Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iraq And The Powell Doctrine  
User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Where did we go wrong? The most experienced man in the Bush administration from 01-05 was by far former SecState Colin Powell. When he was involved with the JCS, after learning the lessons of Vietnam the hard way, he developed what is known as the Powell Doctrine.
It asks 8 questions to be answered before American Military force was to be used overseas. First lets review them, then I am wondering why they were generally ignored?

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
That is debatable, but hindsight has shown a lack of WMDs. Saddam's military was generally broken and he didnt have any way to realistically project power against our allies.

2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Not really, well wait, Yeah take Baghdad, topple Saddam, then wait for democracy to take hold.

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Notta, we blew the original budget out of the water, and I remember Bush cabinet members, telling the American people that Iraq oil revenue would pay for the rebuilding of the country. Hasnt happened and likely never will. It will fall on the shoulders of the American tax payers.

4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
No, the UN was still a viable option. Weapons inspectors were on the ground and being allowed the access that was being demanded of the Iraqis shortly before hostilities began.

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
This generally deals with nation building, and peace keeping operations, and well that one speaks for itself.

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Obviously not, anyone in the know, would know there were three predominate ethnic groups in Iraq, With minority Sunni's exerting ruthless control over a Shia majority with the Kurds getting kicked from all sides. This was a time bomb.

7. Is the action supported by the American people?
At the time I would say yes, but this came from generally false statements, that if not flat out lies were certainly misleading. The veil of truth came out shortly after and it was to late. But there were mass protests by American citizens before the war began.

8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
This is laughable. The UN said no, most of our historically close allies with the exception of the UK and Australia turned thier backs on us. Our regional allies of Saudi Arabia said we could launch offensive action, the Turks said no to the 4th ID coming in from the north. Instead we plow ahead and decided to go it alone.

How can the Bush administration completely ignore the doctrine set forth by a man who fought in an insurgency based war in Vietnam that is in many ways similar the situation in Iraq, and had actually commanded troops there a short time before. What must have happened to make the one guy who really knew what he was doing be marginalized.
Also for the record, I find it interesting to note that according to the Powell Doctrine, our actions in Afghanistan are largely justified.

Edited to add bold indicators.

[Edited 2006-11-29 03:41:32]

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2982 times:

The Powell doctrine was ignored because it says the reasons for war must be in place first. Bush wanted war first, and was interested in the supporting reasons only later.

I think an unholy triumvirate of forces came together to cause Bush to go to war:

I. animosity to Saddam on a personal level
II. PNAC and Heritage Foundation type advisors who are STILL seeking aggressive wars in the ME before America loses the ability to go unchallenged militarily
III. post 9/11 environment that demanded big, made-for-TV-action

Powell alone retained a clear head it seems. I despise war but I fully argue that you should listen to those who have fought war before you make one again.

Cairo

[Edited 2006-11-29 04:11:39]

User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 1):
The Powell doctrine was ignored because it says the reasons for war must be in place first. Bush wanted war first, and was interested in the supporting reasons only later.

I would tend to agree with you there. Another fundamental mistake I think was made was not going in with more than enough troops in the first place and then reducing that force as needed. Rumsfeld did the opposite, he went in with a light force and figured to add troops as needed.

On another and coincidental front, Colin Powell is saying the situation in Iraq is now a civil war.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/powell.iraq/index.html


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2947 times:

I'm not a human dictionary, but to me a civil war is simply when people within a country are killing each other over who or how they are to be governed.

I think the only ones arguing it is not a civil war are the diehards who have problems admitting mistakes, and who also take a personal blow by admitting the US can make a mistake.

The one good thing about all of this is that America has experienced the folly and seen how impotent it can be, therefore hopefully avoding any future attempts to forcefully tell others how they should be governed.

America's problems are at home. Why all this gigantic money spent in Iraq and even calls for more? Would they spend it on Americans?

Cairo


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 3):
Why all this gigantic money spent in Iraq and even calls for more?

Well, and I am one and I know there are others who would agree, that we have a "you broke it, you bought it mentality" meaning we caused at least some of the mess going on in Iraq. We owe it to the Iraqi's and the American soldiers and thier families to see Iraq become a prosperous country. Which I am torn over whether I think this could really happen. I know it could have, I believe that if despite totally disregarding sound advice and doctrine, that if the US military has a troop strength of 400,000, for the invasion, you would not have had the widespread looting that took place. And coming up on 4 years of being involved in this war, you would see Iraq growing its economy, a viable government in place, and enough security to keep peace among the Iraqis. You would also see about the same amount of troops as we have now, about 130k. Those would be mostly construction battallions and logistic units, and then some heavy armor to keep foreign countries from invading. It would have cost us more on the front end, in financial terms, but less in lives on all sides.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 3):
Would they spend it on Americans?

Not only no, but hell no. And most of us know that. With the amount of money spent in Iraq every US citizen could have free health coverage, and a college education. I am not one that thinks throwing money at a problem with solve everything. But with the money we have spent in Iraq, America would be a different place.
What bothers me the most about the expenditure in Iraq is that the government has not cut spending anywhere else for the war effort and have managed to cut taxes to boot.


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
we have a "you broke it, you bought it mentality" meaning we caused at least some of the mess going on in Iraq. We owe it to the Iraqi's and the American soldiers and thier families to see Iraq become a prosperous country.

A very fine and honorable sentiment.

However, sentimentality takes second place to the wishes of the Iraqi people. I quoted several polls in another thread that indicate the Iraqis want America out, that they are OK with the attacks on the Americans, that they think the American presence causes more problems than it solves - and most of all, that they believe that without America they would have the kind of government they want.

If you were dealing with helpless children, I'd agree with you, America should fix what it broke. But when you're dealing with thoughtful adults who are making choices about their own country, I say it is more important to listen to what the people in Iraq want - as opposed to listening to what admittedly honorable Americans would like to do to 'make things right.'

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
Not only no, but hell no.

Of course they wouldn't spend so much money on America, but it isn't so much because they are greedy, it is also because they are very aware of the stupidity in trying to buy themselves the kind of government they'd like to see in a foreign nation.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
With the amount of money spent in Iraq every US citizen could have free health coverage, and a college education. I am not one that thinks throwing money at a problem with solve everything.

Money doesn't solve everything, but as it turns out, in America, many of the problems could be addressed simply by giving more money to programs that are already working on a smaller scale. US colleges are great - now what if we bumped it up a notch and gave EVERYONE a free college education? Local cities and counties do well with what they get, why not give them more?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
What bothers me the most about the expenditure in Iraq is that the government has not cut spending anywhere else for the war effort and have managed to cut taxes to boot.

Budget deficits and increasing the national debt is one way of transferring US wealth to the wealthy class or to overseas governments. The government is borrowing money from people who have it, and then we all get to pay back the money and interest for years to come.

I was a Republican until George Bush did two things: 1. re-defined irresponsibile government spending to a new level, and 2. used 9/11 and the spectre of terror to advance his own political position and policies, like Iraq.

A two person thread is kind of interesting, btw.

Cairo


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2934 times:

You forgot one, Bushpilot:

If war is going to be used, did you use overwhelming force to achieve the goal?

Uh, no. Again, in simply throwing Iraqi forces out of Kuwiat in '91, we had almost triple the amount of forces in theater than we did in '03 to first invade, and then occupy the nation of Iraq.

THAT, to me, was the biggest mistake of not following the "Powell Doctrine" in fighting this war. We did not put enough assets in theater. It was a foregone conclusion that we would run roughshod over what was left of the Iraqi military, but we certainly didn't bring enough force to bear to occupy the nation, and bring security to the major population centers.

Now, we're paying the piper for that arrogant error.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

Ho humm...another bash the President thread. And you are all senior policy advisors to whom?  sarcastic  Same group, different day, same  hissyfit .

User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 7):
Ho humm...another bash the President thread.

And every point legit, my friend.

When you're the president, you have to be able to take the heat. Thank God his hangers' on are here to stick up for him.  Smile


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2915 times:

Interesting thread Bushpilot, can I make it a foursome?

Quoting Cairo (Reply 3):
I think the only ones arguing it is not a civil war are the diehards who have problems admitting mistakes, and who also take a personal blow by admitting the US can make a mistake.

The whole argument is strange, I am not sure why it would be better having 200 killed by insurgents than having the same 200 killed in a civil war. Do the civil war deniers spend their spare time counting angels on the heads of pins - probably not but only because it is a myth that anyone ever did that!

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
We owe it to the Iraqi's and the American soldiers and their families to see Iraq become a prosperous country.

That is one set of patching up to be done and much the most difficult. The other two are:

1. Patching up relations with allies that were broken by for example the notorious Rumsfeld Old Europe jibes and the still vicious sets of comments made about some countries especially France. It might be noted that this US Administration is not all popular with some of the allies it has not insulted - you look and I will point!!

2. And more difficult, patch up relationships in the rest of the ME. However simple the rights and wrongs of the various problems may seem, there are more shades to the issues than are commonly admitted in US policies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/07/31/AR2006073100923.html


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2901 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
And every point legit, my friend

I guess that's true if you are looking for a reason to be a loser. BTW just how long does it take for something to spiral out of control? You've been saying that for quite a while now and yet the people in Iraq continue to go about their lives. Even 200 people killed in a single day out of a population around 30 million is a pretty small percentage. How many people are killed each day in this country by driving accidents? By murder?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
When you're the president, you have to be able to take the heat.

And when hasn't he? He's admitted that things could have gone better, that he alone is responsible for ordering the operation, and has answered reporters questions, even the most stupid ones, on the matter ad nausea.

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?


Well at least in light of the fact that all the documents necessary to build an atomic bomb were found in Saddam possession you've found the subject "debatable". We didn't need to fear Saddam military, we needed to fear Saddam selling that kind of technology to terrorists that then could use it against us. I fail to see how you can't understand that yet your kind always go back to how Saddams army was broken down. Of course it was but that was not the threat. I don't think anybody realistically fears Iran's army will invade the United States, or North Korea's. The fear is what their governments will do in collusion with the terrorists. And there, given what the leaders of those countries have had to say about us and what their vision of the world is, our national security is completely at risk.

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Yes, the removal of Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq, mission accomplished. He awaits his day with the executioner after a completely fair and legitimate trial before the worlds eyes, something he never gave his victims. As for what has come after, nobody predicted all the law enforcement walking off the job. Nobody predicted terrorists from outside the country coming in and setting up shop. Had the neighboring countries helped instead of proving just how dangerous they are, this would be over by now. I'll remind you, the insurgency was made up of Saddam, his sons, former henchmen of Saddam, and foreign terrorists in the beginning. Only in that past few months has it gone largely sectarian, and that with help from desperate foreign terrorists killing Iraqi's in mass numbers.

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

If you can do this then you will be the first monarch, politician, diplomat, or military officer in the history of the world to do so.

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

So 12 years is not long enough in your esteemed opinion? If President Clinton had launched an invasion 5 years earlier under basically the same pretext as President Bush did would you have said the same thing? Doubtful. You can argue if you wish but if so then please explain Bosnia and Kosovo.

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

See number 3.

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Did FDR and Churchill anticipate the iron curtain and 50 years of cold war at the start of WW2? That they would end up supporting a dictator responsible for more deaths than Hitler?

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
7. Is the action supported by the American people?

It was until the news media began to broadcast nothing but one bad news story after another, completely ignoring any good that has come of Iraq's liberation. They totally ignore soldiers stories of the good things that are happening in Iraq. They even portrayed Saddam as being a victim!

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

You left out quite a few countries, Spain and Italy for starters but then when you are just bashing, who cares about the facts.

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
How can the Bush administration completely ignore the doctrine set forth by a man who fought in an insurgency based war in Vietnam that is in many ways similar the situation in Iraq, and had actually commanded troops there a short time before. What must have happened to make the one guy who really knew what he was doing be marginalized.
Also for the record, I find it interesting to note that according to the Powell Doctrine, our actions in Afghanistan are largely justified.

Vietnam was a true civil war, Iraq is not. Vietnam had been partitioned by the UN, yet another fine example of their diplomacy, guess the Korean peninsula wasn't enough of a lesson, and then left to it's own devices as if no one could see what Ho Chi Min wanted. And just where was the vaunted UN during the whole Vietnam conflict? What pivotal role did they play? You find the Powell's rules of engagement are largely what in Afghanistan? Please explain how 3 4 5 and 6 are met since we are still on the ground there, a year and 2 months longer than being in Iraq, we're still spending money, and what other means were available when the Taliban said "no", and just what is our exit strategy there? You fight the war until you win. Stating before hand how you will fight the war and that you will quit when you have achieved anything less than victory is just handing victory to your opponent. Anything less is defeat, which seems to be what you and Falcon want in the worst way.


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
The fear is what their governments will do in collusion with the terrorists.

What they WILL do? In the FUTURE? Wake up. Pakistan, a Muslim nation, has a nuclear stockpile, Iran has the know how and ability, North Korea has at least a few nuclear weeapons...the genie is already out of the bottle.

Saddam's Iraq was nothing compared to the WMD capability of the above.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
Had the neighboring countries helped instead of proving just how dangerous they are,

Hahahahaha. Help the US which kills Muslims by the the thousands every year through its client state Israel?

Help the US which is responsibile for murderous regimes in Iraq (Saddam), Iran (the Shah) and continues to support repressive regimes in Egypt, KSA, and eslewhere?

No one in the ME wants America in the ME because America has had a large hand in creating the major problems in the ME, with Iraq as only the latest example.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
Did FDR and Churchill anticipate the iron curtain and 50 years of cold war at the start of WW2? That they would end up supporting a dictator responsible for more deaths than Hitler?

Yes, actually, Churchill says in his memoirs he knew from Day 1 that Stalin would never give back any land the Russian armies passed through on their way to Germany and that Stalin was a horrible murderer.

Churchill said words to the effect of, "If Satan himself declared war on Germany, I would at least say a few kind words about Hell in the House of Commons."

RJ, you obviously will defend Bush regardless of what he does, and I imagine in your own life you have difficulty admitting mistakes. Thanks for your input.

Cairo


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2883 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
The whole argument is strange, I am not sure why it would be better having 200 killed by insurgents than having the same 200 killed in a civil war.

It is another example of the word game. Not having a genocide in Darfur, no civil war in Iraq, by saying it has turned into civil war means further mistakes by the Bush administration. This isnt only a Bush thing, it is politics in general.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
That is one set of patching up to be done and much the most difficult. The other two are:

I would agree, what hurt us most is the loss of credibility in the international arena.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
And when hasn't he? He's admitted that things could have gone better, that he alone is responsible for ordering the operation, and has answered reporters questions, even the most stupid ones, on the matter ad nausea.

I still havent heard an answer on where the WMDs are. I heard Rummy say they were in the Tikrit area, but nothing much else since. Among many other answers he has yet to provide. But that is one main reason the GOP lost the last election.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
Had the neighboring countries helped instead of proving just how dangerous they are, this would be over by now.

Yeah had we taken the advice of the Saudi's, gotten buy in from the Turks, secured help from the other regional allies before we attempted this shot at democracy we wouldnt be in this situation.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
You left out quite a few countries, Spain and Italy for starters but then when you are just bashing, who cares about the facts.

Oh Give me a break! The only country left on the ground with more troops than the US has DEAD is the UK.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
Well at least in light of the fact that all the documents necessary to build an atomic bomb were found in Saddam possession you've found the subject "debatable".

The documents to build a nuclear bomb from what I understand are available online. I havent looked, mostly because I dont want my work computer flagged for that sort of search. But give me a break. What about the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
Yes, the removal of Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq, mission accomplished.

So now it is justifiable for the US to invade and topple governments who have never attacked us? never declared war on us? This to me as an American, embarrassing. We dont let other countries do that. We may be the only super power remaining. But we are not the world's policeman nor bully.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
So 12 years is not long enough in your esteemed opinion? If President Clinton had launched an invasion 5 years earlier under basically the same pretext as President Bush did would you have said the same thing? Doubtful.

Firstly, I am not in any way, shape or form, a Clinton apologist. I call politicians as I see them. He was not a great President IMHO. But this bullshit about blaming Clinton for not dealing with Iraq is laughable. Firstly it was Bush41 who didnt topple him, when we actually went through the trouble of having a solid war plan and a coalition. Bush41 takes some criticism from both inside and outside of his party for "not finishing the job" and Saddam takes up a plot to assassinate Bush 41. THAT is why we are in Iraq. To finish Daddy's incomplete job, give a little Texas Justice, and in the meantime collect a little Texas tea.
Then when Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors back in 98, what happened? Did you forget about Operation Desert Fox. Which came under wide criticism from the right as being a simple diversion from the impeachment stuff.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
You can argue if you wish but if so then please explain Bosnia and Kosovo.

Firstly, no ground troops, or very few in special operations roles.
THAT WAS NATO!

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
It was until the news media began to broadcast nothing but one bad news story after another, completely ignoring any good that has come of Iraq's liberation.

Again blame the media, heard it already. Imagine the media reporting bad news when bad news happens. Or good news when it does. Did they not report the death of the Hussien boys? Did they not report the capture of Saddam? Did they not report the death of Al-Zarkawi? Did they not report elections? Did they not report the capture of Ossama Bin Laden? Oh wait, he is still out there.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
They totally ignore soldiers stories of the good things that are happening in Iraq.

I know there are good things happening. We can build schools and hand out bibles all day long. We can provide clean water, and electricty 24/7 and that is great. But they dont mean shit when you are reduced to hamburger on the sidewalk trying to get to work or school.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
Vietnam was a true civil war, Iraq is not.

I would agree to a point, but I think of Vietnam as being not so much a civil war as an extension of the cold war, the same as Afghanistan was in 79. It is two super powers fighting through thier client states. Iraq is the result of yet another western creation after WWI where three different major groups who historically didnt get along into one place.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
Anything less is defeat, which seems to be what you and Falcon want in the worst way.

See this is where you are completely, %100, undeniably, wearing the blinders, INCORRECT. I want victory, in a very bad way. I love this argument that comes from the right that says if you question us your not a good American. If you question the reasons for this war, and its progress you want to lose. Bullshit! I want to see us using means to win this war. That is why I question it. This whole thread is about how we would have either not went to war, or would have done it entirely different and that would have put us into a much better situation than we find ourselves right now.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2872 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 11):
and I imagine in your own life you have difficulty admitting mistakes.

I admit my mistakes, what I don't do is make up fairy tales like you have been want to do on these boards more than once such as now.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
What about the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons?

I said long ago that the intelligence provided was faulty and some one in the intelligence community should have had to answer for that. But how many people can even the most well placed chemical weapon kill in the blink of an eye as opposed to a nuclear weapon? Even lasting chemical agents are gone in a month or two, a place subjected to a dirty nuclear bomb is uninhabitable for centuries.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
So now it is justifiable for the US to invade and topple governments who have never attacked us?

Saddam Hussein was not a government, he was a brutal dictator.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
But we are not the world's policeman nor bully.

If we don't do it who will? The UN, hold your breath for that to happen. Don't worry you'll wake up after passing out.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
I call politicians as I see them

Sure you do.  rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
But this bullshit about blaming Clinton for not dealing with Iraq is laughable

If you read the post correctly I did not blame Clinton for not dealing with Hussein. I asked if he had gone ahead with his invasion plans, based on basically the same intel as President Bush had at his disposal, and for which Clinton thought he was right to do so in 2002, what would your opinion have been. I think you would have defended him no matter what the outcome.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
Did you forget about Operation Desert Fox. Which came under wide criticism from the right as being a simple diversion from the impeachment stuff.

Nope, I didn't forget about how he wimped out and once again let himself govern by the polls instead of by principle. The only time Clinton has any principle is when he decides to lash out at some reporter who has the gall to ask him a tough question.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
Firstly, no ground troops, or very few in special operations roles.

Better go look again. BTW according to the plan, they were only supposed to be there a year. It reads like a bible story...UNPROFOR begat IFOR which begat SEFOR, which begat EUFOR. U.S. troops are still on the ground in the region.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
THAT WAS NATO!

That was the UN originally and they proved their worth at Srebrenica. The agreement was U.S. brokered and wouldn't have happened if U.S. troops weren't involved.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
Again blame the media, heard it already.

I blame the media when it does not present both sides of the story in any case. Take a look at some of my recent posts in other threads. I can back my claim up, can you?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
I know there are good things happening.

You wouldn't by the media coverage in this country and it's one of the main reasons support for the war is so low. If all the press had done during WW2 is report every single U.S. casualty and not announced the victories achieved by those sacrifices then Europe would still be in German hands and the Japanese would own the Pacific rim.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
We can build schools and hand out bibles all day long. We can provide clean water, and electricty 24/7 and that is great.

Once again, you don't hear about that, what you hear about is one car bomb going off in a city the size of Houston and yet somehow it the whole country was affected by it.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
I would agree to a point, but I think of Vietnam as being not so much a civil war as an extension of the cold war, the same as Afghanistan was in 79.

You need to go back and re-read your history book. Vietnam was partitioned by the UN when Ho Chi Min refused to allow free and fair elections to take place. He then proceeded on 25 year venture that ultimately outlasted him to take back what he perceived had been taken from him, South Vietnam. Afghanistan in 1979 was an out and out land grab by the Soviets. There was no partition or civil war going on there before they arrived.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
Iraq is the result of yet another western creation after WWI where three different major groups who historically didn't get along into one place.

Then let the Iraqis decide that, without terrorists and neighboring countries coercing their vote.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
I love this argument that comes from the right that says if you question us your not a good American.

I have not questioned your patriotism, I have just pointed out how your synopsis of the situation just absolutely SUCKS. It's full of holes and depends largely on clairvoyance in 4 of its 8 points.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
This whole thread is about how we would have either not went to war, or would have done it entirely different and that would have put us into a much better situation than we find ourselves right now.

No battle plan survives that first shot, that is an absolute truism. We needed to do away with Saddam, it was another front on the war on terror just like we need to start taking a hard look at Iran and North Korea and start making plain talk about their options. But to you and Falcon the only place to fight the war on terror was in Afghanistan, as if terror and terrorists can only happen there. The UN is not a solution to anything since the UN can't lose people or territory. It has no borders. You cannot fully analyze risk and cost of any war since there is no way to see the future. The same is true for attaining an exit strategy before the battle is even fought, or can you fully consider all the consequences since it is impossible to know them. Suppose Saddam had tons of chemical munitions and in his final desperate throws to try and save his position while we were invading used agents to set off bombs full of them in Israel, London, and Washington? Would going to war with him have been justified then? Who knows, no one ever will. We didn't know that Germany wasn't even close to building a nuclear bomb but we thought they might be so we went and built not one but three. Where would we have been if we had thought atomic weapons too far fetched and then here comes an A2 with a nuclear warhead across the ocean. Who would have been the foolish ones then? Your points put this country at risk which leads to number 8. I don't give a flip if the international community likes what we do to protect ourselves or not. We are responsible for our defense, not them.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
You fight the war until you win. Stating before hand how you will fight the war and that you will quit when you have achieved anything less than victory is just handing victory to your opponent. Anything less is defeat, which seems to be what you and Falcon want in the worst way.

I don't think the others do wish defeat but rather despair at the efforts to ensure it. You are right to identify stating aims in advance is dangerous. After the Casablanca meetings in WWII, FDR stunned Churchill by announcing the policy of unconditional surrender. Not that Churchill was not intent on defeating Germany and Japan, he just did not believe it was sensible to signal intentions in that way. Some estimates suggest that the two parts of the war were each extended by at least 6 months by announcing that policy. Especially, it gave the Germans opposed to Hitler no wiggle room.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 11):
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 10):
Did FDR and Churchill anticipate the iron curtain and 50 years of cold war at the start of WW2? That they would end up supporting a dictator responsible for more deaths than Hitler?

Yes, actually, Churchill says in his memoirs he knew from Day 1 that Stalin would never give back any land the Russian armies passed through on their way to Germany and that Stalin was a horrible murderer.

You are correct Cairo, and Churchill did indicate he would have favourable things to say about Hell if Satan would declare war. The last two years of WWII contained many episodes of FDR putting down Churchill due to Britain having an Empire and FDR being unwilling to entertain the possibility that Uncle Joe might have Imperial aims in Eastern Europe.

However, none of this really undermines the veracity of most of the propositions made in the thread starter.

If, however, the Powell doctrine can be used to justify the Afghan campaign to date, perhaps it needs a bit of revision because Afghanistan is NOT going well, not at all. Well not unless its aims were to strengthen the Taliban, increase world heroin production and allow the ISI to remain all powerful in that part of the world.

It was always dangerous to use the warlords, and then to follow that up by failing to ensure reconstruction was madness.


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
Then let the Iraqis decide that, without terrorists and neighboring countries coercing their vote.

What? You want the Iraqis to decide their own future? You don't want to decide it for them?

Two-thirds in Baghdad want the Americans out immediately.

Four-fifths say they have no confidence in coalition forces.

61-65% approve of the attacks on Coalition forces.

71% want US forces gone within a year.

..and most telling of all:
Most Iraqis believe that America leaving will strengthen the Iraqi government.

Since you don't want foreigners interfering in Iraq and want them to decide their future without coercion, you want America out, right? I can't wait to hear why the Iraqi's wish to have America out means nothing and that you know better what is best for Iraq.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
Your points put this country at risk which leads to number 8

As an individual is repsonsible for creating 99% of their own problems, the problems America faces in the ME and with terror were largely created by America.

The terrorism risk to America is caused by one thing: years of a US foreign policy in the Middle East that kills Muslims everyday. Want to end the terror threat to America? Get out of the Middle East, America is not wanted. Garrison Israel if you must, but the only reason America is a terror target is because of its Middle East foreign policy that KILLS more civilians than the combined total of all Islamic terrorism ever.

Cairo


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
I said long ago that the intelligence provided was faulty and some one in the intelligence community should have had to answer for that.

OK so who? Who falls on the sword for this? Nothing has happened that I know of.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
But how many people can even the most well placed chemical weapon kill in the blink of an eye as opposed to a nuclear weapon? Even lasting chemical agents are gone in a month or two, a place subjected to a dirty nuclear bomb is uninhabitable for centuries.

Good point, nukes kill obviously exponentially more people. So what are we doing militarily about NK, Iran, Pakistan?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
Saddam Hussein was not a government, he was a brutal dictator.

Yes he was a brutal dictator. He was head of thier government. You know what I meant. It is not the job of the US government to use our military to topple foreign governments who have not attacked us. We have never done that historically, and I dont like the idea of it being justifiable now.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12):
But we are not the world's policeman nor bully.

If we don't do it who will? The UN, hold your breath for that to happen.

OK, by this I am reading it to mean that we need to be the worlds policeman. Id love to hear how you plan to pay for this especially with our tax cuts.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
Sure you do.

This was in reference to me calling politicians as I see them. I will stand by this. I am a firm independant in my political views. I voted for Bush in 2000. Kerry in 2004. I vote for the person running for office not thier political party. I punch the GOP ticket for US senator from AK. I may lean left in my political views, but it doesnt mean I am a democrat or republican. I think both parties are full of crooks who do nothing but serve the special interest groups that give them capaign money.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
If you read the post correctly I did not blame Clinton for not dealing with Hussein. I asked if he had gone ahead with his invasion plans, based on basically the same intel as President Bush had at his disposal, and for which Clinton thought he was right to do so in 2002, what would your opinion have been. I think you would have defended him no matter what the outcome.

I would not have defended Clinton. I dont care for the guy or his wife. What I am pointing out is that Clinton has been unfairly criticized about this. Bush 41 didnt drive on Baghdad in 91, I dont know if that was right or wrong. But he also encouraged the Iraqis to have an uprising against Saddam, when we still had military forces in Iraq. We didnt help them then, and thousands of Iraqis were killed. Clinton passed the Iraqi regime change bill, where it made money available to Iraqi resistance groups. Neither side was right, but the way were are going about this now is definatly wrong.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
Nope, I didn't forget about how he wimped out and once again let himself govern by the polls instead of by principle.

Imagine that, a President who bends to the will of the people. Who pay his wages, who elect him, who are his boss. Imagine that. Imagine the views and opinions of the American people dictating policy....By the people, Of the people, For the people.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
You wouldn't by the media coverage in this country and it's one of the main reasons support for the war is so low. If all the press had done during WW2 is report every single U.S. casualty and not announced the victories achieved by those sacrifices then Europe would still be in German hands and the Japanese would own the Pacific rim.

You cant compare fairly those times to now. We have hyper media availability, and a more openess and less censorship from the media. So if youd like to lessen the freedom of the press, and only get the sugar coated stuff the government wants you to hear...well thats your opinion.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
Once again, you don't hear about that,

See I do hear about the good things. I read extensively about the 172nd Stryker Brigade based in AK, who did great work for 12 months in Mosul, and handed over security to Iraqis, and then were extended for 4 additional months in Baghdad to help with the security situation there. They finally got home last week. I have a very good friend of mine who is a national guardsman, deployed on the outskirts of Baghdad pulling checkpoint duty, and he said the violence among Iraqis is unthinkable. The situation in Baghdad has deteriorated terribly in the last year. I have never questioned the bravery, dedication or valor of any of the troops. They are being failed by command. Who is being failed by thier civilian leadership.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
No battle plan survives that first shot, that is an absolute truism. We needed to do away with Saddam, it was another front on the war on terror just like we need to start taking a hard look at Iran and North Korea and start making plain talk about their options.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
Suppose Saddam had tons of chemical munitions and in his final desperate throws to try and save his position while we were invading used agents to set off bombs full of them in Israel, London, and Washington? Would going to war with him have been justified then?

Absolutely, it would be completely and utterly justified.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
I don't give a flip if the international community likes what we do to protect ourselves or not. We are responsible for our defense, not them.

It is that kind of mentality that causes terrorism. They dont hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because of our foreign policy. I wish more Americans would have a little bit of empathy towards non-American humans of the world.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 14):
If, however, the Powell doctrine can be used to justify the Afghan campaign to date, perhaps it needs a bit of revision because Afghanistan is NOT going well, not at all.

True, Afghanistan has seen better days under our occupation. This is because they are tired of being occupied. I would hate to see how Americans would react if anyother country occupied us. I will say that the Afghanistan invasion was totally justified in my eyes. A group based in that country attacked the US. Killing thousands of people. They refused to hand them over for the proper criminal proceedings. Then we can go in and get them ourselves. Unfortunatly we have not caught the man guy. Osama Bin Laden. Reported in Pakistan last. Who is another state sponsor of terror, and is a bonafied developer of WMDs, and the most likely culprit in assisting the Iranians develop Nukes, the rumors are also that they assisted the NKoreans. But yet they are our vital ally in the war on terror. The whole Bush foreign policy is messed up.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2813 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 15):
You want the Iraqis to decide their own future?

That is just an idiotic statement given that the Iraqis have held two free and fair elections already. What you have done just goes to show what happens when you try to take a headline and use it as proof for your argument. A little deeper read of the polls would tell you......

The State Department, meanwhile, has conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's poll.

"What I hear from government representatives and other anecdotal evidence that you hear from Iraqis that is collected by embassy personnel and military personnel is that Iraqis do appreciate our presence there," he said. "They do understand the reasons for it, they do understand that we don't want to or we don't intend to be there indefinitely."


Which has been the U.S. position since before the invasion.

June 15 - The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have "no confidence" in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.

and that was June 15th, 2004 btw which would be expected after a story like that came out. BTW, most Iraqis were wrong on this respect....

and 61 percent said they believed no one would be punished for the abuses.

Those most directly involved with the abuses have been punished.

A new opinion poll shows that most Iraqis want American troops to withdraw from the country within a year. It shows growing confidence in Iraq 's own security forces, as well as broad support for a strong central government, despite the push by Shiite and Kurdish political leaders for greater regional autonomy.

Which dovetails with Administration policy with the only real difference being that the Adminstration has correctly not set a timeline for withdrawl instead awaiting Iraqi security forces to become strong enough to fend for themselves before beginning to pull out.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 15):
Since you don't want foreigners interfering in Iraq and want them to decide their future without coercion, you want America out, right?

Not what I said. What I said was that neighboring countries should help instead of harming. By allowing foreign terrorist insurgents to freely cross their borders they do not help the situation internally in Iraq . By providing arms and training to insurgents they do not help.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 15):
I can't wait to hear why the Iraqi's wish to have America out means nothing and that you know better what is best for Iraq .


That they want us out is nothing new. Your fairy tale involves pulling out now which almost everyone, except the insurgents, know would be a terrible thing to do. It would leave a huge power vacum and instead of "descending into civil war" the country would collapse into it. At this point there is a legitimately elected government, in your scenario it would revert back to who has the strongest arsenal and is the most brutal of them all.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 15):
As an individual is responsible for creating 99% of their own problems, the problems America faces in the ME and with terror were largely created by America .

Keep telling yourself that fairy tale. Why blame yourself when you can blame someone else for your plight. If muslims who believe in peace and justice would speak up when they see outlaws preparing to harm others for their own political or personal gain perhaps less muslims would end up dying and I will remind you that most Iraqis dying today are doing so at the hands of their brother muslims, not coalition forces.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 15):
The terrorism risk to America is caused by one thing:

The unquenchable thirst for power by the likes of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Rather than winning at the ballot box they have decided to take power by using force of arms.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 15):
Want to end the terror threat to America ?

Then we kill terrorists wherever and whenever we find them.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 15):
America is a terror target is because of its Middle East foreign policy that KILLS more civilians than the combined total of all Islamic terrorism ever.

Keep telling yourself that fairy tale. Muslims are killing more muslims in Iraq and those that have been killed in Lebanon have their terrorist leaders to thank for their trouble. Hezbollah started that fight.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
OK so who? Who falls on the sword for this? Nothing has happened that I know of.

George Tenet resigned and that's probably the best it will get. Trying to put blame on an individual in a bureaucracy is the next best thing to chasing a ghost.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
So what are we doing militarily about NK, Iran, Pakistan?

Pakistan is an ally...we are still in negotiation with NK and Iran which is as it should be unless NK demonstrates the capability to actually link a nuke warhead with an icbm then the situation changes drastically. In Iran they have yet to demonstrate that they can build a nuke but if they do and test it, that changes that situation there drastically as well. For now military action is not needed. Hussein had proven he would actually use wmd's if given the option so his removal became a necessity given the advancement of terrorism in the world.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
We have never done that historically, and I dont like the idea of it being justifiable now.

Panama, Greneda, South Vietnam..........history is replete with the U.S. government doing just that. As to Hussein, he was the government. No one else made any kind of policy decision save him.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
Id love to hear how you plan to pay for this especially with our tax cuts.

I'd be more interested in hearing you explain how many tax hikes we will have to have to sustain the current crop of entitlement spending which is far higher than DOD expenditures even now. But there is no ignoring that tax receipts are higher now than they were before the tax cuts so that in itself is your answer.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
I will stand by this

As will I.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
What I am pointing out is that Clinton has been unfairly criticized

And I won't defend anyone elses criticism. I simply asked what you would have said if he had, given that his intel was the same as what President Bush had.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
Imagine the views and opinions of the American people dictating policy....

That is an impossibility unless you plan to hold an election everyday. You cannot lead by the polls since the polls can be manipulated in every way shape and form. We elect the President to be a leader, not a poll watcher. How can you trust some one who's beliefs change with each new poll? Why would you want to since at that point the President isn't leading the country, the media is.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
So if you'd like to lessen the freedom of the press, and only get the sugar coated stuff the government wants you to hear...well thats your opinion.


I already get media censorship via the media itself. My observation about how we get the full details of every car and suicide bomber but very few stories of things that are going right proves my point. Just look at how angry they get whenever a President goes on the air from the oval office to speak directly to the people. It just angers them that they cannot control the message at that point.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
They are being failed by command. Who is being failed by thier civilian leadership.

I disagree, the Iraqi people are letting thugs and tyrants rule the situation on the ground instead of the legitimate government. We are approaching the time when they will have to decide what kind of country they want to live in and at that point, it will be time for us to leave.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
Absolutely, it would be completely and utterly justified.

Then why was it not justified as it was? Because he didn't use wmd's on our troop or on U.S. soil? The reason and the intelligence used would have been the same. What you are saying is just because the intelligence turned out to be wrong the war was not justified. How were we to know that in advance? 12 years of inspections and still the inspectors were unsure of what was really there. It flies in the face of points 3 and 7.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
They dont hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because of our foreign policy.


That sounds more like Cario's fairy tale. OBL long ago declared war on the United States not because he doesn't like our policies but because, ostensibly, because of the way we live and how it flies in the face of radical islam which is defined by the Taliban. If it was just our policies that they didn't like then why not target all 4 planes on Washington?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
Who is another state sponsor of terror

According to whom? The State Department website does not list them as sponsors.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
and is a bonafide developer of WMDs, and the most likely culprit in assisting the Iranians develop Nukes, the rumors are also that they assisted the NKoreans.

Negative. One traitor, Dr Abdul Quadeer Kahn, helped the North Koreans and the Iranians. While suspicion still rests that Kahn had help or was allowed to do what he did with the tacit approval of some in the Pakistani government, that charge has yet to be proven.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):
The whole Bush foreign policy is messed up.

Opinion. The fact remains that outside of the combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, no U.S. interest has been attacked by terrorists since 9/11. To me that says that the foreign policy plan as far as dealing with terrorism is concerned is working very well.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Why blame yourself when you can blame someone else for your plight.

Yes, but don't forget that, as the man said giving his son a two edged sword, that argument cuts both ways! Have we seen an examination in possible US factors in the development of OBLs movement? Not pubic ones as far as I know.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Negative. One traitor, Dr Abdul Quadeer Kahn, helped the North Koreans and the Iranians. While suspicion still rests that Kahn had help or was allowed to do what he did with the tacit approval of some in the Pakistani government, that charge has yet to be proven.

Interesting that you can have reservations about that when presumably you were all gung ho about Saddams WMDs. How do you explain that Pakistan will not allow AQK to be interviewed? Travelling to countries such as NK and Libya on Pak government planes, not suspicious - no I thought not.

Just generally, why such a fuss if NK or Iran does get a couple of nukes. The nuclear non-proliferation controls have been well and truly allowed to decay. For decades we sat there fat dumb and happy protected by the MAD doctrine. Why if MAD kept us safe from some thousands of Russian nukes (and we know the Russians were really really bad), can MAD not keep us safe from about 5 NK or Iranian nukes. Perhaps they are mad as well as bad. But then, King George was mad too.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2807 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Have we seen an examination in possible US factors in the development of OBLs movement?

I understand and even agree with OBL in regards to U.S. troops on Saudi soil but I do no agree on his methods of dealing with the problem. As to his embrace of radical Islam, the problems that rise between those that follow that form of Islam and those that enjoy western civilization go back farther in time than the United States has been around.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Interesting that you can have reservations about that when presumably you were all gung ho about Saddams WMDs.

Dr. Kahn was never the leader of his country and as such never had strategic or tactical control of those types of weapons.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Travelling to countries such as NK and Libya on Pak government planes, not suspicious - no I thought not.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
While suspicion still rests that Kahn had help or was allowed to do what he did with the tacit approval of some in the Pakistani government, that charge has yet to be proven.

I didn't say there weren't suspicions, just that they have yet to prove that Musharraf knew what was going on. We have seen here in the United States that lesser government officials can do all sorts of stupid things without the knowledge or approval of the President or even his cabinet.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Just generally, why such a fuss if NK or Iran does get a couple of nukes.

Because religious fervor is quite different than political fervor. In the case of NK it is more of a case of paranoia and when will that overcome their sense of security.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
and we know the Russians were really really bad

Yes but they were willing to bide their time in the belief that sooner or later all mankind would see the benefits of their type of political system. Not so with radical Islam as we have seen.

The Powell score for going to war just has way to high a bar in that it calls for assumptions that know one can ever really know. It'd be nice to know that all those bases are covered but since several of the points are based on clairvoyance, it really serves to undermine our security.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2802 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
I understand and even agree with OBL in regards to U.S. troops on Saudi soil but I do no agree on his methods of dealing with the problem. As to his embrace of radical Islam, the problems that rise between those that follow that form of Islam and those that enjoy western civilization go back farther in time than the United States has been around.

We are half way there! It is true that there has been conflict and Islam and western civilization for a while, but some of it was started by the west, and it was not really as big a deal as some of the quarrels within "the west". Apart from things like the 30 year war, the two WWs were quite a big deal.

The west should not have been so accommodating of the Saudis faustian bargain with the Wahabis, especially in the knowledge of the Salafi split. Even allowing for how nutty the Salafi concepts are, it would still be worth talking to OBL. Eventually, we WILL have to talk to someone, and OBL might be better than some who will follow him if he ever does pass over to the afterlife.

Just at present, the GWOT is recruiting more to "the cause" than it is deterring from "the cause".

As to western leaders not knowing of the infractions of their underlings, you are welcome to that impression, but if they do not, it is usually because they have told intermediate underlings that they do not wish to know. (By the way, I have a really really nice bridge for sale!)

Musharraf might be a different case, although he was so high up in the army before taking over that he probably knew from that position. More doubt on that, than on, for example, our Mr Howard knowing that our wheat board was doing strange deals with Saddam.

You might be correct about religious fervour, but most of the guys with the power are much more into power than being into personal martyrdom. The religious nuts to worry about are the independents, anyone running a country, even a Kim, is not going to risk getting a return nuclear strike. Only those who don't have anything to preserve would do that. Which is why instead of hunting OBL, we should build him a nice new town where he can "hide". Once he has something to lose, he would change his mind really quickly.


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2780 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Pakistan is an ally...

Yeah, since we said if you dont let us fly over your country on 9-12 we will bomb you also. But hey it worked. Now if we could only get them to either catch OBL or let us in to do it. They recognized the Taliban, and were allied with them. I would certainly not call Pakistan our ally, they are a country we needed to fly over to attack Afghanistan.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
unless NK demonstrates the capability to actually link a nuke warhead with an icbm then the situation changes drastically.

Well lets look at the three main reasons according to the Bush administration we went to war with Iraq. Saddam was a bad dude to his people. Saddam was not democratically elected. Saddam possesed WMDs. Some will say, while I tend to disagree under these circumstances that 2 out of 3 aint bad. But funny because...Kim, is starving his country. Ill talk a bullet any day over starvation...but maybe thats just me. He was not democratically elected, and he DOES have WMDs. And not just some chemical weapons, but NUKES! Why arent we invading NK?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Panama

Going after one man, not trying to occupy that country. Different deal.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Greneda

Supporting an ally of our country against a communist group, and we had US citizens in question.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
South Vietnam..........

Yeah, that turned out well. Go to DC and take the 100 yard walk and check out the 50,000 names on the black wall. But also a different scenario because we were assisting a friend who was being attacked by another country. I have always justified that action. Our actions in Iraq have never been done in our countries history.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
I'd be more interested in hearing you explain how many tax hikes we will have to have to sustain the current crop of entitlement spending which is far higher than DOD expenditures even now.

OK, well think about this the President, has the right to veto any bill that comes across his desk. He is the leader of his party who at the time was the majority in congress. He sends a clear message that we really do need to trim that fat, or I will veto bills. Didnt happen, that falls on the Presidents shoulders. You cant have your cake and eat it to.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
I simply asked what you would have said if he had, given that his intel was the same as what President Bush had.

If Clinton invaded Iraq, it proved that there was no exsistance of WMDs, and did it without the support of the international community and the burden of nation building fell on our shoulders alone as it has done, then yes I would criticize him as well.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
What I said was that neighboring countries should help instead of harming.

Well maybe we should have gotten the support from our good buddies the Saudis. I mean 15 of thier citizens did crash airplanes into buildings one Tuesday morning, we did prevent thier kingdom being overrun by Saddam, we have looked past thier obhorent human rights abuses, we have supported a non-democratically elected government, and we have made them filthy rich. It is possible, they owed us one? Yeah, and should we have taken thier advice and everyone else in the regions?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Just look at how angry they get whenever a President goes on the air from the oval office to speak directly to the people. It just angers them that they cannot control the message at that point.

Doesnt bother me a bit, I want to hear it from his mouth. If I was President, you would see me on TV addressing the American people at halftime every Monday night.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Then why was it not justified as it was? Because he didn't use wmd's on our troop or on U.S. soil?

Not only didnt he use them, he didnt have them! War in my opinion should be the last resort in foreign policy. That isnt the case here, we had weapons inspectors who were pulled out days before we invaded.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
OBL long ago declared war on the United States not because he doesn't like our policies but because, ostensibly, because of the way we live and how it flies in the face of radical islam which is defined by the Taliban.

No it was because American forces were on Saudi soil, our blind support of Israel, among others, but the point is that and I think you will agree with me here, you cant rationalize with a guy like that. We should be devoting every available asset to removing him from the face of the earth and we are far from doing that.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
According to whom? The State Department website does not list them as sponsors.

Kashmir ring a bell? I also already spoke about thier development of WMDs and the knowledge shared by him. It may be an individual, but he is a Pakistani.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
The fact remains that outside of the combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, no U.S. interest has been attacked by terrorists since 9/11. To me that says that the foreign policy plan as far as dealing with terrorism is concerned is working very well.

Well I would point out Israel, but hey no worries, oh yeah, and Madrid, but who is counting, and then you have London, but not many killed in that one, so we can turn a blind eye.
US foreign policy is much much much more about things besides the War on Terror. You should know that. We cant really stop terror. If 6 determined people want to blow something up, chances are it will happen. It is usually luck, or an informant that breaks a case in preventing terrorist attacks.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
I didn't say there weren't suspicions, just that they have yet to prove that Musharraf knew what was going on.

I dont trust Musharraf as far as I can throw him. Another case of a non-democratically elected leader, who is bad to his own people, and his neighbors in possession of WMDs. Should we attack him before or after NKorea?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 20):
Just at present, the GWOT is recruiting more to "the cause" than it is deterring from "the cause".

Absolutely. Our actions in Iraq and around the world are doing nothing more than making it 10x easier for them to recruit more terrorist and making it harder for us to recruit for our own military.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2771 times:

The US needs to figure out something useful to do re Pakistan and Musharraf. Until the US made other arrangements and brought Iraq up to head the table, Pakistan for many years lead the "bomb events league" by a handsome margin even when organizations with the pedigree of the IRA, ETA and Tamil Tigers were going flat chat.

Not only is it bomb happy, parts of it are gun happy beyond wildest dreams, ISI seems to be a law unto itself, it has THE BOMB, a record of nuclear proliferation to third parties and seems to be the training ground for a high proportion of "European home grown terrorists"*. All in all, a bl**dy disaster zone.

* Yes I know that is oxymoronic, to coin a phrase!!


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2762 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
I would certainly not call Pakistan our ally,



Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
I dont trust Musharraf as far as I can throw him

Guess we can just forget about all the Al Queda higher ups and underlings that the Pakastani military and police have caught and turned over to us.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
Why arent we invading NK?

Have they used their wmd's as Saddam had not only once but several times?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
Going after one man, not trying to occupy that country

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl  perhaps you forget that we were essentially occupying that country from the early 20th century, or that it wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the U.S. creating it.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
Supporting an ally of our country against a communist group,

The communist leader of that country did not ask for our assistance even before he was assasinated. BTW many european leaders expressed dismay that we would act unilaterally as we did. Did that make that invasion wrong as well? We tossed a government over an airfield.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
we were assisting a friend who was being attacked by another country

If that was not a civil war (north versus south) then what was our "war between the states"?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
You cant have your cake and eat it to.

And I have been a vocal critic of his spending policies for years. Nice way to deflect the question though. Let me try again, so what entitlement spending, which makes up the bulk of federal spending, would you cut or how many tax hikes do you plan so we continue entitlement spending which is only increasing every year? DOD spending is a pitance by comparison.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
Well maybe we should have gotten the support from our good buddies the Saudis.

That border is probably the most secure of all. I refer to Iran and Syria.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
Not only didnt he use them, he didnt have them!

Which goes back to my original point...if the intel was bad how was anyone to know before hand that it was? Given the information presented to the President, given the history of Hussien, given the situation at the time with the terrorist threat high, he made the correct decision to invade. To now turn around and criticize him because the intelligence turned out to be faulty is ludicrous given that you have said you wouldn't have been critical if it turned out that Saddam had wmd's and used them on our troops or us or both. If we followed the Powell points we would never be able to defend ourselves since to even retaliate to an attack would violate them since you could never predict an exit strategy that would be valid nor fully analyze all the possibilities that could come about in the course of a war.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
War in my opinion should be the last resort in foreign policy

And I agree with that. Having said that, 12 years is a long time to wait for someone to do what they agreed to do. Given that he had used wmd's before and was actively sponsoring terrorism in Israel by paying off suicide bomber families, foreign policy had run it's course and he was just using that as a delaying tactic.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
That isnt the case here, we had weapons inspectors who were pulled out days before we invaded.

Who after 12 years were still unsure of exactly what he had and what he didn't and couldn't certify anything.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
We should be devoting every available asset to removing him from the face of the earth and we are far from doing that.

If you took all the troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan tomorrow what difference would it make if OBL is on the Pakistani side of the border or even in Iran?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
Kashmir ring a bell?

I'm still looking for that page at the State department website that lists Pakistan as a state sponsor of terror. Can you help me find it?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
Well I would point out Israel, but hey no worries, oh yeah, and Madrid, but who is counting, and then you have London, but not many killed in that one, so we can turn a blind eye.

You could, and I won't count them, and although I won't turn a blind eye to the suffering, all those examples are in foreign countries who are responsible for their own security. The fact remains that we have not had a U.S. interest or property outside of the combat zones I mentioned attacked since 9/11.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
It is usually luck, or an informant that breaks a case in preventing terrorist attacks.

Or maybe a wire tap of an international phone call or a search of an international money order, but thanks to the NY Times those avenues are pretty much closed to our intelligence agencies.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 21):
Absolutely. Our actions in Iraq and around the world are doing nothing more than making it 10x easier for them to recruit more terrorist and making it harder for us to recruit for our own military.

We could change our policies tomorrow and it wouldn't change a thing. Those that will turn to terrorism will find another reason to do it and those that are recruiting terrorists will find another reason to sell it to them. Until we change the culture that holds them back with 8th century beliefs they will continue to sign up to blow themselves up. You don't see the Pope, or any other religious leader save muslim ones resorting to the gun for change or even calling the faithful to resort to the gun for change. Why is that? Maybe it's because there are a lot of corrupt muslim clerics that are only interested in one thing, power, and they are not afraid to sacrifice some of their faithful to get it.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2756 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 23):
I'm still looking for that page at the State department website that lists Pakistan as a state sponsor of terror. Can you help me find it?

Rather than blame Bushpilot for that egregious omission you could try blaming the State department.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 23):
Until we change the culture that holds them back with 8th century beliefs they will continue to sign up to blow themselves up.

Which will work fine once you are also applying the changes to the first through about 12th century beliefs of Christianity, the ... of Hinduism, .... Buddhism.

A change now would probably not have an instant effect because the causative policies have been in place for so long. That does not mean that policy changes are not needed. Like most arguments, this one does have two sides. They may be very different the two sides, but that does not mean that another side exists.

As many wiser folk than I have said, the only solutions to terrorism are in the end political. Political solutions will be achieved through negotiations. To negotiate, you need to understand.


25 RJdxer : Western civilisation is nothing like the 12th century. Gay marriage, legalized drugs, right down to shopping on Sunday all fly in the face of that er
26 Post contains links Baroque : Then all those stories about blowing up abortion clinics are untrue, also shooting doctors, although one of those occurred in Australia and I could h
27 RJdxer : You can count those incidents on the fingers of two hands, came you say the same of muslim terrorist violence?
28 Baroque : Just as I thought, they don't really count. Sigh!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did The USA Invade Iraq And Was It Worth It posted Mon Mar 6 2006 23:30:34 by Highpeaklad
The War In Iraq And What You Dont See On Foxnews posted Fri Feb 27 2004 20:49:58 by Zak
Leaving Iraq To The France And Germany posted Wed Feb 19 2003 18:15:36 by N79969
Democrat Beats Republican... And The Dem Was Dead! posted Wed Nov 8 2006 21:29:15 by 727LOVER
I Get Sandwiched And The Ticket! posted Sun Nov 5 2006 08:26:35 by L-188
And The Winner Of Best Costume Goes To: posted Wed Nov 1 2006 13:55:05 by CV990A
And The Rudest Customers Come From .... posted Sat Oct 28 2006 10:12:22 by Cxsjr
And The Most Beautiful Place On Earth Is... posted Fri Oct 27 2006 18:14:44 by Thom@s
ITrip And The 2nd Generation IPod Nano posted Sat Oct 21 2006 22:58:45 by N808NWatMSP
Trans Fat And The Food Police posted Tue Oct 17 2006 12:04:44 by MCIGuy