[subego]

So, what does everybody think about this?

I'm more interested in what people think about the implications of NBC's decision rather than if you think Iraq is actually in a civil war or not, though what you think about it will have obvious relevance.

I'm not sure what I think about it. It certainly appeals to my natural dislike of euphemism.

In one of Bush's press conferences a couple of months ago, he declared unequivocally that a civil war in Iraq would be a failure of policy. I was pretty shocked that he would throw down like that. The administration is obviously not going to like this.

Thoughts?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, what does everybody think about this?

I'm more interested in what people think about the implications of NBC's decision rather than if you think Iraq is actually in a civil war or not, though what you think about it will have obvious relevance.

I'm not sure what I think about it. It certainly appeals to my natural dislike of euphemism.

In one of Bush's press conferences a couple of months ago, he declared unequivocally that a civil war in Iraq would be a failure of policy. I was pretty shocked that he would throw down like that. The administration is obviously not going to like this.

Thoughts?

I thin you are thinnin back to the PIECE I psoted.

And yes, I'll advocate.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/991gvxyi.asp

What the Islamists Have Learned
How to defeat the USA in future wars.
by Michael Novak
11/22/2006 1:35:00 PM


If I were an Islamist, a terrorist, a sworn foe of democracy, here is what I think I would have learned from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is what I would write down in my hard-earned manual of instruction.

BY THE WILL OF ALLAH, in all wars to come, may it prepare our brave martyrs for combat operations!

Today, the purpose of war is sharply political, not military; psychological, not physical. The main purpose of war is to dominate the way the enemy imagines and thinks about the war. Warfare is not, these days, won on a grand field of battle. Nor is it won by the force that wins series after series of military victories. Nor is triumph assured by killing far higher numbers of the enemy. The physical side of warfare no longer holds precedence.

The primary battlefield today lies in the minds of opposing publics.

The main strategic aim of war today is to dominate the mind of the enemy's public, and then ultimately to dominate the mind of that public's leaders.

Let me offer three examples. At what moment did the war in Vietnam come to an end? At that precise moment when America's leaders decided that they could not resist the unrelenting storyline of the enemy, which had long prevailed in their own press. The press surrendered first, then the leaders of the nation.

Observe that the Cold War ended not in an explosion of unprecedented violence, but rather at the precise moment when the Soviet elites no longer believed their own storyline. Superior ideas cowed them, superior will, superior narratives. Quite suddenly, the invincible Soviet elites folded, accepted humiliation, allowed the Wall to come down, and watched in bitterness as hundreds of millions of formerly captive peoples chose new forms of government.

The endgame was psychological, not military. There was a military component--Star Wars--but nobody knew whether or not that would ever work. It was the idea of that weapon, and will or Reagan to proceed with it.

The weaker political will yielded to the stronger will.

Yet, as always, will followed storyline. First comes narrative, then the acts that give it flesh in history.

What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists' best friends.

Experience shows that the mainstream press of the United States is alienated from the U.S. military. In addition, the American press is extremely vulnerable to anti-U.S. propaganda. Thus, the American public will be fed nearly everything that foreign adversaries--our band of brothers--wish to feed it about the war. Therefore, I write: Maxim # 1: To defeat America, impose upon the imagination of its media your own storyline.

Even if you can muster only 10,000 soldiers over the entire countryside of Iraq, paint the narrative like this: The Americans are irresistible occupiers, and yet they cannot prevent small (even individual) acts of destruction. Daily, unrelenting acts of destruction demonstrate that chaos rules. The American strategy, and the American storyline of the war, are invalidated by continuing chaos, highly visible, every single day, on worldwide television. The new dominating story is that the Americans cannot win.

Even though our own forces (for nearly two whole years now) can no longer afford to fight in a single operation lasting longer than a few hours, our martyr-brothers cannot be prevented from committing daily acts of destruction--the more stomach-turning the better--which demonstrate a ferocious will and a determination to destroy.

In such wars, my brothers, whichever party maintains the stronger will, along the most durable storyline, always wins.

To defeat the United States, then, it suffices to demonstrate that their vaunted military, for all its awesome power and tactical bravery in the field, cannot halt daily "chaos." To achieve this victory over America, it is not even necessary to create actual "chaos," but only its appearance. This definition of chaos cannot be made on cerebral, analytic, statistical, or comparative grounds. (In October the Times of London reported, "An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France" this year, with 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services and nearly 3,000 police officers injured. We don't need comparisons like this or comparisons with traffic deaths and violent crimes in individual U.S. states.)

No, the shadowy existence of this "chaos" in Iraq is projected by a steady stream of stomach-churning, atavistic, destructive acts, staged day by day where the cameras of the U.S. press cannot resist them. Some of these acts bring orange explosions and black smoke, others consist simply of dumping dead and tortured bodies where the public cannot avoid discovering them.

We design these images to show that our fighters will go where the United States will not, that our brave martyrs have harder linings in their stomachs than anyone in the West, and that our ferocity and determination, day after day, cannot be resisted.

The aim of our terror is to induce surrender before the great battles are even fought. This is the true meaning of "asymmetric" warfare. The weaker side in military strength may demonstrate conclusively that it has a stronger stomach for relentless, unstoppable acts of terror.

Besides, brothers, there seems to be a psychological tic in the minds of American journalists, which prevents them from understanding that our terror is ultimately aimed at them. Today, yes, they think it is aimed at their government, and will cripple their political opponents within that government. Without qualm or fear, therefore, they do our bidding day after day. Willingly, gleefully, with much self-congratulation, they pump our storyline into the bloodstream of the Western public.

This is far easier than anyone ever taught us. This is our new discovery, our contribution to the history of warfare. Before our very eyes, the West grows fainter and weaker every day.

Maxim # 2: Take heart, then, my terrorist brothers! Bin Laden is even more correct than we knew before the last two years. The West does not have the will to resist. Those elites among them who do have the stomach to fight back, inexorably, day after day, are being undermined by their own media.

Now and in the future, the media will do our work. All we need are martyrs sufficient in number to keep a steady stream of orange flames and black smoke before their cameras, and to dump before them bodies that are stone-cold dead, and bear all over them the unmistakable blue marks of power drills and other disfigurements.

Of such martyrs, we need each day only a handful. In 365 successive days, we need fewer than one thousand.

This small band of brothers can defeat the most powerful army in human history. The path, my brothers, is to come to dominate the minds of their public, which they must suppose is supporting them, and in reality turns quite quickly into our best ally.

This is not so huge a task, my brothers! In the long run of glorious history, the time required is like the blinking of an eye.

We should do NOTHING but stay there, out of the way.

The pronouncement of Civil War is nothing but an arbitrary standard used by those wanting us to pull out and leave the chaos for the Jihadists from Iran to deal with. As we have seen they were able to deal with the chaos of Somalia.

THAT IS THEIR SCRIPT!

They create chaos and when the western powers flee, the Jihadists go in and salvage the pieces.

It's like my forming a gang to go into nice neighborhoods in any American city and buying or renting properties then do what I can to make those properties undesirable.

Law breaking. Loitering in public places. Panhandling. Drug dealing. Public defecation. No upkeep of my properties.

Soon the other residents will realize the neighborhood is going downhill and they begin selling their properties and moving out.

Once my gang buys up all the properties we can we set about bringing the neighborhood back up to it's previous levels of esteem.

And one of the CRUCIAL parts to my gang strategy is getting the word out to ALL of the neighbors that the place is going downhill. Luckily, the people who have the biggest mouths in the neighborhood are Fuzzy brained types and they will believe anything I tell them.

The big mouth Fuzzy brained busy bodies can't recognize my strategy so I use them like pawns.

And they play it beautifully.

I tell them the place is going to be declared a slum. And THAT WORD sends them into a panic!

They say the word to the home owners in hushed tones, as if that is the worst thing that could ever happen. And that because the busy bodies declare it to be true, then it must be. And everyone gets on board with this clap trap.

So here's the story.

1. I want to buy these nice houses but the people have no interest in selling or moving.

2. I create a strategy to make the homeowners WANT to sell to me and to sell to me at a bargain price.

3. I devalue the neighborhood property values.

4. I create a scenario that everyone buys into which will be sure to happen and when it happens that will be rock bottom. Everyone will want to avoid hitting rock bottom.

4a. The scenario is that the properties are all losing 10% of their value each quarter and if the neighborhood is ever declared a slum then there will be NO value left in the homes.

4b. I use the big mouthed air heads in the neighborhood that everyone relies on for news to spread the story in 4a.

5. When I'm ready and circumstances are right, I spring the trap that the neighborhood is now a SLUM. Those who haven't left will now leave or else their spouses will divorce them.

6. After they leave I will have bought all their properties for a song, I will fix them up and make a very nice profit and use that as the foundation of my next operation which will be even grander in scale.

IGNORE the incitement of the words CIVIL WAR.

That is what Iran's jihadists are counting on, that we will panic and run.

OMG! CIVIL WAR! CIVIL WAR!

If we stay there and just do what we must do to support the central government and keep our own losses low, we will have out smarted the STUPID media and we will force the jihadists to adopt a different tactic.

And while this may seem to be only a minor setback for them, think again.

It would be HUGE!

This is what we have been looking for. A way to defeat their battle plans.

We would be able to show how the media DOESN'T HELP our chance of winning or our efforts to bring peace to the war zone.

We would no longer believe the media war pronouncements as we now do. The enemy would not be able to manipulate the media and achieve the same effects in American public opinion as they have to date.

Without their ability to manipulate the media and without the liberal media being able to manipulate us the enemy will have to win on the ground.

And we have seen they can not win on the ground.

This is a huge opportunity for us to BREAK the strategy of al Qaeda and the Jihadists in Iraq and it will give us the opportunity to use that as a foundation for defeating Jihadist terrorism around the world.

Do not underestimate this.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by subego 

Thoughts?

Bush will have to figure out how to turn a retreat into victory.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Bush will have to figure out how to turn a retreat into victory.

He said thoughts. Not knee-jerk partisan shilling.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, what does everybody think about this?

I'm more interested in what people think about the implications of NBC's decision rather than if you think Iraq is actually in a civil war or not, though what you think about it will have obvious relevance.

I'm not sure what I think about it. It certainly appeals to my natural dislike of euphemism.

In one of Bush's press conferences a couple of months ago, he declared unequivocally that a civil war in Iraq would be a failure of policy. I was pretty shocked that he would throw down like that. The administration is obviously not going to like this.

Thoughts?

I agree, the Administration is not going to like this news. They're aware of hostilities in the region, but to have it so-labeled by the American press is more bad pub for an already questionable "post-Saddam" phase of activity.

Thoughts;

The Iraq study group will recommend we work with Syria and Iran to help ease tensions in Iraq. This will be viewed as an attempt to make agreements with despots to save-face on a failed action post-Saddam. It will not look like a victory, but a concession of sorts that we can't do it without Iran's help. There is a fine line here because we do not want to enter any agreement that will make it difficult for us to counter a nuclear ambitious Iran.

For these reasons, we will not follow plan A of the study group and plan B will be augmented troop deployment, "go big" for 12 solid months to accomplish several key goals. After 12 months of solid military presence, we will begin phased withdrawal. Will the Iraqi civil apparatus be prepared to maintain peace by then? I don't know, but unfortunately that will not necessarily be a factor in the phased withdrawal. Violence will escalate exponentially at news that we're pulling out and Iran will be viewed as the primary thrust behind this violence. Something "mysterious" will happen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reformation will be the order of that day. It will be argued that this "mysterious event" was actually part of the original 'Plan A' of the study group.

The new leader will be charismatic, helpful, and supposedly very "pro-West". I'll decide at that time what I think of their new leader, whether or not he can be trusted, and I'll keep you all up to date as events unfold.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

IGNORE the incitement of the words CIVIL WAR.

How much of that incitement comes from the administration making it a taboo phrase? This is Psychology 101. Saying "don't touch that" immediately makes that person want to touch it.

Furthermore, by pursuing this policy you almost guarantee a hit to your credibility. Even if we haven't reached the point of civil war, what happens if we do? Will denying the obvious be a help or hindrance?

The good intentions behind your idea don't mean squat if you are unable to address the, ahem... "finer points".

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Something "mysterious" will happen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reformation will be the order of that day. It will be argued that this "mysterious event" was actually part of the original 'Plan A' of the study group.

You'll get major Carnac points if you're right.

If he's due to get whacked though, I hope the Mossad does it instead of the CIA. What a bunch of amateurs.



Edit: it's just "Mossad" not "the Mossad", isn't it?

[RAILhead]

[Dork.]

Do you have a link to "NBC's decision" to start calling this a civil war? I went to nbcnews.com (which apparently redirects to msnbc.com) ans the only mention I can find of a civil war is Annan warning that the violence in Iraq could deteriorate into that....

edit: never mind.

NBC brands Iraq conflict 'civil war' - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by subego 

Thoughts?

Yes, it's symbolic of the fact that the train has already left the station, and Bush is pretty much the only one still on the platform. He still wants to believe, regardless of what his dad or anyone else tells him. Bush is our very own comical Ali, waving his arms and denying that reality is knocking on the door, unaware of the fact that he has become a caricature of himself. Why do you think the rest of the neocon cadre has shuffled away from Bush?

He assures everyone that the explosions and roiling smoke is not a civil war, but al Queda. He's wrong. That's reality and idealism finally colliding. It would be funny, were it not so tragic.

[subego]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

Yes, it's symbolic of the fact that the train has already left the station, and Bush is pretty much the only one still on the platform. He still wants to believe, regardless of what his dad or anyone else tells him.

It would take a lot of effort to convince me that this is an issue of ignorance over intentional deception.

As I've said before, don't let his obfuscation convince you he is genuinely stupid. Bush knows down to the decimal point how f-ed things are.

[xi_hyperon]

I never pointed to ignorance. In fact, I left it open as to why Bush continues to deny certain obvious facts. The analogy simply points out that all but a few diehards have accepted the reality there, and moved on to the next step, which is to figure out how to repair the damage as much as possible.

[subego]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

I never pointed to ignorance. In fact, I left it open as to why Bush continues to deny certain obvious facts.

Not really.

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

He still wants to believe, regardless of what his dad or anyone else tells him.

Wanting to believe sounds like ignorance to me.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wanting to believe sounds like ignorance to me.

Well, we have a different definition of ignorance. Ignorance is simply being unaware or uneducated about an issue or fact. Denial is knowing things on perhaps a subconscious level, but having the inability to acknowledge them to oneself or to others. Be that as it may, denial is what I'm gettting at, and the fact that in this case it's tragic for everyone on both sides.

[subego]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

Well, we have a different definition of ignorance. Ignorance is simply being unaware or uneducated about an issue or fact. Denial is knowing things on perhaps a subconscious level, but having the inability to acknowledge them to oneself or to others. Be that as it may, denial is what I'm gettting at, and the fact that in this case it's tragic for everyone on both sides.

Okay.

It would take a lot of effort to convince me that this is an issue of denial over intentional deception.

As I'm saying here for the first time, don't let his obfuscation convince you he is genuinely in denial. Bush knows down to the decimal point how f-ed things are.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

How much of that incitement comes from the administration making it a taboo phrase? This is Psychology 101. Saying "don't touch that" immediately makes that person want to touch it.

Furthermore, by pursuing this policy you almost guarantee a hit to your credibility. Even if we haven't reached the point of civil war, what happens if we do? Will denying the obvious be a help or hindrance?

The good intentions behind your idea don't mean squat if you are unable to address the, ahem... "finer points".

If you want the President to play High School games with the American public I'm sorry but GWB isn't U-No-Hoo.

Don't get send me $100, subego.

Do me a favor and explain to me what it means if there IS a Civil War.

And I'M NOT asking for a definition.

I'm asking you to explain to us how and why that is such a horrible thing for our long term goals in Iraq.

Again, I don't need a definition of civil war, I'd like to know why civil war would change our plans there. Why the American people should immediately give up if Civil War is declared.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay.

It would take a lot of effort to convince me that this is an issue of denial over intentional deception.

As I'm saying here for the first time, don't let his obfuscation convince you he is genuinely in denial. Bush knows down to the decimal point how f-ed things are.

Well, I don't know, because I don't personally know the man. The gallows-humor part of me chuckles at his insistence, either way. The rest of me wants the guy recalled and put somewhere where he can't damage anything else. Perhaps back to his high school to coach the cheerleading squad.

[marden]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

Well, I don't know, because I don't personally know the man. The gallows-humor part of me chuckles at his insistence, either way. The rest of me wants the guy recalled and put somewhere where he can't damage anything else. Perhaps back to his high school to coach the cheerleading squad.

You don't give him the credit he's due for making some very tough decisions many of which worked out so well that you aren't even aware that there was a problem.

In case you haven't seen it yet, these are Marden's 15 Points and whenever someone brings up the decision to invade as a reason to bash Bush I post this so you will have SOMETHING to hopefully nudge you to consider the importance and the high quality of the job he's done for us.

Most people criticize the decision to invade without:

1-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's...at the time. After the fact doesn't count.
2-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
3-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
4-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
5-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
6-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
7-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
8-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
9-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
10-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
11-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
12-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
13-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
14-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
15-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by marden 

You don't give him the credit he's due for making some very tough decisions many of which worked out so well that you aren't even aware that there was a problem.

In case you haven't seen it yet, these are Marden's 15 Points and whenever someone brings up the decision to invade as a reason to bash Bush I post this so you will have SOMETHING to hopefully nudge you to consider the importance and the high quality of the job he's done for us.

A lot of CEOs who've done what many consider to be good things end up canned for subsequent spectacular f*ck ups. And rightly so. That's the way it works, no matter the counted ways you love him.

[invisibleX]

That is what Iran's jihadists are counting on, that we will panic and run.

OMG! CIVIL WAR! CIVIL WAR!

If we stay there and just do what we must do to support the central government and keep our own losses low, we will have out smarted the STUPID media and we will force the jihadists to adopt a different tactic.

And while this may seem to be only a minor setback for them, think again. It would be HUGE!This is what we have been looking for. A way to defeat their battle plans.

We would be able to show how the media DOESN'T HELP our chance of winning or our efforts to bring peace to the war zone.

We would no longer believe the media war pronouncements as we now do. The enemy would not be able to manipulate the media and achieve the same effects in American public opinion as they have to date.

Without their ability to manipulate the media and without the liberal media being able to manipulate us the enemy will have to win on the ground. And we have seen they can not win on the ground.

This is a huge opportunity for us to BREAK the strategy of al Qaeda and the Jihadists in Iraq and it will give us the opportunity to use that as a foundation for defeating Jihadist terrorism around the world.

Do not underestimate this.

Ah marden, I love your posts. A telekinetic monkey could find the flaws in your logic. So simple! To defeat the jihadists we need only be dumb deaf mutes because really in the grand scheme of things it isn't any of our business. The government should do whatever they please and we need to silently support them, that is our purpose. Brilliant marden, brilliant.

One tiny itsy bitsy flaw though: you can yap all you want but the bottom line is its cheap. You're not living there and you have no connection to that place. You simply aren't in a position to evaluate what strategy is best and certainly not in any position to tell us what to think. Your perspective, and that of those you quote, is that dead muslims = protecting america. Iraqis can suffer and die due to our monumental self interests and all you care about is covering you're own ass.

[subego]

In reverse order.

Originally Posted by marden 

Why the American people should immediately give up if Civil War is declared.

Uhh. I never said this.

Originally Posted by marden 

I'd like to know why civil war would change our plans there.

Off the top of my head I would surmise that it would exacerbate the military/police dichotomy (soldiers aren't cops, and cops aren't soldiers).

I would say the most accurate way to describe the situation is that Iraq has a gang problem. A really big gang problem. Stopping gangs is police work. There is a lot of police work to be done in Iraq.

I hear all this talk about training the Iraqi army, which, if the people in charge don't have their heads up their asses, will be charged with making sure Iran doesn't roll out the tanks. The army shouldn't have anything to do with the "civil war". We need cops. Lots of cops. This needs to be the focus.

I see the army as secondary since that is something we are more than equipped to handle ourselves from the countryside, where you can see the schmuck with the RPG coming from a few klicks away.

[marden]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Ah marden, I love your posts.

We aim to please!

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

A telekinetic monkey could find the flaws in your logic. So simple! To defeat the jihadists we need only be dumb deaf mutes because really in the grand scheme of things it isn't any of our business.

Er, not what I had in mind. What I was thinking was that if American public opinion is crucial to the enemy's strategic blueprint for success, that we deny them the effect of that advantage by not going 'APOPLECTIC' simply because the words Civil War are uttered.

Check out my latest sig below posted here for posterity:

In the end, American support for the Vietnam War faded. Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the antiwar demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a "conditional surrender," Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp. http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silve...re_nation.html

If they win by skillful use of publicity and it's affect on American public opinion then I say deny them that tool!

Please don't become so ecstatic with my posts that you fail to understand that I am NOT saying this:

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

The government should do whatever they please and we need to silently support them, that is our purpose. Brilliant marden, brilliant.

I'm not saying that at all.

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

One tiny itsy bitsy flaw though: you can yap all you want but the bottom line is its cheap. You're not living there and you have no connection to that place. You simply aren't in a position to evaluate what strategy is best and certainly not in any position to tell us what to think.

Ahhh. But there ARE some things that we ALL can agree on. The enemy watches our media. The enemy is COUNTING on us behaving predictably. Just as the North Vietnamese did.

In a recent article in the Washington Times, Arnaud de Borchgrave noted that during the Vietnam War, General Giap relied on the American peace movement to weaken American resolve. That had the effect of turning an American military victory into a political defeat. Former North Vietnamese General Staff officer Bui Tin once said that the peace movement was "essential to our strategy." In America, the open support of Hanoi by Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (now head of International ANSWER, which coordinates the largest protests) and others "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses," Bui Tin said. "Through dissent and protest," the US "lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

As a result, the surprise 1968 Tet Offensive (which involved suicidal attacks by the Viet Cong in some 70 cities and towns, and 30 other strategic objectives simultaneously) turned the political tide of the war against America and eventually led to the protest movement that (in turn) led to the American defeat in Vietnam. From a military perspective, it is important to note that the Tet Offensive was a singularly unmitigated disaster both for Hanoi and for its Viet Cong troops in South Vietnam. Not one of the objectives of the Viet Cong in that Offensive was achieved. Yet, it proved to be a major turning point in the war.

Being the first major "television war," Americans watched the carnage in horror and concluded (incorrectly) that it was a military disaster for America. One of America's most trusted newsmen, CBS's Walter Cronkite, even appeared for a standup piece with distant fires as a backdrop. Donning a helmet, Cronkite declared the war lost. Eugene McCarthy carried New Hampshire and Bobbie Kennedy stepped forward to challenge the policies of an already distraught President. Six weeks later, Lyndon Johnson, in the midst of national protest, announced that he would not seek re-election. His ratings had plummeted to 30 percent after Tet. Approval of his handling of the war had dropped to 20 percent. He had concluded that the war was unwinnable.

In the end, American support for the Vietnam War faded. Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the antiwar demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a "conditional surrender," Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.

Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear that the antiwar movement in the United States (which led to the collapse of political will in Washington) was "essential to our strategy."

These lessons have not been lost to a new era of Islamic fascists for we can see the implications arising, once again, in Iraq. America can win the war in Iraq. The question is whether we will lose the war here at home as we did during Vietnam. The terrorist opponents of a new Iraq are cleverly playing to American fears of another Vietnam and our media and some of our elected representatives are unwittingly buying into the strategy.

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Your perspective, and that of those you quote, is that dead muslims = protecting america. Iraqis can suffer and die due to our monumental self interests and all you care about is covering you're own ass.

You must think that all Muslims are terrorist, insurgent, jihadists, then. Because those are the only ones I say we should kill. But since they intend to kill us and they are so determined to do so then there is no other option.

What I HAVE said all along is that we are in Iraq spending our fortune and our honor and our blood for MUSLIMS!!!

Sure we have more than one reason for being there but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that we are there trying to help MUSLIMS achieve freedoms such as you and I enjoy. Would you give up your freedom to live as the Mullahs and Ayatollahs in that region would have you live? Wouldn't you appreciate a nation that was willing to stand beside you through thick and thin to create a democracy in your country?

How would Americans dying to help create better living conditions and freedom in Iraq be an example of my wanting to cover my ass?

[macintologist]

This is America, not the Soviet Union. If our troops die, we don't like it, and the press is obligated to freely report each and ever troop death, UNLIKE the Soviet Union. So it makes it hard for us to fight a war huh? I'd say that's a good thing. It's like in Civ 3. If you change your government to a democracy, fighting an aggressive war is near impossible. There's a reason for that, and sure, our "enemies" may take advantage of that by playing the media into reporting even more carnage. Ultimately that's irrelevant since we shouldn't have been fighting neither the Vietnam war nor this war.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

In reverse order.

Uhh. I never said this.

Never said you did. But the general idea I'm getting is that as soon as eneough people or enough of the "right" people say the words, "Civil War," that it will trigger a national mandate to pull out and come home.

I think we should RESIST that knee jerk response.

Originally Posted by subego 

Off the top of my head I would surmise that it would exacerbate the military/police dichotomy (soldiers aren't cops, and cops aren't soldiers).

I would say the most accurate way to describe the situation is that Iraq has a gang problem. A really big gang problem. Stopping gangs is police work. There is a lot of police work to be done in Iraq.

I hear all this talk about training the Iraqi army, which, if the people in charge don't have their heads up their asses, will be charged with making sure Iran doesn't roll out the tanks. The army shouldn't have anything to do with the "civil war". We need cops. Lots of cops. This needs to be the focus.

I see the army as secondary since that is something we are more than equipped to handle ourselves from the countryside, where you can see the schmuck with the RPG coming from a few klicks away.

There is some validity in your assessment.

Here are some random questions. Some I know the answers to and others I don't. But I'm throwing them all out into the forum for anyone to answer:

Do we know what the problems have been with the police forces that we've been helping to train in Iraq?

Do we know how long we've been training them?

Do we know how many there are now? How many can be trained per year? How many are needed?

Do we know why there was a need to train the Army?

Do we recognize that at a certain time priorities can shift from one objective to another and we here in the US might not be sent a memo? So that IF soldiers were the highest priority at one time and then the Iraqi government decided to switch to focusing on recruiting and training more police the process might be ongoing as we speak?

It might have been going on for a year. Does anyone here know? I don't.

And I still want to know what makes a civil war in Iraq such a horrible thing as far as our goals of helping to create a stable central government are concerned?

[marden]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

This is America, not the Soviet Union. If our troops die, we don't like it, and the press is obligated to freely report each and ever troop death, UNLIKE the Soviet Union. So it makes it hard for us to fight a war huh? I'd say that's a good thing. It's like in Civ 3. If you change your government to a democracy, fighting an aggressive war is near impossible. There's a reason for that, and sure, our "enemies" may take advantage of that by playing the media into reporting even more carnage. Ultimately that's irrelevant since we shouldn't have been fighting neither the Vietnam war nor this war.

So where will you move to when your idea of democracy results in America's downfall?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Canada. Just call us "the new America!"



greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

A lot of CEOs who've done what many consider to be good things end up canned for subsequent spectacular f*ck ups. And rightly so. That's the way it works, no matter the counted ways you love him.

GWB can't be canned. But I'd say this isn't about HIM (here in this post exchange with you), it's about your recognizing his contributions to helping us enjoy everything we have at this moment. A few different decisions on his part and it could ALL be much worse.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Iraq study group will recommend we work with Syria and Iran to help ease tensions in Iraq. This will be viewed as an attempt to make agreements with despots to save-face on a failed action post-Saddam. It will not look like a victory, but a concession of sorts that we can't do it without Iran's help. There is a fine line here because we do not want to enter any agreement that will make it difficult for us to counter a nuclear ambitious Iran.

It isn't a fine line at all.

For these reasons, we will not follow plan A of the study group and plan B will be augmented troop deployment, "go big" for 12 solid months to accomplish several key goals. After 12 months of solid military presence, we will begin phased withdrawal. Will the Iraqi civil apparatus be prepared to maintain peace by then?
...
The new leader will be charismatic, helpful, and supposedly very "pro-West". I'll decide at that time what I think of their new leader, whether or not he can be trusted, and I'll keep you all up to date as events unfold.

No, augmented troop deployment will have no effect. It's far too late -- we've been "staying the course" for too long -- and nothing we've "accomplished" so far says that we can do anything at this point. Iraq will cycle through various leaders, eventually ending up with a strongman much like Saddam Hussein. Only such a leader will be able to control the violence. A "pro-Western" leader would be smashed (I can't figure out where you got that fantasy??). Or, Iraq will just disintegrate and end up as an Afghanistan.

You seem to be pretty sanguine about the civil war, and letting events unfold, as thousands of Iraqis are dying every month.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Never said you did. But the general idea I'm getting is that as soon as eneough people or enough of the "right" people say the words, "Civil War," that it will trigger a national mandate to pull out and come home.

I think we should RESIST that knee jerk response.

And how would we go about this?

So far, it seems that what you are suggesting is to go "la-la-la-la, I'm not listening!"

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

And how would we go about this?

So far, it seems that what you are suggesting is to go "la-la-la-la, I'm not listening!"

Something like that.

When a petulent child that you love and want nothing but the best for wants to manipulate you by refusing to eat or holding his breath you have to wait them out.

The jihadists are using the violence to sour us on the war and make us lose our will to win. And they are relying on the magic words, "CIVIL WAR" to send us packing.

So what do you think we should do?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by marden 

GWB can't be canned. But I'd say this isn't about HIM (here in this post exchange with you), it's about your recognizing his contributions to helping us enjoy everything we have at this moment. A few different decisions on his part and it could ALL be much worse.

Well, actually he can, but that's not what I'm advocating. And you can make of my comments what you will, but they were most certainly about him and his conduct. A really simple point in fact, and if you can't see it, then it seems Bush's denial is contagious.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by marden 

Never said you did. But the general idea I'm getting is that as soon as eneough people or enough of the "right" people say the words, "Civil War," that it will trigger a national mandate to pull out and come home.

I think we should RESIST that knee jerk response.

By giving your own knee jerk response, based on your own assumptions of everyone else? Interesting way to resist knee jerking.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, what does everybody think about this?

I'm more interested in what people think about the implications of NBC's decision rather than if you think Iraq is actually in a civil war or not, though what you think about it will have obvious relevance.

I'm not sure what I think about it. It certainly appeals to my natural dislike of euphemism.

In one of Bush's press conferences a couple of months ago, he declared unequivocally that a civil war in Iraq would be a failure of policy. I was pretty shocked that he would throw down like that. The administration is obviously not going to like this.

Thoughts?

Evidently Imus picked up on it yesterday, so it must have come out last week (ha).

NBC has gotten the word to step up the rhetoric because the newly-elected party wants to show how powerful they are by getting us pulled out of Iraq and stranding millions of people on the steps of oblivion. That's what it sounds like to me. If it's a "civil war" then we HAVE TO pull out (for some reason) and get back inside our borders before it becomes a quagmire. That word is coming back again too.

As I've said before: Herr Doktor Goebbels would be might proud.

[ironknee]

i agree wanting to believe is ignorance

but back to topic: if the baker report suggests working with syria and iran, wouldn't that be the biggest burn to gwb?

[marden]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon
Well, I don't know, because I don't personally know the man. The gallows-humor part of me chuckles at his insistence, either way. The rest of me wants the guy recalled and put somewhere where he can't damage anything else. Perhaps back to his high school to coach the cheerleading squad.

Originally Posted by marden
You don't give him the credit he's due for making some very tough decisions many of which worked out so well that you aren't even aware that there was a problem.

In case you haven't seen it yet, these are Marden's 15 Points and whenever someone brings up the decision to invade as a reason to bash Bush I post this so you will have SOMETHING to hopefully nudge you to consider the importance and the high quality of the job he's done for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xi_hyperon
A lot of CEOs who've done what many consider to be good things end up canned for subsequent spectacular f*ck ups. And rightly so. That's the way it works, no matter the counted ways you love him.

Originally Posted by marden
GWB can't be canned. But I'd say this isn't about HIM (here in this post exchange with you), it's about your recognizing his contributions to helping us enjoy everything we have at this moment. A few different decisions on his part and it could ALL be much worse.

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

Well, actually he can, but that's not what I'm advocating. And you can make of my comments what you will, but they were most certainly about him and his conduct. A really simple point in fact, and if you can't see it, then it seems Bush's denial is contagious.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by marden 

That's what I suspected.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i agree wanting to believe is ignorance

but back to topic: if the baker report suggests working with syria and iran, wouldn't that be the biggest burn to gwb?

In terms of his religious crusade? Probably yes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Something like that.

When a petulent child that you love and want nothing but the best for wants to manipulate you by refusing to eat or holding his breath you have to wait them out.

The jihadists are using the violence to sour us on the war and make us lose our will to win. And they are relying on the magic words, "CIVIL WAR" to send us packing.

So what do you think we should do?

As I have been advocating all along, the domestic angle of the war needs (needed) to be treated as more of a marketing problem.

This is why I keep haranguing on Bush's treatment of the Democrats. You can't sell something to someone while concurrently displaying contempt for them.

In considering my response here, I've realized most of my criticisms of how the war is being conducted have a through-line. They're all two stage problems. The screw-up itself, and the inevitable PR debacle to follow. I have enormous tolerance for the former and almost none for the latter.

Take WMDs for example. I have brought up on numerous occasions the evidence that WMDs were not a primary objective. This doesn't bother me that much. It really wouldn't bother me if Bush had decided to use a different rationale to sell the war in the first place, but even as is I can more or less handle it. The real problem is the way Bush dealt with it when we came up short. Good lord he could have dealt with this better. This was where the naysayers got their first taste of traction.

I've complained about troop levels (for a long, looong time BTW, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon here), and have provided the Rumsfeld doctrine as the reason we had a shortfall. Okay. **** happens. Considering how well the doctrine worked for actual combat operations, I'll cut the man major slack. It took me a long time to turn on Rumsfeld. I think the SoD is one of the few cabinet members who should have total license to be a badass (with oversight of course). Hell, you want to know who I think was a slam-bang SoD? Cheney.

The problem arose out of how this was dealt with. If he hadn't already blown the PR over WMD, and had kept sweet-talking the Dems the way he did leading up to the vote for the war in Congress, he could have just asked for more troops right there. Instead, he pulls his "Mission Accomplished" stunt. How much effort has gone into explaining that "Mission Accomplished" didn't mean what the left thought it meant, and how many on the left believe it after all that effort?

Take Abu Ghraib. We were supposed to be gone by that point, so it isn't surprising that we hadn't done the necessary planning for long-term interment. Again, **** happens. This would have been the perfect opportunity to sack a mess of generals. Why? Because the public wanted blood, and, as luck would have it, sacking generals is vital to properly fighting a war. A peacetime general's primary skill is maneuvering through the politics of the DoD. What a wartime general's primary skill is should be obvious. Instead they fry a private?

So the "civil war" should be dealt with like a marketing problem. I would have stopped fighting the label a year ago and displayed a plan to deal with the situation.

Even without the plan, as soon as you acknowledge the label you can begin to sap power out of it. This is easier than it sounds, especially for a pro like Tony Snow. Even McClellan could do it. McClellan was nothing if not skilled in the "la-la-la" tactic.

"Well, you can call it a civil war, but it's really not. That implies a level of organization that we are keeping them from reaching. If it'll sell papers for you we won't get in your way"

You don't stop someone from using a word, you just redefine the word, but now it's too late and people are going to see through your ruse.

We're headed right into another PR debacle. This is why I keep complaining about Bush. He keeps slamming his head into the wall and I want him to stop. It's not helping.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

In terms of his religious crusade? Probably yes.

What religious crusade? Do you just make things up as you go along?

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by marden 

Er, not what I had in mind. What I was thinking was that if American public opinion is crucial to the enemy's strategic blueprint for success, that we deny them the effect of that advantage by not going 'APOPLECTIC' simply because the words Civil War are uttered.

First of all they will not devise or exercise a strategy hinging entirely on the public opinion of a foreign country. The only way anyone with half a brain would do this would be if they had influence and clearly they do not. I can think of about a million ways to win people over; beheading people is not one of them.

Check out my latest sig below posted here for posterity:

If they aren't actively manipulating our media who gives a **** (do not say liberal media and jihad in the same post, thanks). I also seriously question how many terrorists have access to our media.

If they win by skillful use of publicity and it's affect on American public opinion then I say deny them that tool!

Well, they don't have a very good publicist in that case. In fact, the only reason anyone is against the whole war was because of the way we went about it and ultimately screwed up. So I suppose the terrorists can thank the American government for the good publicity; what does that say about us, we make terrorists look good.

Please don't become so ecstatic with my posts that you fail to understand that I am NOT saying this:
I'm not saying that at all.

I may not be directly referring to your words, but the implications of your ideas.

Ahhh. But there ARE some things that we ALL can agree on. The enemy watches our media. The enemy is COUNTING on us behaving predictably. Just as the North Vietnamese did.

But did north vietnam actively manipulate the media or just take advantage of a situation? I'm not terribly disturbed that an enemy would do this: if they created the situation.. that is cause for concern. Using public opinion to an advantage is nothing to be concerned over.

You must think that all Muslims are terrorist, insurgent, jihadists, then. Because those are the only ones I say we should kill. But since they intend to kill us and they are so determined to do so then there is no other option.

What I HAVE said all along is that we are in Iraq spending our fortune and our honor and our blood for MUSLIMS!!!

I don't believe it is that simple and Iraq has proven it is not. This isn't a shooting range, if you push hard enough everyone becomes a combatant.

Yeah, I'm sure they really appreciate us.

Sure we have more than one reason for being there but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that we are there trying to help MUSLIMS achieve freedoms such as you and I enjoy. Would you give up your freedom to live as the Mullahs and Ayatollahs in that region would have you live? Wouldn't you appreciate a nation that was willing to stand beside you through thick and thin to create a democracy in your country?

How would Americans dying to help create better living conditions and freedom in Iraq be an example of my wanting to cover my ass?

As you often say: it doesn't matter that there weren't WMDs because we didn't know back then. Well we didnt start this war to help the Iraqi people and all the back-peddling in the world isn't going to change that. They haven't benefitted from this war, they have suffered. More importantly they don't see us as the good guys. Maybe its just their own ignorance but that doesn't change anything.

[invisibleX]

I though I'd add this. It was posted in another forum by someone else, not my words or ideas and I don't necessarily agree with it entirely but he does have points. Especially considering when it was written (start of the war).

Yeah, those Germans and those Japanese are just ****ing great examples of militaristic countries that suddenly fell into line after the great and mighty America clobbered them both into sumbission.

Except for one thing. Both of those fine current bulwarks of democracy tumbled and fell into line when they were faced with invasion from a completely different and infinitely more insane alternative: the Stalinist Soviet Union.

Well, wake up and smell the caviar, my friends, because the Commies are long gone and suddenly Iraq is being invaded by a strange and foreign bogeyman which seeks to destroy their way of life. We're no longer Stalin Lite, we're the evil horde itself. Why do they fight us? Because they've never seen anything scarier than we.

What, I ask you redneck road-farm-game-and-communications-but-not-health-unemployment-traditional-welfare-subsidized maniac solipsists, is the lesser evil compared to us, you ****ing fools!

I'll tell you what it is, it's some sort of philosophy which can hold the line against a giant military behemoth by slowly wearing it down and economically damaging it by methods which we cannot easily combat.

And I'll give you one hint what that is, you stupid mother****ers. It's a good thing they taught you how to do those girl pushups in gym class, 'cause we just went down a path where if we lose, we'll be doing those eight times a day.

We just bought a war so big that we can be assured of decades of our best and brightest being diverted into it. Our team captains, the heads of our debating clubs, the most dependable drug dealers in town--they're all gonna go down the tubes with the rest of this ****. Combating asymmetric warfare requires our very best these days, not you ****ing idiots who cheered it along.

And they'll be the ones who die, not you. And the ones who lead you will be the ones scarred by this warfare. And the most insane and ruthless of them will find the message which squirms your fat asses to the voting booth, because he'll figure out that it's easier to lie to the top and continue the fight than it is to solve the ****ing problem.

So sit there and laugh at me when this bullshit "war" lasts merely a month, or a year, or a decade, and maybe you'll remember me when I told you it was the first unjust battle which sparked a war against a tide of ignorance so vast you can never win. You just ****ed with someone and left them nothing left to turn to except a god more irrational and psychotic than your own.

This may be the very descent of man, because when I play it out I see that we are about to submerge back into the very sublime slime from which you refuse to believe you emerged. There you shall reign as particulate fools among the detrius of kings.

I'll fight you fools to the end, and if there isn't a God who can pull your heads out of your own asses [rest omitted]

[Face Ache]

Washington Post:

US unable to win in west Iraq, Marines say

THE US military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report.

"The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same in the troubled Anbar province, a senior US intelligence official said.

The report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival", fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across Baghdad.

"From the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realised — Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalised," the report says. Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help US forces because they are seen as likely to leave Iraq before imposing stability.

Between al-Qaeda's violence, Iran's influence and an expected gradual US withdrawal, "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" that US and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar". At least 90 US troops have died in Anbar since September 1.

The report paints a stark portrait of a failed province and of the country's Sunnis — once dominant under Saddam Hussein — now desperate, fearful and impoverished. They have been increasingly abandoned by religious and political leaders who have been assassinated or who have fled the country.

And unlike Iraq's Shiite majority or Kurdish groups in the north, the Sunnis are without oil and other natural resources. The report notes that illicit oil trading is providing millions of dollars to al-Qaeda while "official profits appear to feed Shiite cronyism in Baghdad".

The Iraqi Government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shiites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there. Anbar's resources and its ability to impose order are depicted as limited, at best.

"Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all Government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by al-Qaeda in Iraq," or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said this week that Iran would do whatever it could to help provide security to Iraq amid warnings the country was on the brink of civil war.

Mr Ahmadinejad made his pledge to help Iraq at the start of a visit to Iran by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

"The Iranian nation and Government will definitely stand beside their brother, Iraq," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

The five-page US Marines report — written by Colonel Peter Devlin, a senior and seasoned military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force — is marked secret, for dissemination to US and allied troops in Iraq only.

The report, State of the Insurgency in al-Anbar, focuses on conditions in the province that is home to 1.25 million Iraqis.

Colonel Devlin describes al-Qaeda in Iraq as the "dominate organisation of influence in al-Anbar", surpassing all other groups, the Iraqi Government and US troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni".


Hezbollah training Baghdad militia

A SENIOR American intelligence official says the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah has been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia based in Baghdad's Sadr City slum.

The official said that between 1000 and 2000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militia groups from Iraq had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon, mostly in small groups. The US official said that a small number of Hezbollah operatives had also visited Iraq to help with training there.

Iran had helped with the links, the official said, and Syrian officials had also co-operated, though there was debate among intelligence officials about whether it had the blessing of Syria's senior leadership.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, what does everybody think about this?

I'm more interested in what people think about the implications of NBC's decision rather than if you think Iraq is actually in a civil war or not, though what you think about it will have obvious relevance.

I'm not sure what I think about it. It certainly appeals to my natural dislike of euphemism.

In one of Bush's press conferences a couple of months ago, he declared unequivocally that a civil war in Iraq would be a failure of policy. I was pretty shocked that he would throw down like that. The administration is obviously not going to like this.

Thoughts?

surprised it took them so long to admit it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

It isn't a fine line at all.

Yeah, it's a fine line. N. Korea should be proof enough that agreements founded among criminals are meaningless.

No, augmented troop deployment will have no effect.

I wonder how Saddam managed to keep civil war at bay for so long. I think it had something to do with fearsome presence. Now, there are a great many things our soldiers cannot do, but there are a great many things they can. They are quite adept at blowing things up and killing people and they're a hell of a lot more precise in so-doing. We need more presence. Action against those who commit and/or plan to commit terror needs to be swift and deadly and painfully apparent to moderates. They need to know that fighting is occurring for future peace.

It's far too late -- we've been "staying the course" for too long

I thought I saw that little catch-phrase on a bumpersticker, right under the one that said "hate is not a family value" and "Goddess Bless". A change in course is not "staying the course".

and nothing we've "accomplished" so far says that we can do anything at this point.

With that logic and degree of optimism, I wonder what makes me think you'll ever have a cogent argument.

Iraq will cycle through various leaders, eventually ending up with a strongman much like Saddam Hussein. Only such a leader will be able to control the violence.

So, you're saying that our presence there has not been fearsome enough?

A "pro-Western" leader would be smashed (I can't figure out where you got that fantasy??). Or, Iraq will just disintegrate and end up as an Afghanistan.

I got that fantasy from a little knowledge of Iranian culture. Attempting to educate the severely xenophobic who assumes the average Middle Easterner is a barbarian who only reacts favorably when "strong-armed" and is incapable of civility would be a shameful waste of my time.

You seem to be pretty sanguine about the civil war, and letting events unfold, as thousands of Iraqis are dying every month.

- rape rooms
- torture chambers
- death camps and mass graves
- oppressive economic sanctions over the past 12 years only having served to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people to death.

Spare me your racist "good intentions" and humanitarianism. These virtues only perk your interest when an (R) is reacting to it. You didn't care about Iraqi people dying before, don't pretend you give a damn now.

Oh and... bye.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I got that fantasy from a little knowledge of Iranian culture. Attempting to educate the severely xenophobic who assumes the average Middle Easterner is a barbarian who only reacts favorably when "strong-armed" and is incapable of civility would be a shameful waste of my time.

...or South American, or European, or African, or Asian...which is where examples of needing a strong, undemocratic leader who has no compunctions about using brutal force to control civil unrest come from.



greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...or South American, or European, or African, or Asian...which is where examples of needing a strong, undemocratic leader who has no compunctions about using brutal force to control civil unrest come from.



greg

If you say so.

I say often times the type of "civil unrest" we're talking about are those attempting to rise up against the uncivilized. I don't believe the people of South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia are incapable of civility and democracy. I believe it is wholly xenophobic to operate under this notion. There have been those examples in America too, this doesn't mean we're resolved to accept the actions of our most rogue elements as indicative of our entire culture.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i agree wanting to believe is ignorance

but back to topic: if the baker report suggests working with syria and iran, wouldn't that be the biggest burn to gwb?

GWB is under the assumption that Syria & Iran want to defeat Israel and America.

Negotiating means being willing to give up something to get something in return. Compromising with either nation means giving them something they can use to defeat us in the long term in order for us to get immediate relief.

Who is better poised to negotiate from a position of strength?

US or them?

What contributes to this weakness?

CNN shows that the American people are panicking and wanting to run from Iraq as fast as possible.

In the end, American support for the Vietnam War faded. Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the antiwar demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a "conditional surrender," Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah, it's a fine line. N. Korea should be proof enough that agreements founded among criminals are meaningless.


I wonder how Saddam managed to keep civil war at bay for so long. I think it had something to do with fearsome presence. Now, there are a great many things our soldiers cannot do, but there are a great many things they can. They are quite adept at blowing things up and killing people and they're a hell of a lot more precise in so-doing. We need more presence. Action against those who commit and/or plan to commit terror needs to be swift and deadly and painfully apparent to moderates. They need to know that fighting is occurring for future peace.


I thought I saw that little catch-phrase on a bumpersticker, right under the one that said "hate is not a family value" and "Goddess Bless". A change in course is not "staying the course".


With that logic and degree of optimism, I wonder what makes me think you'll ever have a cogent argument.


So, you're saying that our presence there has not been fearsome enough?


I got that fantasy from a little knowledge of Iranian culture. Attempting to educate the severely xenophobic who assumes the average Middle Easterner is a barbarian who only reacts favorably when "strong-armed" and is incapable of civility would be a shameful waste of my time.



- rape rooms
- torture chambers
- death camps and mass graves
- oppressive economic sanctions over the past 12 years only having served to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people to death.

Spare me your racist "good intentions" and humanitarianism. These virtues only perk your interest when an (R) is reacting to it. You didn't care about Iraqi people dying before, don't pretend you give a damn now.

Oh and... bye.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah, it's a fine line. N. Korea should be proof enough that agreements founded among criminals are meaningless.

My point exactly. I said that there's no fine line because there is no room for any agreements, in my opinion. I guess you are saying it's a fine line because we can negotiate with Iran and Syria through the Iraqi government?

So, you're saying that our presence there has not been fearsome enough?

I'm saying it's too late. We have screwed up every aspect of post-war Iraq. It's too late to change the course now, and try to fix things when we have been staying the course deeper and deeper into disaster for so long. The best we can hope for is to redefine "victory" into what we would have unambiguously been called a defeat before the invasion. That's what Bush is doing now.

I got that fantasy from a little knowledge of Iranian culture. Attempting to educate the severely xenophobic who assumes the average Middle Easterner is a barbarian who only reacts favorably when "strong-armed" and is incapable of civility would be a shameful waste of my time.

If you say so. But I think you mean Iraqi culture? It's so easy to confuse the two countries -- we even invaded the wrong one.

- rape rooms
- torture chambers
- death camps and mass graves
- oppressive economic sanctions over the past 12 years only having served to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people to death.

Spare me your racist "good intentions" and humanitarianism. These virtues only perk your interest when an (R) is reacting to it. You didn't care about Iraqi people dying before, don't pretend you give a damn now.

I care about Iraqis now not for any (R/D) reason, as you assert, but because it is now America's responsibility. We got involved, and if things fall apart it is our fault. It's interesting that you have gone from supposedly caring pre-war, to staying the course now even as thousands of Iraqis die every month.

(Also, I think estimates of Iraqi deaths before the war were exaggerated. You have to realize that American intelligence was simply parroting Iraqi opposition groups, who had every incentive to lie. If you use the same generous estimation techniques now as were used then, I bet you'd count hundreds of thousands of Iraqis still dying today. In fact, this has been done -- search the forum.)

Edit: Here it is: 650,000 Iraqi deaths since the beginning of the war: Elsevier
I'm not defending the methodology of this study (although it is definitely the case that our counts are underestimates), but would be very surprised if it was significantly worse than the pre-war estimates that 150,000 were dying every year from sanctions.
Mark Goldblatt on Iraq on National Review Online

[marden]

...