. Nobody over here trusts the Bush administration, but I think in the end they´ll need Europe to get out of it again.
I see the American forces winning battles, just like in Vietnam, through theirt advanced technology, but loosing the war, because in the end it is the behaviour of the grunt on the ground that counts. What is the use of using a laser guided high tech bomb to destroy a terrorist´s safe house, if at the same time, you´ll destroy all other houses within 400 yards, turning everybody affected into new terrorists and terrorist supporters?


Jan

If for no other reason, the war is going well because the terrorists are swarming to Iraq where our military already is and we're inflicting disproportionate attrition upon them on a daily basis. It is better that the terrorists go where our military is, so we can kill them rather than the terrorists coming here and killing innocent civilians.

You have all earned this for this liberal lovefest. Even the conservatives for lacking the common sense to not just let this left-wing circle jerk run its course and fall into page 2 oblivion

BN747: "the US can beat any nation on the planet.. winning is not the question..idiot! It's learning from History..."

C'Rabb:BN747 The defeatest. Give in do you?

Proof positive that a human can very well be 'stupid and dumb' simultaneously... and totally unaware of both...

..and still be disqualified for the 'Special Olympics'...

BN747

I support the Troops, not the war.

CommanderCRAP said ...a constant anti-Bush and America RANT.

Suuuuure, asking our government the 'hard' questions (how/why/when/evidence?) is completely wrong, but totally brown nosing in their asscrack is fine because it makes you American???

I say you're more American when you speak out, use your 1st amendment right to question the gov and know the truth.

All I want is to know the truth - right now we're slowly figuring out that 1,500 AMERICAN soldiers have died for BUSH - not for protecting their country, but for Bush - because he LIED about war... And while we're at it, we're saying how great democracy is/will be - yet when more people die a year after the *Saddam the tyrant* we blame the insurgents...


Sure democracy is better, but at what price?

Is it at a price of 1,500 US soldiers who went and fought for lies our government spewed?

Is it at a price of 100,000 Iraqi civillian deaths a year (mind you the average for a year during Saddam was 60-70 thousand)?

Is it at a price of making our, no MY beloved country look like a bunch of arrogant, ignorant people who don't understand or realize that there are other nations/countries/opinions?

Is it at a price of taking America and bringing it from the most respected nation in the world to the same level as a 3rd world nation?


My answer is NO...

I'm as proud to be an American as any, but we HAVE to draw the line - We're not the only country in the world, we're not morally better, and we don't have the right to barge in to other countries and tell them how to run things while Bush tells Syria to get their nose out of our business. It's a double standard we have set, and we have to get rid of it. Bring back the American Dream!!!

It is better that the terrorists go where our military is, so we can kill them rather than the terrorists coming here and killing innocent civilians.


Now there's the best damn line in this whole thread!


And here's the worst.


winning is not the question..idiot! It's learning from History..."


Thank God more people who have the ability to make changes think like the first line and not the latter.


Yes, thank God!

If for no other reason, the war is going well because the terrorists are swarming to Iraq where our military already is and we're inflicting disproportionate attrition upon them on a daily basis. It is better that the terrorists go where our military is, so we can kill them rather than the terrorists coming here and killing innocent civilians.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

OMG, that one had me rolling! You are a piece of work, B757300!!! His new spin is the war is going well because we've let terrorists flood the country! HAHAHAHAHA!! Oh, stop it, you're killing me!!

You see folks-this is the idiocy of the extreme right. It speaks for itself.

Now there's the best damn line in this whole thread!

Of course you'd think that, Corporal, since you're as naive, as clueless, as ignorant as B757300. If you REALLY believe that was a great line, then you have absolutely no credibility. We tear a nation to shreds, we let terrorists in by the thousands, and YOU SUPPORT IT!!! Fool.

And this is the ignorant mindset we've put back into office. How CAN 59 million people be so retarded?

And this is the ignorant mindset we've put back into office. How CAN 59 million people be so retarded?

Still bitter over the Bush victory? Your bitterness is clouding your reasoning.

Get over it already.

Bitter? Hardly. I do really wonder how so many people can be so conned by this group. The ignorance is amazing.

You have all earned this for this liberal lovefest. Even the conservatives for lacking the common sense to not just let this left-wing circle jerk run its course and fall into page 2 oblivion

Captoveur: Nearly pissed myself at your picture message, but seriously, how is this a liberal lovefest and a left-wing circle jerk? The topic of this thread is Bush's admission that perhaps things aren't going as well as he would like. We didn't create this story. BTW, when Bush says "The bombers are having an effect," isn't that like saying "the result of the action was that there was a result?".

Logan

P.S. -

liberal: open-minded, accepting.
conservative: close-minded, rejecting.

Thus, to a conservative, liberalism is, not surprisingly, an abhorrent concept. To a liberal, conservativism is something we accept, and try to live with.

Now, which sounds more conducive to peace? Isn't peace the goal of every war? Or is it?

Things just took a huge turn for the worse....at least 20 US soldiers killed this morning in Iraq in an attack on a mess hall.

More kids without fathers and mothers so the Bush family can sleep in a nice warm bed in a nice big house in an exclusive neighborhood.

Logan22L, your definition of Liberal and Conservative is so far out of touch with reality, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Conservatism, yes, you are correct, but that same definition applies to all those who call themselves Liberal. Sorry, but the fact is that the extremes of the spectrum have their head so far up their asses, and are SO closed and narrow-minded, that it's mind-boggling. Hell, look at the posts of this very thread, 80% of it is nothing more than two rival circle-jerks between two groups of very unintelligent people making very unintelligent posts.

The thread starter only made this to antagonize one side...how open-minded is that? If I had made this thread, I would have asked the question and presented my views without baiting the right-wingers.

And then there are some of the oh so lovely right wing responses. They border on, nay, ARE delusional...which I guess complements the left's obsession nicely.

I hope and pray our soldiers come home soon. This war never should have been started...but unlike some, I don't launch into baseless conspiracy theories.

Pathetic. I spit on all of this.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers

For all of you that are young, and support the war, why not go sign up for the Army or the Marines? I hear they are offering large signing bonuses, so why not shut up and put up, all in the same action.

Here is what you can look forward to:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0412/purplehearts__thumbs.html

You too can loose an arm, a leg, or your vision, all in the name of cheap expensive oil.

And you can even interact with your fellow free citizens, member of the Iraqi army:

'U.S. Soldier Killed Iraqi Teenager after Sex'

Boeing4ever: Logan22L, your definition of Liberal and Conservative is so far out of touch with reality, you should be ashamed of yourself.

You've made my point in your response. In a sociological scenario, definitions morph to seek common ground. Hence, Communism looks and sounds great on paper, but sucks in practice.

The definitions I gave are accurate, it's just that society does not conform to the ideals of the definitions well. If a "liberal" is not open-minded to the possible need for war, then he is not a true liberal. If a conservative is willing to give up the status quo, he is not a true conservative.

If you had said my "definitions" do not represent what goes on in reality, by and large, I would agree with you. My definitions are not out of touch with reality. Society is out of touch with reality. Liberal and conservative still mean what they mean, regardless of whether people are capable of understanding the terms of pigeon-holeing themselves into one or the other.

As for Falcons thread starting, we all know his position; he merely posted a link to comments from Bush regarding Iraq. He didn't need to state his opinion on this. In fact, the first response was from a conservative, MattD, who basically agreed with him!

Later,

Logan

On that we agree Logan, except for the last part. A careful reread of Falcon's post shows a clear baiting and antagonization of some of our "colorful" right-wing members. In other words, he was looking for a flamewar.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers

More kids without fathers and mothers so the Bush family can sleep in a nice warm bed in a nice big house in an exclusive neighborhood.

What a stupid comment. What more can you say about such idiocy?

"You too can loose an arm, a leg, or your vision"

You make it sound like joining up is a sure way to lose a limb or die. If you look at the numbers there is a very low percentage of US soldiers with disabling injuries or dead compared to the total number of troops on the ground.

I could have a car wreck 10 minutes from now and lose a leg. What is your point? That there is a better chance of being killed in Iraq than in a car wreck? Maybe but I bet its not that much better.

Sorry some of us think fighting for freedom is our job only when the bad guys are in our back yards. I wonder who the true isolationists are then? Sorry for thinking maybe the world would be better off without Saddam. Sorry for supporting a war that may actually serve a positive purpose in the world even if the initial reasons were shown to be wrong. Move on with your lives, we are in this war now so we might as well support it. There is no point in making this any worse for the guys who have to fight it. You say you don't support the war but you do support the troops. How do you think these troops feel when they see and hear all the protests before they ship out? How do you think it makes them feel when they visit home and have to listen to the left-wing nutcases talking about how unjust the war is? Supporting the troops DOES mean supporting the war. They have a job to do, and I guess you want them to feel bad about doing it.

You have to remember that while we do have the smartest military in the world, not all of these guys are the sharpest tools in the shed and many of them are right around 18yrs old. How would you have felt when you were 18 if you had people calling your job unjust and illegal but saying they supported you doing it? For once in your life try putting yourself in the shoes of Pfc. Nobody and try seeing this from his perspective. Supporting him and the war are the same thing, in his eyes you cannot have one without the other. I guess you want him to second guess himself before he pulls the trigger on an insurgent, possibly costing him his own life. Sounds like troop support to me  

BTW this is a left wing circle jerk, you can tell from the thread starter this was only supposed to bait the right wingers and war supporters while the left wingers all get together and get their jollies bashing the administration and the war. A little maturity would go a long way with a few users here. If this thread was supposed to actually be an open forum for honest, intellectual discussion the title would have been more neutral and the opening post would have been less of a jab.


Continue your circle jerk, and try not to get any in the keyboard. Continue living like your way of thinking is the only one, it seems to work well for your party, look at how many seats they won in congress in the last election.

What a stupid comment. What more can you say about such idiocy?

My last statement isn't so eloquently put, I admit. The intent was to comment on the Bush family's ties to oil money and Saudi Arabia and how they put the personal safety of young Americans at risk to protect their investments.

Everything that flows from your keyboard is lunacy Rabb. When you're not spouting stupidity, you're launching personal attacks to deflect attention from your idiotic statements.

Is it a drug/alcohol problem or have you had your personality removed surically?

If this thread was supposed to actually be an open forum for honest, intellectual discussion the title would have been more neutral and the opening post would have been less of a jab.

Any thread is open for honest, intellectual discussion. The title questions whether the war is going well, and Bush acknowledges, essentially, that it is not going as well as it could.

There has been much vitriol from both the right and the left on the election and the war. This is to be expected. Why shouldn't we bash an Administration that makes, in our opinion, decisions based on bad judgement? Why should you not defend what you feel is the right course of action?

I'm happy to make most of my points in an even-handed way, but for anyone to complain that this is flame-bait, please, grow a skin. BTW, we are now talking more about the tone of the thread than the content. Anyone care whether the war is going well?

Logan

More kids without fathers and mothers so the Bush family can sleep in a nice warm bed in a nice big house in an exclusive neighborhood.

What a stupid comment. What more can you say about such idiocy?

That's the best you can come back with Commander-SuckUp??? Boy... you're slipping... well actually.... you've never posted an original witty retort.. esp. the truth smack you right across the puss!


StartOuevr... you're calling it a circle-jerk and you jerked about as much as anyone here... look at your posts! After posting that 'special pic' of you.. your message was (for what it's worth... was heard! Why expanded on by becoming center of your said 'circle-jerk'???

BN747

B757300: If for no other reason, the war is going well because the terrorists are swarming to Iraq where our military already is and we're inflicting disproportionate attrition upon them on a daily basis. It is better that the terrorists go where our military is, so we can kill them rather than the terrorists coming here and killing innocent civilians.

This fallacy indeed seems to be at the basis of the Bush administration´s failing strategy.

This would be only true if there was - for some strange reason - a finite reservior of terrorists which you simply have to exhaust to put an end to terrorism.

It is evident that this is not the case.

Terrorists are made, not born. And the primary "raw materials" for the creation of new terrorists out of ordinary citizens are resentment and a feeling of helplessness against an overpowering enemy to unite against.

The foolish invasion of Iraq is basically the equivalent of drenching the ground with fertilizer and then sowing weeds with full hands all around.

What you reap from it is an overall increase of terrorism, by no means anything like "reduction by attrition". It´s your last stand in trying to justify the indefensible, but even you are retreating step by step in view of the inevitable.

A solution is not an increase of oppression and an even more ruthless occupation; The only possible solution would be a major change in strategy and tactics. It would also be the precondition for a wider alliance that could spread the load even a constructive outcome would require.

But will the Bush administration be capable of such a turnaround? All evidence seems to indicate they aren´t. In that case, B757300, tighten your safety belt and hold on to your seat.  

I don´t envy you for the hole you´ve dug yourself into.

Captoveur...

May I say that your little pic that u posted was very very terrible. lol... its SO terrible to laugh at..... SHAME SHAME! (Yet I sadly find it hard to refrain from laughing and almost crying at the same time....lol) SHAME!

-AA777

I'm tired of these threads Falcon84. You complain, but have no solution. Is the situation in Iraq worse then it was before we came right now? Yes, of course, but that should have been expected pre-election. The situation we face now should not be solved with the plan you choose to take, Falcon. You decide to complain and point fingers every day of your life. Have you ever considered this? Maybe if people like yourself and I came in unity to push the Iraqi people to fight for their new government, it may end this violence. So far I haven't seen you say anything good about the situation; how is that going to encourage the Iraqi people for their future? What do you suggest we do? Suck it up, stop pointing fingers, and help build Iraqi confidence. These threads you start are junk.

Jalto27R: I cannot and won't speak for Falcon, but to say he offers no solution is a bit disingenuous. Suck it up, stop pointing fingers, and help build Iraqi confidence. The way I see it, it should not have been started in the first place, so you are basically saying "We've given you this pile of horse puke, build me a mansion out of it." NO. If my position is not considered, then my cooperation in solving your dilemma is not welcome. Now, go do some homework, kid.

Logan

From reading all this, it looks like a.net is full of Bambi-loving, tree-hugging, Bush-bashing Democra(p)ts.

The way I see it, it should not have been started in the first place, so you are basically saying "We've given you this pile of horse puke, build me a mansion out of it." NO. If my position is not considered, then my cooperation in solving your dilemma is not welcome. Now, go do some homework, kid.

Where did I say that? I said that Falcon needs to stop complaining, tell me, what is it accomplishing? Whether you agree with what happened or not, his bickering isn't going to end a single thing. We never gave them a pile of horse puke, we gave them freedom, they don't seem so enthusiastic about it. How can they when the media only shows negative and people like Falcon never..ever... shut up. You can sit there with your arms crossed going "No! I'm not helping anyone". You sound like a kid who won't pick up something someone else dropped on the floor cause 'it's not yours'. Everyone needs to help, whether they agreed with the situation in the first place or not. I would hope all you want a good outcome to this situation, maybe you need to say that instead of saying I refuse to help.

we gave them freedom, they don't seem so enthusiastic about it


Read my first reply (#5) for more insight.

New allegations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison will not help.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/12/21/prisoner-abuse041221.html

No, the Iraq war isn't going well at all from the USA's situation. I had serious reservations about our decision to go to war, if for anything else, than the risks to our soldiers and the lack of senior partners besides the UK. To me, to the neocon-artists that control Bush and to some extent in the simplistic beliefs of Bush himself, he wanted to finish the Gulf War, without the UN in the way of getting to the real goal they were prevented from doing then - to remove Saddam and put a puppet government in place that would sell us and the world plenty of oil, not be part of OPEC, at a cheap price. I would note that there was justification for the Gulf War in that Saddam's Iraq had taken over the sovergin country of Kuwait.
Leading up to the current Iraq war, there was also the progressing scandal of the food-for-oil program, the horrendous life Iraqi's lived under Saddam and to some extent, that after 12 years of containment and destructive sanctions, Saddam was still in power, were also issues in the decisions and 'justifications' to go to war in Iraq. In the current war in Iraq, the intellegence as to WMD's were in large part lies by those opposed to Saddam, although if Saddam probably would have tried to revive the WMD programs if the UN and the USA was kept out for a while longer. Look at Iran today with their nuke programs, thumbing their nose at the world - that is what Saddam wanted to do too.
The US has lost almost 1200 soldiers, and our partners over 200 more. We have a brutal, terroristic and hateful insurgency against our troops oppossing out decisions to be there. The elections in January will be a farce, with continued insurgency, regional hates, the Shia's still wanting 60% control of the government equal to their population and the ex-Baathas's/Sunni anger over their loss of control of the government.
Iraq is a mess right now for all parties, and will continue to be so for many years, and at some point, like in Vietnam, we will have to withdraw to save our asses.

From reading all this, it looks like a.net is full of Bambi-loving, tree-hugging, Bush-bashing Democra(p)ts

About the same amount of NRA card-carrying, SUV-driving, anti-Environment, pro-war, want-to-have-Ann-Coulter's-baby Republicans.

LH423

I find it to be an open inviation to terrorists to say that they're having an effect on our morale and whatnot. Seems to me that's encouraging them?

War fan? When you have walked in my shoes and can discuss from experience what I feel about combat and war, then you are welcome to call me a war fan.

I originally supported the idea for going to war, just like the majority of this country, based on the sure and certain knowledge that Hussein was not to be trusted and was acting like he had much to hide. That was followed by the assumption based on the intel reports that everyone in our last two administrations held about Iraqi WMD's. We could not take the risk of the Iraqis actually having them, no matter what all the hindsight/monday morning quarterbacks are saying. I still say that with the information we had we had no other realistic choice. The risk that they had them and would dispose of them to preclude being caught with them, was too high to contemplate. We could not sit and wait to get hit first with this.

Our presence there is now a reality and I have yet to see anyone here do more than complain about what you are reading in the news. Other than MD11Engineer and Klaus (why is it that the US critics have nothing constructive to offer into the conversation?) no ideas for improvement are offered by the wars critics, no offers to do anything other than whine. How many of you have a loved one over there. A close friend, a brother, a child?

These guys are over there working to gove the Iraqis an opportunity to be free and have a self-determining government, no matter what the people who think that middle-easterners are not capable of comprehending such concepts say. They are working to insititute a democracy in a region that has never had one and will stand as an example to others in the region. If this example can work, and I will not believe what a previous poster said about the Iraqis being incapable of dealing with democracy, then the countries on either side of Iraq will have to modify their behaviour and government over the long run because their people will see what freedom offers up close, and see it in a fellow Islamic country.

I won't argue with anyone here about whether the war effort will come out well or not, we have had setbacks in every war. What has become apparent in the last 20 years is that as soon as casualties are had there are people who will call it a terrible defeat and demand our retreat. That was what happened in Somalia, and in Lebanon. Well, we are there in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and we cannot allow the sacrifices of the military and civilians who have been killed or the losses of the innocent bystanders go to waste. THis is the time to be tough and get going. If you cannot support the war causes, then decide whether you can support the troops by working toward a fruitful resolution to the conflict.

Jan, with all due respect, the comparisons between this conflict and Vietnam are superficial and easily magnified by those who really do not know the history or understand the reasons for Vietnam and its results. THe loss at home was as important as the ability of the VIetnamese to absorb everything thrown at them and still endure. But the Vietnamese just wanted all the foreigners out of their country after over 60 years of occupation by both western and eastern oppressors. They had nothing to lose, and this applied to most of the country. In Iraq this is different. There are a large number of people who want democracy and the number of people who will believe it possible will grow if we can stay the course and show the terrorists to be just that. As the terroristists continue to kill innocents and we continue to kill terrorists the willingness of people to continue to support the terrorists will diminish.

Falcon....You can call me a supporter of the administration, even a supporter of the war effort. Please do not call me a fan of war. I've been there, a couple of times, and did not really like it. I would do it again if there was a use for a bad kneed, busted up 37 year old infantry scout, but I'm no fan of war. It's bloody, murderous, you have to kill people and break shit, and you lose friends. The ptsd is real and I can only imagine how bad it has to be for these guys who have been there for over a year at a time. I have spent some time with friends who came back, and are returning there again. I have been to a funeral, and may have to go to another. I have had to explain to my friends mother what the jargon in a letter from her sons platoon sgt. meant concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of her son. I am no fan of war. There are plenty of things I dislike, however, that are sometimes necessary.

N766UA: I find it to be an open inviation to terrorists to say that they're having an effect on our morale and whatnot. Seems to me that's encouraging them?

Getting most of you into full panic mode was exactly what they intended anyway, so the only thing you could do to them would be to wake up, stop panicking and think about things that would actually hurt the terrorists instead of the civil populations...  

Like alienating the populations from the terrorists instead of driving people into their arms, for instance.

Very well said DL021, no wonder you are on my respected users list.  


My .02:

I don't think the war is going well, but I think Iraq will slowly get better. It will get worse before it gets better. Especially before the election date.

Klaus.... Tell me what you think the Coalition should do to gain the confidence of the population and convince them that freedom and democracy are going to work and the terrorists do not deserve their support?

(I hate that I have to say it, but there is no hostility in this question...it is a request for your views.)

dl021

Oh sure, the war is going just dandy. Tell that to the eighteen U.S. soldiers who died today.

You know what, you have your stereotypes all wrong. I drive an SUV (Range Rover), I like guns (S&W 6906), I ran over Bambi, I poor anti-freeze down the storm sewer drain and I hate Bush for getting us into this war. Its a fucking nightmare. All those people dying, for nothing. Americans and Iraqis. Everytime I talk to my relatives who are stationed in Iraq I cry because they are so sad, and so far away. Today when I heard 19 american soldiers were blown up while eating lunch I wondered if it was someone I knew, or worse, someone I loved. So don't come on here trying to be mightier than thou with your pro-right wing bullshit, it is tired. The war is a piece of shit. Plain and simple. All war is. How can you defend it any other way?

Click...If you are talking to me I don't recall dealing with any stereotypes. I believe that I asked for some constructive input rather than whining.

The idea that all war is shit is pretty accurate, but are you saying that it is never worthwhile? Are you saying it is never defensible? How can you say it is for nothing when we are not done yet?

I'd like you to clarify that. I hope your relatives in Iraq are alright. They do need your support and interest. They need to feel that what they are doing is worthwhile.

I originally supported the idea for going to war, just like the majority of this country, based on the sure and certain knowledge that Hussein was not to be trusted and was acting like he had much to hide. That was followed by the assumption based on the intel reports that everyone in our last two administrations held about Iraqi WMD's. We could not take the risk of the Iraqis actually having them, no matter what all the hindsight/monday morning quarterbacks are saying. I still say that with the information we had we had no other realistic choice. The risk that they had them and would dispose of them to preclude being caught with them, was too high to contemplate. We could not sit and wait to get hit first with this.

Okay.. for someone to have as much military/guard experience that you say you have and to believe the above you just wrote here dl021... if you really believe that and are being honest with us about everything you've written above... what we found out after-the-fact aside,. you sound about as informed as a cockroach about to get sprayed or stomped!

I've been out of the military for nearly 20 years and even I knew from 'known Iraqi military capability that a 1st strike from Iraq was absolutely impossible! Hans Blix and his report be damned. If Iraq did have 10 WMDs or 100 how in the hell would they deliver it???? How could they possibly build a missile silo to launch such an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with an WMD warhead???? Just how could we suffer a 1st strike from them with:

1)The US constantly controlling the northern and southern half of the country (enforcing the No Fly Zones) hell even Iraq Airways was grounded, not mention a 4th rate Iraqi Air Force.

2)The US almost weekly .... striking anti-aircraft sites/targets or anything that looked like one. Or anything that even pinged out a radar signal.

3)Our US satellites probably recorded every drop of illegal oil sold and every dollar exchanged!

A civilian not having the slightest idea of where Iraq was or is (before the invasion) is forgivable and understandable... but for a military person on the most basic of levels.. esp one with an interest in aviation and/or knowledge of such... could very easily conclude that Iraq could not in any shape or form mount any kind of offensive against anyone outside of 500 miles.... we saw first hand... the best they had when their SCUDS missed everything they aimed for in Israel (Gulf War 1)... and the country got weaker after implementation of the US enforce No-Fly-Zone... NOT stronger! Sure, dismiss Hans Blixs' UN Inspection for WMDs (that's expected from you guys who see everyone not like you as a threat).. but even when Colin Powell says in speech that Iraq did not possess the military might to be a threat to anyone (nearly a year before the war)... I can see how you may missed that 'red flag'... but to have the kind of military experience your claim, having been in a war (GW I) and believe the accusation that somehow with our eyes watching 247 strangely somehow ..under our very noses.. they developed a secret weapon that within 45 mins it could be launched and set off here in the US.. is just to hard to swallow!

If the average person in the military truly brought into what you stated above...then we might as well stop spending billions on the future satellites (and support systems) turn off the ones deployed now, never enforce a No-Fly-Zone in anyone's country ever again, toss out all of 'known intelligence' of their military capabilities.. because it isn't doing us one DAMN bit of good!

Let's just place our nation's security in the hands of corrupt informants like Ahmed Chalabi and hope they 'have a good heart and tell us the truth'... yeah... that work just fine.... well save trillions and just wing it...just like we're apparently doing right now!!!

BN747

From reading all this, it looks like a.net is full of Bambi-loving, tree-hugging, Bush-bashing Democra(p)ts.

When your country abolishes open secularism and racism, then we'll talk, until then, shut your racist trap.

What a stupid comment. What more can you say about such idiocy?

I don't know, Private_rabb. That it's close to the truth? The idiocy is that you don't see this.

I'm tired of these threads Falcon84.

I could care less what you're tired of, kid. Like it keeps me up at night. If it were supporting the war, you wouldn't be tired of it, so I really, really don't care.

You complain, but have no solution.

I didn't know that was my job, to come up with the solution. That's your hero's job, not mine, pal.

Is the situation in Iraq worse then it was before we came right now? Yes, of course, but that should have been expected pre-election.

That's funny, because until Bush made that statement, the official line for this Adminstration is that Iraq WAS better off than it was before we got there; that thing WERE vastly improving. Now, from the horse's own mouth (or from his ass, perhaps?), he basically admitted that he's been lying to the American people about the progress in Iraq? Funny, he didn't say that before OUR election, isn't is?

Maybe if people like yourself and I came in unity to push the Iraqi people to fight for their new government, it may end this violence.

Maybe if people like you and me came in unity to stop this fucking war before it started, there wouldn't have BEEN the violence in the first place! WE, the U S of A has caused this mess, no one else.

So far I haven't seen you say anything good about the situation;

Are you REALLY for real? Gee, maybe I don't say anything good about it, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT IT! What part of that do you NOT understand?  

From reading all this, it looks like a.net is full of Bambi-loving, tree-hugging, Bush-bashing Democra(p)ts.

Springbok, put down your extremists GOP handbook, and maybe get in the issue? That's pretty lame. Or would you prefer the good old days of Apartheid, that the Republicans supported back in the 80's?

War fan? When you have walked in my shoes and can discuss from experience what I feel about combat and war, then you are welcome to call me a war fan.

I'll call you one, based on what I've seen you type, and in our conversations. You're so for and into this war, and think it's such a great thing. I'll stand by my statement, my friend. I know what you feel about combat and war. It's obvious.

I originally supported the idea for going to war, just like the majority of this country, based on the sure and certain knowledge that Hussein was not to be trusted and was acting like he had much to hide.

That's a dumb reason for war, and it does nothing for your credibility on this issue. There's a few dozen leaders that fit that profile, so it means crap.

These guys are over there working to gove the Iraqis an opportunity to be free and have a self-determining government.

And who the fuck are we, DL021, to dictate to them what they should be? That's what it boils down to. You're supporting something we OPPOSED for 70 years with the USSR-imperialism, and dictating to other nations' what their government should. You're keeping poor company.

There are plenty of things I dislike, however, that are sometimes necessary.

Well, in this case, you supported something dumb, stupid, unnecessary, and totally damaging. Congratulations.

I could care less what you're tired of, kid. Like it keeps me up at night. If it were supporting the war, you wouldn't be tired of it, so I really, really don't care.

You complain, but have no solution.

I didn't know that was my job, to come up with the solution. That's your hero's job, not mine, pal.

Is the situation in Iraq worse then it was before we came right now? Yes, of course, but that should have been expected pre-election.

That's funny, because until Bush made that statement, the official line for this Adminstration is that Iraq WAS better off than it was before we got there; that thing WERE vastly improving. Now, from the horse's own mouth (or from his ass, perhaps?), he basically admitted that he's been lying to the American people about the progress in Iraq? Funny, he didn't say that before OUR election, isn't is?

Maybe if people like yourself and I came in unity to push the Iraqi people to fight for their new government, it may end this violence.

Maybe if people like you and me came in unity to stop this fucking war before it started, there wouldn't have BEEN the violence in the first place! WE, the U S of A has caused this mess, no one else.

So far I haven't seen you say anything good about the situation;

Are you REALLY for real? Gee, maybe I don't say anything good about it, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT IT! What part of that do you NOT understand?

Yes! Please! Back to the days where being smart meant keeping your mouth shut or be killed. Yes! Please! Back to elections where the opposition was killed. Yes! Please! Who doesn't want Chemical Ali as a top military leader?!?! I sure do! I mean I just wish we could turn back time and go 'wow, you know, Saddam, you ain't half bad, that whole gassing incident, and you know, the whole invading Kuwait thing was kinda amusing, keep it up!' "WE THE US of A HAVE MADE THIS MESS, AND I COULD CARE LESS HOW WE DEAL WITH IT, I'D RATHER JUST SIT HERE AND COMPLAIN, AFTER ALL, IT"S MY RIGHT TO BE A DEAD WEIGHT RIGHT?!?!" Bush never needed to say that the situation in Iraq isn't great right now..everyone can see that. Let me ask you Falcon, we're you expecting peaches and cream? Or we're you thinking Saddam was gonna go, "you know, these americans, I like 'em, they may want me dead, but I like em. Let's give up, do nothing about the fact that my ass will be handed to me on a platter, and peacfully surrender." Are you out of your mind Falcon?

Lastly, you can call me a kid all you want, but when it follows references to myself as a donkey, and ass, it kinda conteracts what you just said.

BN (hey did you know there is a cookie in France with the same name as you?)
My military service aside (you are partially right w/ GW1), one simply has to read and learn from history to know that sticking ones head in the sand will not protect them from those that wish to harm them. Do you doubt that Hussein wished us harm? NOw you are saying that you are smarter and better informed than our own CIA? I know that their info has been discredited, but did you know that then? Here is their opinion, prewar. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/iraq_wmd/iraq_oct_2002.htm

I never said they could hit CONUS directly..I don't think that anyone ever said that....unless the Iraqi's supplied a weapon to a third party to use against us or someone else. On top of that they certainly would have had the ability to launch against Israel. Your desire to try to make me look stupid requires you to find new meaning in my words. Anyone who knows anything about the previous conflict there knows that the SCUDs were more of a terror weapon than anything else, and almost broke the coalition. Only the restraint placed upon the Israelis by us, and the deployment on Dutch manned NATO Patriot missiles in Israel prevented the retaliation from Israel that would have broken up the Arab participation in the coalition.

You asked how they would deliver a weapon? Without trying to sound paranoid its pretty simple really...number one, you do not talk about it. Number two..you put the weapons on separate ships (trawlers, tramp freighters, bulk carriers in a conex(transport trailer)). Number three...you send these vessels on indivisual paths towards the US without telling anyone on the vessels other than the one fanatic you intend to have set it off. Ideally you have one of these vessels each in San Diego, New York, Savannah, Miami, and Galveston Harbors. Number 4..the terrorist on board is notified to activate the weapon by prearranged signal (possibly a broadcast from OBL or some other guy who gets airtime on Arab satellite tv). Number 5...Big booms in our ports that eliminates several cities and commerce ports.
How the hell do you defend against that? Pre-emptive action against the probable source of such weapons.

We have had teams of military and civilian personnel in every major city that are organized to respond to an attack by some terrorist organization that perpetrates an attack using wmd's (biological and nuclear are the two most feared). These teams brainstorm all the time to come up with scenarios for this type attack so they can develop responses. here's a resource to find out more about this if you really want to know how we can be attacked.
http://c21.maxwell.af.mil/index.htm

If you were paying attention you would have noticed that international support for the no-fly zones was waning and the only nations enforcing them were us and the British, as the French pulled out after the action by Clinton in '98. What do you suppose was going to happen when that effort became too expensive to maintain when no one but us was willing to make it happen? Would Hussein have become a solid citizen and not ordered his scientists to dig up whatever they had in their gardens and go back to work?

If you think our satellites are capable of providing intel generally available only through humint sources then you drank the same KoolAid as McNamara and his cronies and the guys in the Carter administration who demanded the dismantling of the CIA's covert intelligence gathering capability. Satellites can not tell us everything we need to know, which is why the CIA has been trying to rebuild its capabilities for the last several years. But you cannot re-establish this ability in a couple of years.

So...other than your stellar suggestion to turn the whole thing over to Chalabi, what positive contribution to this discussion do you offer? I know you are a smart guy....show that you can come up with something that we can use to maybe generate some solution oriented thinking that can perhaps propel some of us to add to other conversations and it can grow from there.

Or just come back with whatever negative stuff you want to use.

Jalto, you're losing it. That was a pile of garbage, what you wrote. Chill out, kid.

You support a disaster, and something that has damaged our nations, perhaps irreperably. And you act like it's something to be proud of. You've really got some issue here.

Jalto, you're losing it. That was a pile of garbage, what you wrote. Chill out, kid.

You support a disaster, and something that has damaged our nations, perhaps irreperably. And you act like it's something to be proud of. You've really got some issue here.

None of what you just said applies to me. I never lost it, I don't need to chill out. You're the one who started this thread by pointing out names and yelling HA! I never said I was proud of this. I am glad Saddam is out of power, and the Iraqis have a chance to redeem themselves and start off new. This isn't a disaster, it is democracy at it's start.

This isn't a disaster, it is democracy at it's start.

Bullshit. It's a disaster of major proportions, and it's going to lead to an Islamic government in Iraq, and then Iraq, again, will be an implacable enemy of the U.S. And it will all be the fault of your savior and hero, George Bush.

DL021: Klaus.... Tell me what you think the Coalition should do to gain the confidence of the population and convince them that freedom and democracy are going to work and the terrorists do not deserve their support?

It´s very late for a fresh start... There´s been so much damage already done that it´s almost impossible for the coalition to turn it around on their own. The psychological and political capital within Iraq and internationally simply doesn´t exist any more.

The invasion was the first mistake. But the iraqi population apparently gave the coalition the benefit of the doubt for the removal of Saddam. Restoring order (preventing looting and lawlessness) would have been the first and most important step to guide the development into a constructive direction. But the troops were too few, not instructed to prevent disorder (among other reasons because of their insufficient strength) and unprepared to start "nation building" right away.

It is extremely difficult to compensate for those early mistakes, most of which had their roots on the political level, not in mis-decisions by local commanders.


Abu Ghraib (which according to numerous reports was merely the tip of the iceberg) has done further damage. How do you convince an iraqi civilian to cooperate with you when he believes he might "vanish" without cause and might be mistreated, even tortured? The official treatment of the abuse that´s become public is not encouraging. More openness and a real willingness to do more than conduct a few token trials against lower ranks would have been essential. Hard to repair now. More trust is lost.

The longer this goes on, the more it appears as if the pervasive hostile attitude ("the gloves are off") and the fatal misdirection of the troop´s anger ("they" did 9-11 to us! Let them suffer!) nudged many troops into that direction; When a problem appears all over the place (many cases in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Guantanamo and with "outsourced torture providers" have become public) it is not an isolated problem - it has its roots in the leadership or the lack thereof. A solution would by necessity have to include the top brass and the civilians in the Pentagon who have been spared so diligently until now. Trust comes from transparence. There is no substitute.


Then there were the rather brutal home searches and several bombed festivities. The problem is that the consistent impression was that the occupying forces simply didn´t give a damn about the iraqi civilians. Sure, many individuals attempted to counteract this deterioration, but they didn´t have a chance against a hostile and condescending leadership which simply wouldn´t listen to anyone, not to foreign advice, not to their own military experts, not to their own troops on the ground.


So what can be done now?


Not much, I´m afraid. The level of resentment that´s been accumulated (and "enhanced" by local and outside instigators) is completely out of control. It would take drastic measures to reverse the situation. And "drastic" cannot mean more bombs, more raids, more violence.


• A credible display of genuine interest in the welfare of the iraqi people might still do some good; But it would have to be as pervasive as the hostile and condescending attitude had been before.

Coalition soldiers taking iraqi lives without need could no longer be considered a minor offense.

Even the leadership would have to publicly address their mistakes (yeah, fat chance!  ).

A Kerry administration would have had it many times easier to rescue the situation without losing (even more) face.


• Alternatively, the coalition, especially the USA, could start listening to others and prepare to hand over responsibility to others, probably under UN supervision. Where the USA would still have their voice, but no absolute control any more.

This and nothing else has been the stumbling block for broader participation. Absolute control means you´re alone in the responsibility; And it´s apparent that the current administration simply isn´t up to the job. So since the administration has been confirmed by the american electorate (even if barely, but it doesn´t make a difference here), the only remaining option would be to effectively withdraw and let others handle it. If the precondition of full US control were to be withdrawn, that might actually work, too.


Sorry, I have no better ideas than those. Do you?  

I never said they could hit CONUS directly..I don't think that anyone ever said that....

No you didn't.. "But Dubya and Rice did! Their fear up that sudden mushroom cloud' hoopla'...!"

You asked how they would deliver a weapon? Without trying to sound paranoid its pretty simple really...number one, you do not talk about it.

And that's exactly why most criminal plans fail..some fcuks up and and just can't shut the hell up. Two, the best way to keep anything under the raps is to have as few involved as possible. Of 10 people in collusion on anything... someone is screw up the operation it's just human nature... it's called the weak link.

Number two..you put the weapons on separate ships (trawlers, tramp freighters, bulk carriers in a conex(transport trailer)).

The only possible port would be Basra and you'd better believe every ship going and out of that place is closely monitored!

Number three...you send these vessels on indivisual paths towards the US without telling anyone on the vessels other than the one fanatic you intend to have set it off.

Your one fanatic (on each ship) is going need a crew (a group of guys not shipmates), either aboard the ship or waiting on the other end to help move a WMD... it's gonna be bigger than a suitcase.

Ideally you have one of these vessels each in San Diego, New York, Savannah, Miami, and Galveston Harbors.

And just like the 9/11 bad guy crew, these guys will have 'documents' to sanction and ligitimize their movements/logistics and accomodations...

Number 4..the terrorist on board is notified to activate the weapon by prearranged signal (possibly a broadcast from OBL or some other guy who gets airtime on Arab satellite tv).

Number 5...Big booms in our ports that eliminates several cities and commerce ports.

How the hell do you defend against that? Pre-emptive action against the probable source of such weapons.

First off, I'm going to give the CIA more credit than most are lead to believe. Without a doubt, the CIA were made to play the patsy and fall on the sword in this whole mess. Everyone in Washington DC knows that. Although, the same CIA at one time considered Martin Luther King, a national threat to the security of the US (he got equal billing as OBL)... the CIA also knows when to play stupid and when not too... it wanted into Vietnam/Cambodia and Laos..and it found away to get it..assassinations not withstanding. Today, with far more sophistication than 40 years ago ( that's like a MAC G5 computer vs a mimeograph machine-- you younguns'...don't even ask what that is...) the CIA today has free reign it wanted this fight too, it wanted Abu Gharib and GITMO, all this stuff didn't happen on the fly.. it was thought out WAY ahead of time! Intell agents are everywhere, they know or have a pretty good idea what's about to go down (or when to stand down). Now if something goes wrong..what's the standard canned procedure for a screw up??? Plausible deniability..in other words.. "not me, but someone else dropped the ball!!!" or "...gave me a bad piece of info". In this case Chalabi was the pointman...and do you think for ONE NANO-SECOND... that the CIA didn't know that Chalabi was a wanted fugitive in Jordan??? You'd better believe that King Hussein was burning up the lines from Amman to Washington DC and Langley (around the clock) asking "Why in the FUCK are you guys listening to this man???" And I guarantee you that the CIA had Chalabi's Rap sheet long before he was on the scene and looking at while he was sitting infront of them spilling 'what he knew'! So in short...this a scenario the CIA wanted a piece of and did what it had to to get in... For anyone with half a brain to believe 'oh, it was just a bad tip.. but George Tenet resigned..so it's all good now"... that's the biggest bucket of horsecrap ever deservedly swallowed by anyone person!


Now for your guys in the ports... it still involves too many people--thus the blabber mouth(s) and chance of blown cover! But it's very possible that they could get as far you suggest..but still there's one problem.. you must be joking if you think this isn't scenario our Intell peeps haven't played out over and over again over the last number of years (even before 9/11)! My brother may have a better understanding of our defense against this..but I'm certain my uncle knows! But with all the cash we are dumping into 'security' and if such a plan did work...then we have already lost (see above reply re: expensive defense ops)! But like I said... our spy guys know when to step up and when to lay down or do either when ordered to do so!

BN747

Sorry it took so long to respond, been working and Christmas shopping.

Klaus....A fresh start is unrealistic. I also think that wishing for a different administration is a waste of time. We have the situation and people we have, and the governments in Bonn and Paris said they wouldn't send troops no matter who was in charge. THey have much political capital staked on that position. My ideas, not that they are likely to be heard by anyone in a position to do anything (but the more discussion happening the better the chances are), involve the possible. I think that the US needs to work on the communications better in Iraq as well as around the world. This means that the facts need to be laid out for everyone to see the options before us. I doubt seriously that people want the effort to bring democracy to the region to fail. Many would enjoy the US falling on its face, but if forced to examine the options, i.e. allowing the extremists to take control in Iraq versus the growth of freedom and democracy in the region they would opt to work for the second, perhaps even deciding it to be worth extreme effort and sacrifice. Especially if the long term effects of both options are honestly examined. I believe that the US needs to work harder with the UN as well as its more reluctant allies in Germany and France to involve them non-militarily after the elections. I think that will take a clearly successful set of elections that will allow the UN to enter the process by the invitation of a legitimate representative fo the Iraqi people rather than the recognized occupation forces. What would you rather see? The US fall on its face or the successful rise of democracy in this region (which is an admittedly infectious disease).

BN Your points in order.
I believe that the statements concerning what the Iraqis could hit referred to US forces and facilities in the region. Could you refer me to a source that quotes them saying this?
second..you are certainly correct in that most plots are blown due to the inability of people to shut up. But the large numbers of 9-11 plotters and actors managed to hide in the US for months and years prior to the events, even after the 93 bombing in the World Trade Center. The fewer numbers of persons in the US necessary for this particular idea (zero to be precise) would make it easier. This is a possibility that cannot be ignored or dismissed out of hand. It is easier, I am sure you would agree, to get a fanatic to be disciplined about opsec than some dilettante in it for the excitement or to piss off their parents.
No, they don't need a crew of willing accomplices on the vessel if the shipment is inside of a intermodal transport container that looks like any other one. They would need someone to load what we would call a MADM (man portable atomic munition) into the container, but not much more. Once the device (which potentially would not require command detonation but could be on a timer) was loaded it could be masked and avoid detection in the right ports. If it was not processed into the US yet, sitting in the port waiting on customs to inspect for instance, they could do the damage I suggested. They would not have to interact with anyone in the ports.

As far as whether to give the CIA more credit than the average poster here would seem to wish to do, I agree with you (happens on occasion) and I think they have been doing a fairly good job at threat detection and prevention. I am not sure they were responsible for our participation in Vietnam as much as say Kennon or Johnson and McNamara, but thats pure speculation and hypothesis either way. As far as Dr. King, the FBI and Mr. Hoover were the ones who labeled him a potential communist and were far more concerned about him than the CIA according to most records and accounts. Once again speculation and not really germaine (it ain't tito randy or marlon either).

I think the CIA is fairly effective at detecting and warning us of threats, but the terrorist only has to be lucky once. If they sent 4 weapons and only one got through would that be batting .750 and that would not be good enough as far as having any of the N-Bor C wmds that could be unleashed. One nutcase with a jar of sarin killed and maimed in a subway in TOkyo, imagine a planned effort with a serious weapon and means of delivery.

We have thousands of great people working on defence against this and most any one of them would tell you the same thing. The only real defence against terrorists is to give people something to lose (i.e. hope) so that they are unwilling to throw away their lives, and less likely to follow madmen down the path of tyranny and oppression.

If there was one thing that could be done it would be fiding a way to convince the rest of the world that getting completely behind the effort to bring freedom and democracy to the region is the best possible solution. As long as the terrorists and their organizers/sponsors feel that they can accomplish their goals they will continue to attack. As long as there is percieved and actual division among the great democracies of the world and the perception of the people in Iraq that we will abandon them to the fanatics and tyrants when it gets difficult they will have that hope.

I'm not capable of answering the detectability of the CIA of terrorist plots.. But I do know they have unlimted resources and an the apparatus in place to put anyone else's operation to shame! That's why I can't swallow 'We made a mistake and accepted some bad info' from an organization that size with information on everything and everyone! Knowledge is power and boy do they have it... they can flip an entire nation before you microwave a bag of popcorn.

If there was one thing that could be done it would be fiding a way to convince the rest of the world that getting completely behind the effort to bring freedom and democracy to the region is the best possible solution. As long as the terrorists and their organizers/sponsors feel that they can accomplish their goals they will continue to attack. As long as there is percieved and actual division among the great democracies of the world and the perception of the people in Iraq that we will abandon them to the fanatics and tyrants when it gets difficult they will have that hope.

That is the pipe dream of Pipe Dreams.... the rest of the world sees America doing some not-so-neighborly things lately... it lacks the embracing of all nations like the Clinton admin did.. Team Dubya has made it clear that 'we don't take orders or listen to anyone...well it's kind of difficult now to go back and ask those nations to 'see obtaining democracy' our way...

And as Dubya says 'I can't think of any mistakes I've made....'


BN747

Well...BN...nothing is impossible. If we quit every time that someone said it was impossible then we never would have won ww2 or made it to the moon. The President has surprised people before and I think that there are some plans to move diplomacy forward after the elections in Iraq next month.

Neither of us is knows exactly what the CIA knows, but I think its safe to say that it is impossible to detect and prevent every attack.

Remember, knowledge alone is not power, the effective use of knowledge is. We first have to know it, and then be able to use it.

Remember, knowledge alone is not power, the effective use of knowledge is. We first have to know it, and then be able to use it.

True...

But "...I got a bad piece of intell" is acceptable from the Pizza Boy...

It is not acceptable from any Fortune 500 company (or very few private businesses)... and how it the American people swallow if from a multi-billion dollar branch of gov't I'll never know....

As far as global neighbors go... in the simpliest of terms...we've done the equivalent of 'your kids trashing the lawn of your next door neighbor' and you flipping him off... then asking him for ride to work the next day'.. you can hope... but ain't gonna happen.


BN747

I hope you are wrong....I know of plenty of people who have misunderestimated our President and regretted it later. I hope you are doing so and we will all be glad of it later.

Even Fortune 500 corporations get and act upon bad intel. Look at the car companies and some of the crap they put out. Look at the movie companies and what they sometimes spend millions upon millions on and then fail to put asses in seats. What happens is that someone either gets reprimanded or fired, usually, but there are no successes without risk.

No entity is perfect, nor would I want any government body to be so. Imagine how tyrannical a truly efficient government would be.

Look at the movie companies and what they sometimes spend millions upon millions on and then fail to put asses in seats.

This vs Fortune 500 miscues are not the same. I dare not speak of it here.. but these two are not even in the same universe! Fortune 500 ...yes, heads will roll..Hollywood, not the same rule of thumb... not even close!


BN747

The war is going well? How can anybody defend this war? 100,000 dead in the name of democracy? Bullshit if you ask me.

Tbar220....Millions have died in the name of democracy and freedom. How can you defend the sacrifices of those who defended yours?


BN Nothing ventured, nothing gained...

Companies in the fortune 500 on the way up are the risk takers, and the ones who quit taking risks, big ones, are the ones who slide backwards.

You can always tell when the accountants take over from the entrepreneurs.

The need for the US government, President Bush in particular to go out and do what his critics say cannot be done looms large here....and he is taking a huge risk to accomplish what we are attempting. It's much more important than some producer spending $100mil on Waterworld.

Companies in the fortune 500 on the way up are the risk takers, and the ones who quit taking risks, big ones, are the ones who slide backwards.

It's never a company that takes the risk..it's always an individual! And as such it is he who's head ends up on the chopping block.

The need for the US government, President Bush in particular to go out and do what his critics say cannot be done looms large here....and he is taking a huge risk to accomplish what we are attempting. It's much more important than some producer spending $100mil on Waterworld.

In Waterwold.. no one got killed. No families were obliterated. Some investors took a bath! If Dubya is the risk taker you suggest... then he should take the fall and resign instead of passing the buck (which he's sure to do)! He wanted this war at all cost..and he got it.. at a VERY HIGH cost (he certainly didn't see this coming)...and for what??? To free the Iraqi people? They were already free... much more free than the people just 90 miles south in Cuba! That risk is sure prove not worth the gamble.... when we finally do win, we will still lose! It'll be a pyhrric victory at best! What you fail to understand is that this is a cultural miscalculation of gigantic proportions!


BN747

Ok I got a question....we Go over and Nuke Japan....meanwhile we still have the terrorists and suicide bombers still having the authority to cause some severe damage to our troops and our nation.....why did nuke Japan and not Nuke Iraq? Also to show you how good the war against terror is we had top Al-Qaida officials living and still living in Orange County. One even married a women for a green card. How do we let this happen? How is this OK. THis just goes to show that we are not helping with the war with Terror.

With the war in Iraq we are not giving them the proper funding and equipment to operate and fight a war. We do not give them 100% protection. We are only giving them 75%. If we have people volunteering to go to a war torn city where there is a high chance of dying I think we should atleast give them the benefit of protection....

The need for the US government, President Bush in particular to go out and do what his critics say cannot be done looms large here....and he is taking a huge risk to accomplish what we are attempting

Bullcrap. All Bush is risking is his political legacy, nothing more.

You want to see the risk takers?

.....why did nuke Japan and not Nuke Iraq?

Um, World War II ended in 1945. 40 years later the United States would be helping to install Saddam to power in Iraq.

BN I think the agreement on the difference between the movies and actual events is there. I did say that Iraq is more important, and was ironically understating that fact.

If you actually think that the Iraqi people were free prior to the invasion then your definition of free is vastly different than mine. Perhaps you were being ironic for the sake of a point. I'm certain you wouldn't define the conditions that Iraqis lived under as freedom. The fates of dissenters was imprisonment or death, the athletes who were tortured for not measuring up, the women who were raped for the enjoyment of Uday and Qusay, and more examples beyond than I have time to mention.

The probable strategy of minimizing any gains made ny the administration and military will undoubtedly be the strategy of the left when Iraq realizes democracy, and the minimization of their suffering under Hussein will serve to keep the faithful on the left feeling better about their opposition to the liberation, and the spreading of freedoms example.

I know that there have been problems and difficulties. If was easy the UN would have made it happen years ago. If it was going to be simple we could all agree on how to do it (probably, well probably not). The reasons for going to war will always be a source of friction and dispute, but if we win it will all be academic, as history will remember more the results than the impetus.

aaplatnumflier.... what does nuking Japan have to do with the price of wheat in Egypt? If there were Al-Quaida officials living in Orange county they are not there any more.

As far as funding and equipment. The 278thACR (TNANG) was 95% up (to TO&E planning) on armor kits for humvees at the time of the question being issued by the reporters surrogate, who BTW has gone on the record as being a supporter of the president and the SECDEF, and the rest of the armor kits were being issued or in the works. The vehicles being uparmored with field expedient kits were non-combattant vehicles that were recognized as being at risk anyway and had armor ordered for them. The lessons learned have already affected the next rotation of NG troops with the 48th BCT coming from Georgia. BG Rhodeheaver has returned with the plan for which vehicles they will need and will be there with everything they need when they arrive. What the unfortunate fact of war is that no one outside of the military seems to comprehend is that they military is equipped for the wars planned and that shit happens. When it does the Army improvises, adapts, and overcomes. You improvise while the supply chain adapts and you use everything at your disposal to overcome the obstacles to accomplishing your mission. You will notice also that the military and administration did not flinch when this briefing happened and did not defend or deny. They simply said, yes there are problems and challenges that we are constantly working to overcome.

I still don't see what nuking Japan has to do with the conversation.

It was just something to throw out there. Obviously we are not doing well with Iraq. I just said it because I was asking why we would nuke Japan and not Iraq. Also I think Bush is going to realize how shorthanded we are in Iraq and bring back the draft. You may think that this has nothing to do with it and blah blah blah. But this conflict with Iraq is going to be going on for years and years. It will be like Vietnam in a sense. Or at least this is how I see it. Maybe I am digging myself into a deeper and deeper hole I don't know. But this is my view of it.

[Edited 2004-12-24 20:21:08]

But this conflict with Iraq is going to be going on for years and years. It will be like Vietnam in a sense.

In what sense exactly? We lost 50,000 troops in the first year of combat in Vietnam. It's almost been two years now and we've only lost 1,500 troops in Iraq. This will be NOTHING like Vietnam. Vietnam was a whole different war, in a whole different place, for a whole different set of reasons. Please, don't EVER compare this war to Vietnam.

Yes but we are faced against Gorilla attacks. What were we faced against in Vietnam. This will keep going on and on...and though the deats might not be the same it is the same kind of attacks going on. Some of the same stratagies are also being used by the gorillas that are attacking us.

This will be NOTHING like Vietnam. Vietnam was a whole different war, in a whole different place, for a whole different set of reasons.

The reason for the war in Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism, and to "free" the people. The purpose, or so Bush says, for the war in Iraq was to stop an evil dictator and to "free" the people. Pretty much the same.

Both the VC and the insurgents in Iraq are using the same tactics. GI's don't know which Iraqi is friend or foe. That was just proved by the bombing of the base in Mosul. Someone had access to the base, so they were perceived as a friend, when in reality he/she had a bomb on.

This war is almost identical to Vietnam.

Yes but we are faced against Gorilla attacks

It is spelled Guerilla. Gorilla is the ape.

Jalto....to be accurate we lost just over 50k troops over a ten year period in Vietnam, most of them between 1967 and 1970.

AAplatnumflier....Guerrilla attacks, not gorilla. The difference is than in VIetnam we faced a nation as well as an insurgency and our allies were corrupt self-involved miscreants who wanted nothing more than to set themselves up for life on our dime.

kyipilot....the fight against communism was the reason for our involvement in Vietnam, and they were the reason for many of our self-imposed limitations that allowed the VC room to operate, and the North Vietnamese safe havens from which they could launch attacks. The difference in Iraq is that we are helping them set up a democracy and the insurgency is limited to a few regions.

Please, don't EVER compare this war to Vietnam.

Please, Jalto, don't EVER lecture people on here about a war that ended two lifetimes before you were born.

to be accurate we lost just over 50k troops over a ten year period in Vietnam

Actually - to be accurate and UNBIAS and most importantly honest and honoring, 58,178 troops died in vietnam over the 10 year period...

Just over 50k???

How's about just under 60k???

Ian,

I think if the current Iraqi insurgents were as organised, trained and disciplined as the Vietcong / Viet Minh guerillas of the 1960s - 1970s, who after all had more than 20 years experience in leading a guerilla war (from WW2 against the Japanese, in the 1950s against the French) , the US would face much bigger losses. If you´ve seen the pictures of those young Iraqis with their RPG-7s and AK-47s exposing themselves to fire, just to look "as seen on TV", you should know what I mean. You guys can be lucky that most of them got their infantry training from watching action movies.

Jan

Vafi88...you are correct in your exact number and I was not trying to minimize the losses, nor was it an intentional slight toward any of the brave men and women whose names adorn the memorial in Washington. I apologize to anyone (especially and Vietnam veterans) who think I was diminishing our losses, and anyone who has read my posts knows I was not looking to insult our lost servicemen and women. What I wanted to do was correct someones exaggeration/mischaracterization that we lost 50k in the first year, which was misleading and incorrect.

Jan...this makes my point. The insurgency in Vietnam was supported by a nation intent on conquering, as well as our cold war opponents who wished to spread their brand of communism, cause trouble for our foriegn policy, as well as test their own and our equipment and tactics. Iraq's terrorist and insurgent forces are supported covertly by a few nations and groups, but are not anywhere near well equipped nor do they have sway over the entire population. The Sunni Baathists are hated by the Shia, and the Kurds will not allow either set of people to ever threaten them again if there is anything they have to say. When the elections happen, and the truth that we are not stealing their oil nor any other national assets becomes clearer to the populace they will realize that their fate is truly in their hands. The Vietnamese had no such options, and simply wished to be left to their rice paddies and businesses, and were able to endure more, and be more politically controlled than their enemies.