Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Bush is losing the war!

Bush is losing the war!
Thread Tools
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 10:27 AM
 
According to the latest polls the American peoples approval of how Bush is running the war is at an all time low. Given the Republican Convention has not yet convened, who in the Republican Party can take the bull by the horns an prosecute this war with the intent of winning it, and quickly. I'm afraid Bush the 2nd is as equally soft as bush the 1st when it comes down to the end game. We should not be in this game if we're not in it to win. The polls show we need leader with the will to conclude this quickly and decisively. Bush may not be the one to do it.
     
dreilly1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 10:44 AM
 
We already won the war -- Saddam is no longer in power.

We're in danger of losing the peace, though, which is just as bad as losing the war. While even a weak new government would be better than life under Saddam, that government will get nowhere if it doesn't have support of the people, so if we don't turn things around our choices would be to stay in Iraq permanently and prop up the weak government (thereby legitimizing the notion that we want to create a puppet regime) or pull out and let the Sunnis and Shiites battle it out themselves, with even more people dying and the eventual victor probably repressing the losing side. Neither proposition is acceptable, but it doesn't seem like the Bushes know what to do if their "handoff" next month doesn't go smoothly. Bushes do seem to have problems with the end-game, don't they?

We haven't lost the peace yet, though, and there are a lot of positive developments throughout Iraq: you never hear about problems in the North, for instance, because the Kurds have things pretty well under control there and are acting like they know how to govern themselves. In fact, things have the potential to go too well; if the Kurds decide to create their own state while the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting, that could create its own problems.

As for the party conventions, both Republican and Democratic, they're both just rubber-stamp affairs now; perhaps the only suprise left on both sides is who the vice-presidential candidates will be. Republicans who don't like how Bush is prosecuting the war (all six of them) will now have to decide for themselves whether their opposition to the war should lead them to a different candidate (or even lead them to stay home on election day...)

Member of the the Stupid Brigade! (If you see Sponsored Links in any of my posts, please PM me!)
     
djohnson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 10:59 AM
 
Originally posted by dreilly1:
We already won the war -- Saddam is no longer in power...


This is how wars have been won for ages. You kill or capture the opposing ruler and you win. End of story. Oh and to the victor go the spoils!
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 11:44 AM
 
dreilly1 made me wonder something. Stop and think for a moment: Why are we are so determined to keep Iraq together? Iraq is not a natural state; it is an artificial construct of three provinces of the old Ottoman Empire. Why don't we peacefully split up Iraq in three nations; a kurd one in the north, a sunni one in the middle and a shi'a one in the south? These people have been forced to coexist for several decades, why not just split them up? I know the ramifications are many but it is food for thought.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 12:06 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
dreilly1 made me wonder something. Stop and think for a moment: Why are we are so determined to keep Iraq together? Iraq is not a natural state; it is an artificial construct of three provinces of the old Ottoman Empire. Why don't we peacefully split up Iraq in three nations; a kurd one in the north, a sunni one in the middle and a shi'a one in the south? These people have been forced to coexist for several decades, why not just split them up? I know the ramifications are many but it is food for thought.
Then everyone will blame the US when they start shooting at each other.

I still say give the land to the Palestinians.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 12:09 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Then everyone will blame the US when they start shooting at each other.

I still say give the land to the Palestinians.
I said peaceful. A negotiated split.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 12:10 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I said peaceful. A negotiated split.
I see. Do you think peace is possible?
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 12:12 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
I see. Do you think peace is possible?
Yes I do. I think its a more a case of calming jittery neighbors to three states. Turkey doesn't want the kurds to have a homeland and the US doesn't want a shi'a state aligning itself with Iran.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 01:10 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
dreilly1 made me wonder something. Stop and think for a moment: Why are we are so determined to keep Iraq together? Iraq is not a natural state; it is an artificial construct of three provinces of the old Ottoman Empire. Why don't we peacefully split up Iraq in three nations; a kurd one in the north, a sunni one in the middle and a shi'a one in the south? These people have been forced to coexist for several decades, why not just split them up? I know the ramifications are many but it is food for thought.
I don't think that's such a good idea.

A Kurdish state, with sovereignty over the northern oil-fields would no doubt piss Turkey off and would probably lead to war. If the Shi'ites were granted the southern territory, they would gain sovereignty over the rest of Iraq's major oil reserves - leaving the middle with almost nothing.
     
dreilly1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by djohnson:


This is how wars have been won for ages. You kill or capture the opposing ruler and you win. End of story. Oh and to the victor go the spoils!
Yeah, but remember Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule:
If you break it, you've bought it!
So, it's not remotely the end of the story.

Member of the the Stupid Brigade! (If you see Sponsored Links in any of my posts, please PM me!)
     
:dragonflypro:
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kuna, ID USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 05:58 PM
 
An excerpt from aynrand.org

_
America's Compassion in Iraq is Self-Destructive
Fighting a compassionate war is immoral; it is costing the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and emboldening our enemies throughout the Islamic world.
_

By Yaron Brook and Elan Journo
_
The bloody siege in Fallujah and the standoff against a religious warlord, Moktadr al-Sadr, and his militia indicate that the war in Iraq is worsening. Things are going badly not because—as some, like Sen. John Kerry, claim—the United States is arrogant and lacking in humility, but because it is self-effacing and compassionate.

The Bush Administration's war in Iraq embraces compassion instead of the rational goal of self-defense. Such an immoral approach to war wantonly sacrifices the lives of soldiers and emboldens our enemies throughout the Middle East to mount further attacks against us.

Morally, to fight a war in self-defense requires that one soundly defeat the enemy while safeguarding one's forces and citizens. But America's attention has been diverted to rebuilding Iraqi hospitals, schools, roads and sewers, and on currying favor with the locals (some U.S. soldiers were ordered to grow moustaches in token of their respect for Iraqi culture.) Since the war began, Islamic militants and Saddam loyalists have carried out random abductions, devastating ambushes, and catastrophic bombings throughout the country. That attacks on U.S. forces (including those engaged in reconstruction efforts) have gone unpunished has emboldened the enemy.

Stark evidence of the enemy's growing audacity came in March with the grisly murder and mutilation of four American contractors. America's response to the attack confirmed the militants' expectation that they can get away with murder. Following the attack, U.S. forces entered the city of Fallujah vowing to capture the murderers and punish the town that supports them. But such resolve was supplanted by compassion.

In the midst of the fighting the United States called a unilateral ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid in and to enable the other side to collect and bury its dead. The so-called truce benefited only the enemy. The Iraqis, as one soldier told the Associated Press, were "absolutely taking advantage" of the situation, regrouping and mounting sporadic attacks: as another soldier aptly noted, "It is hard to have a ceasefire when they maneuver against us, they fire at us." As the siege wore on, the goal of capturing the murderers quietly faded—and the enemy's confidence swelled.

Not just in Fallujah, but throughout this war the military (under orders from Washington) has been purposely treading lightly. Soldiers have strict orders to avoid the risk of killing civilians—many of whom aid or are themselves militants—even at the cost of imperiling their own lives. Mosques, which have served as hideouts for terrorists, are kept off the list of allowed targets. Military operations have been timed to avoid alienating Muslim pilgrims on holy days. By confessing doubt about its moral right to defend itself, America has encouraged further aggression.

There is no shortage of aggressors lusting for American blood, and they grow bolder with each display of American compassion.

Consider the shameful tenderness shown toward the Islamic cleric Moktadr al-Sadr, who aspires to be the dictator of an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq. An admirer of the 9/11 hijackers, Sadr has amassed an armed militia of 10,000 men (right under the noses of our military), and demanded that Coalition forces leave Iraq. On the run for the murder of another cleric, he took refuge with his militia in the holy city of Najaf, which has been surrounded by U.S. troops. Rather than attacking, however, the United States agreed to negotiate. It is as absurd to negotiate with and trust the word of a villain such as Sadr as it would have been to negotiate with Nazis bent on wiping out Allied forces in World War II. It is shockingly dangerous that the United States has allowed a mediator from Iran—part of the "Axis of Evil" and Sadr's ideological ally—to assist in the negotiations.

For the enemies of America, Iraq is like a laboratory where they are testing our mettle, with mounting ferocity. The negotiations with Sadr and now with the leaders of Fallujah; our timid response to the insurrections throughout Iraq; America's outrageously deferential treatment of its enemies—all of these instances of moral weakness reinforce the view of bin Laden and his ilk that America will appease those who seek its destruction.

If we continue to wage a compassionate war, it will be a matter of time before Islamic militants bring suicide-bombings and mass murder (again) to the streets of the United States.

Though Washington may be blinded by the longing to buy the love of Iraqis, our service men know all too well that (as one put it): "When you go to fight, it's time to shoot—not to make friends with people." In its might and courage our military is unequaled; it is the moral responsibility of Washington to issue battle plans that will properly "shock and awe" the enemy. Eschewing self-interest in the name of compassion is immoral. The result is self-destruction.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 07:55 PM
 
Originally posted by Orion27:
The polls show we need leader with the will to conclude this quickly and decisively. Bush may not be the one to do it.
There are two parties, and two candidates. Out of those two parties, and two candidates, one isn't quite sure whether there even is a war, and if there is, whether it is better politics to win it, or lose it by recreating the heady days of hippydom and Hanoi Jane.

Given that, there isn't really much of a choice.
     
zen jihad
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Just a groove in "G"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 08:04 PM
 
Just to chime in here, with an update on the horrendous US abuse of Iraqi prisoners. M. Moore's new film, shown at Cannes, has documented footage of abuse, outside the prisons themselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/3720569.stm
     
zen jihad
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Just a groove in "G"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 08:05 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are two parties, and two candidates. Out of those two parties, and two candidates, one isn't quite sure whether there even is a war, and if there is, whether it is better politics to win it, or lose it by recreating the heady days of hippydom and Hanoi Jane.

Given that, there isn't really much of a choice.
What of the other?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 08:38 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are two parties, and two candidates. Out of those two parties, and two candidates, one isn't quite sure whether there even is a war, and if there is, whether it is better politics to win it, or lose it by recreating the heady days of hippydom and Hanoi Jane.

Given that, there isn't really much of a choice.
So you'll vote for the guy who's losing the war, who lied to start the war and made sure that we were unprepared for the consequences. That makes sense.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 09:22 PM
 
Originally posted by tie:
So you'll vote for the guy who's losing the war, who lied to start the war and made sure that we were unprepared for the consequences. That makes sense.
Then convince me that the Democrats are interested in winning the war.
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 09:45 PM
 
Are you sure the war is winnable?
The war on drugs has been a miserable failure...
     
Orion27  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 09:46 PM
 
Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
An excerpt from aynrand.org
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 09:59 PM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
Are you sure the war is winnable?
The war on drugs has been a miserable failure...
The "war on drugs" is a rhetorical device like the "war on poverty" or the "war on cancer" or the "war on post-Christmas flab."

But thank you for demonstrating what I wrote earlier:

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are two parties, and two candidates. Out of those two parties, and two candidates, one isn't quite sure whether there even is a war, . . .
A party that can't tell the difference between a domestic social policy and a mortal threat isn't ready for government.
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 03:34 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The "war on drugs" is a rhetorical device like the "war on poverty" or the "war on cancer" or the "war on post-Christmas flab."

But thank you for demonstrating what I wrote earlier:



A party that can't tell the difference between a domestic social policy and a mortal threat isn't ready for government.
I didn't say there wasn't a war. I questioned if we could win the war.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 05:10 AM
 
Originally posted by dreilly1:
We already won the war -- Saddam is no longer in power.
No, you won the major combat operations. The official position is that the war is not yet over. Let's talk on June 30 about who won the war!
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 05:15 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The "war on drugs" is a rhetorical device like the "war on poverty" or the "war on cancer" or the "war on post-Christmas flab."
We've had similar discussions before, but never this particular one. Why is the Wars on Drugs a rhetorical device and the War on Terror is not?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 05:27 AM
 
YOu forgot:

War on gay marriages
War on teenage pregnancies
War on STD's
War on anti-bush left-wing media

hmm...

What are we talking about again?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 06:11 AM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
I didn't say there wasn't a war. I questioned if we could win the war.
And I question most Democrat's commitment to even trying. Hence my amusement over this latest tactic of claiming that Bush is "losing" a war that the Democrats have (with varying degrees of honesty) opposed. For three years now they cheered every setback, booed every success, endorsed every lunatic conspiracy theory, embraced every opponant, foreign and domestic, and never, ever, offered anything constructive in exchange other than sage advice not to try.

With honorable exceptions (like Joe Lieberman, whose leadership the Dems rejected) the Democrats simply have no credibility to claim to be concerned about a war they obviously fervently hope we lose. That is, if they even grasp that it is more than a law enforcement problem.

Sorry. The Democrats just aren't a serious party. I'm worried about the post 9/11 world. Most of you are still living in Florida of 2000.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 06:21 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And I question most Democrat's commitment to even trying. Hence my amusement over this latest tactic of claiming that Bush is "losing" a war that the Democrats have (with varying degrees of honesty) opposed. For three years now they cheered every setback, booed every success, endorsed every lunatic conspiracy theory, embraced every opponant, foreign and domestic, and never, ever, offered anything constructive in exchange other than sage advice not to try.

With honorable exceptions (like Joe Lieberman, whose leadership the Dems rejected) the Democrats simply have no credibility to claim to be concerned about a war they obviously fervently hope we lose. That is, if they even grasp that it is more than a law enforcement problem.

Sorry. The Democrats just aren't a serious party. I'm worried about the post 9/11 world. Most of you are still living in Florida of 2000.
Wait a minute, are you saying that the democrats oppose the WOT? When did they say that? I know they oppose the war in Iraq but not the WOT.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 06:44 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Wait a minute, are you saying that the democrats oppose the WOT? When did they say that? I know they oppose the war in Iraq but not the WOT.
War on terror, hmmm? When was the last time a democracy called out the war on terror, that was in Hitler-Germany. With the war on terror, Hitler was able to oppress any free thinking in Germany, any opposition and could quickly get laws through that reduced all liberal rights to just lipservice. He was also able to extend the rights of his secret-agencies and paramilitary troops in Germany. The war on terror also legitimised Hitler in the eyes of the germans to attack other countries, terrorism had to be fought against wherever the terrorists hide...

The USA is also going that street minus the genocide at least for now.

Taliesin
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 10:13 AM
 
Let's see I am a left wing nut and I opposed the war in Iraq. I do (still do) support the war in Afghanistan because any nation or regime that harbors a group that kills 3,000 Americans deserves to be destroyed.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Monique
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 12:22 PM
 
The question is not that he is losing the war but he is hardly winning the peace.

In today's standard that everything has to be solve now it is hard to understand civilisations that take a long time to do something, understand concepts and achieve results in years not in seconds.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 12:26 PM
 
Yes, we are in danger of losing the peace in Iraq. Grave danger. We have to chnage our tactics and thinking very fast or everything our men and women on the ground did, all the sacrifices they made, will be for nothing.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Gustav Gans
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cyprus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 12:28 PM
 
Originally posted by djohnson:


This is how wars have been won for ages. You kill or capture the opposing ruler and you win. End of story. Oh and to the victor go the spoils!
You've already won the war? In my and, frankly, a great number of other people's, opinion this would be considered completely absurd. With invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein, you have simply done that: invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power. This war has definitely not come to an end. As a matter of fact, the U.S. and allies have suffered the largest amount of casualties in the last months. It is rather to say that the war has just started. What an oblivious and ignorant statement!
     
dreilly1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 01:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Gustav Gans:
You've already won the war? In my and, frankly, a great number of other people's, opinion this would be considered completely absurd. With invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein, you have simply done that: invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power. This war has definitely not come to an end. As a matter of fact, the U.S. and allies have suffered the largest amount of casualties in the last months. It is rather to say that the war has just started. What an oblivious and ignorant statement!
I agree with all that you're saying, and while djohnson was agreeing with the words of my posts, he wasn't agreeing with the spirit it was offered. I contend that this phase is different than when we first went in a year ago. That portion of the war, if you will, has been won and won decisively. But as MacGorilla said, we still need to do more, or else the sacrifices made in the first phase will be in vain. We'll have done a good job at getting rid of Saddam, but perhaps replacing his rule with a greater tyranny.

You can call what we're doing right now "losing the war" or "losing the peace" -- quite frankly, it's just a matter of semantics. But what does matter is that we seem to be very good at the Invading and Conquering phases, but not very good at teh Rebuilding phases. Of course, we'll see when June 30 rolls around. I hope I'm wrong, and the turnover will go smoothly, and the Iraqis will get an interim government they can trust to hold fair elections. But I have my doubts.

Member of the the Stupid Brigade! (If you see Sponsored Links in any of my posts, please PM me!)
     
Gustav Gans
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cyprus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 03:38 PM
 
Originally posted by dreilly1:
But what does matter is that we seem to be very good at the Invading and Conquering phases, but not very good at teh Rebuilding phases. Of course, we'll see when June 30 rolls around. I hope I'm wrong, and the turnover will go smoothly, and the Iraqis will get an interim government they can trust to hold fair elections. But I have my doubts.
Here I agree with what you are saying but I see it as more obvious that the handing-over of power from the Americans to the "democratic" Iraqi government (which is rather ironic as those government officials have not been elected by the Iraqi people) will not go smoothly and will definetly be postponed.
That is, it will, of course, most probably, not be an "offical" postponement, but it will occur anyway. Now, the question here is whether it was every truly intended that the power would be yielded so soon or whether it was simply a cover-up action that would fool the general populace into believing this is just a simple, victorious, move in-conquer-and move out war. The forces will stay there in any case, and the iraqi government will act like a hung jury...
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:06 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And I question most Democrat's commitment to even trying. Hence my amusement over this latest tactic of claiming that Bush is "losing" a war that the Democrats have (with varying degrees of honesty) opposed. For three years now they cheered every setback, booed every success, endorsed every lunatic conspiracy theory, embraced every opponant, foreign and domestic, and never, ever, offered anything constructive in exchange other than sage advice not to try.

With honorable exceptions (like Joe Lieberman, whose leadership the Dems rejected) the Democrats simply have no credibility to claim to be concerned about a war they obviously fervently hope we lose. That is, if they even grasp that it is more than a law enforcement problem.

Sorry. The Democrats just aren't a serious party. I'm worried about the post 9/11 world. Most of you are still living in Florida of 2000.
As far as I can tell, this thread is about the war on Iraq. Which is related to the war on terror -- ties up US military and financial resources, distracts from the war on terror, makes the US hated abroad, rallies terrorist organizations -- but isn't quite the same thing. Your juvenile position on the war on terror, claiming that Democrats fervently support terrorism, is completely ridiculous (although not so surprising in this forum).

Regarding the war in Iraq -- I believe it can still be won. But the current band of misfits running things can't do it. Bush has made mistakes all the way -- at the very least misinterpreting (perhaps essentially fabricating) WMD evidence, neglecting preparations for after the war, declaring victory too soon, not sending as many troops as were needed, mishandling the torture scandal, etc.
     
Saad
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:28 PM
 
Then everyone will blame the US when they start shooting at each other.
I would imagine forcefully keeping the groups together, especially under the governing coucil (with its faux Israeli flag) will inspire more violence than dividing the country.

My theory is that if they split, the Shia would go theocratice, and become less than hospitable towards Americans.

If the Americans damage the shrines to Ali (Najaf) Hussein (Karbala) or Abbas (Karbala) hell will be unleashed. Grand Ayatolla Ali Sistani and the rest of the Muslim world have insisted that the Americans and followers of Saadr (a wanted murderer, and all 'round thug) leave the sites. Now Americans are being quartered in Mosques? This is simply bad publicity, stupid politics, and dangerous.

[If you don't know who they are, the are the most respected and revered martyrs of Islam. Ali is the brother in law to Muhammad (saas). Hussein bin Ali is the grandson of Muhammad (saas). Abbas is the grandfather to Muhammad (saas)]
( Last edited by Saad; May 18, 2004 at 11:29 PM. )
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 11:22 PM
 
They were killing each other when we got there.

And they'll be killing each other when we leave.

That's how things are in that neck of the woods.
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 01:37 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
They were killing each other when we got there.

And they'll be killing each other when we leave.

That's how things are in that neck of the woods.
So you agree we've accomplished nothing?
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 06:14 AM
 
Originally posted by tie:
Your juvenile position on the war on terror, claiming that Democrats fervently support terrorism, is completely ridiculous (although not so surprising in this forum).
That's not my position. What Democrats (or at least a good chunk of them) fervently oppose isn't terrorism itself. It's treating terrorism as the threat it is.

Many of you seem willing to "fight terror" if that is defined as taking only passive measures -- fortifying buildings, conducting police investigations. But you oppose anything beyond the powers authorized prior to 9/11. Hence the paranoid attacks on the Patriot Act.

But you won't look at the full dimensions of terror. Specificacally, you won't look at its state sponsors. Now that Afghanistan is a fact on the ground, many of you claim to support the use of military power there. But many Democrats were muttering about "carpet bombing" and so on when that campaign was underway. The opposition to the war in Iraq was underway then. It was just less open.

Painting broadly, what many Democrats oppose is the "war" on terror. But you are ok with the "law enforcement operation" against terror. In other words, what you want to do is to return to the pre-9/11 policy. You know, the policy that lead to 9/11. That was the Dean POV, and Kerry has suggested it too. And it's really dangerous -- an indication that a lesson has not been learned.

Of course, there is a fringe that does support terrorism. Or basically any anti-western military force. Those are the ones out there praising the "resistance" in Iraq. I believe that Michael Moore called them "the Minutemen." Those are crazies. But the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party is powerful. So is the wing that sees Bush as a much more important enemy than Al-Queda. You'd support any of this if a Democrat was in the White House. But not with a Republican.

Until I see Democrats grapple with the full dimentions of the war on terror and start doing more than coming up with objections, silly "lied" claims, stop cheering the bad news and booing the good, and stop all the stupid, childish conspiracy theories, I conclude that any mouthings of support for the WOT are insincere.The Democratic Party of today is not the Scoop Jackson party, or the JFK party. The Democratic Party today is the party of Cynthia McKinney and Nancy Pelosi. You simply aren't a serious national defense party. You are not ready to take the reins in a war you basically don't believe in.
     
Saad
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 06:50 AM
 
This is how wars have been won for ages. You kill or capture the opposing ruler and you win. End of story. Oh and to the victor go the spoils!
Not wars of liberation. Which war have we engaged in where we deposed the leader, and left the country in such a state?
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 08:50 AM
 
Originally posted by Orion27:
According to the latest polls the American peoples approval of how Bush is running the war is at an all time low. Given the Republican Convention has not yet convened, who in the Republican Party can take the bull by the horns an prosecute this war with the intent of winning it, and quickly. I'm afraid Bush the 2nd is as equally soft as bush the 1st when it comes down to the end game. We should not be in this game if we're not in it to win. The polls show we need leader with the will to conclude this quickly and decisively. Bush may not be the one to do it.
I agree.

About the only thing the Republicans can bank on is that they can say that Bush did not appease the terrorists.

It would have helped greatly if the Bush Administration knew how to defend the country rather than fight the "humanist" war they fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, with its food drops, its concern about killing "innocents," and its seeking, and failing to get, broad international support.

Further, it would have behooved the Bush Administration to take a good hard look at his priorities in the war on terror, and if they really did, Iraq would be on the back burner as we finished off Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and those in Pakistan and Iran who safe-harbored these animals.
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 08:54 AM
 
Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
An excerpt from aynrand.org
I wish that EVERYONE on this forum would read, and re-read this.

Nothing speaks the truth more than this article.
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 08:59 AM
 
Originally posted by djohnson:


This is how wars have been won for ages. You kill or capture the opposing ruler and you win. End of story. Oh and to the victor go the spoils!
That's not how it happened in World War II.

We atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Japan surrendered. We never captured the Japanese leader Hirohito.

For that matter, we never captured Hitler, either.

You must soundly defeat the opposing nation. If they are invaders, you drive them clearly out of your country.

An enemy is defeated when it is either vanquished or it surrenders.

Then the spoils can go to the victor.
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 09:06 AM
 
Originally posted by saab95:
Nothing speaks the truth more than this article.
Whilst the article may be true, it begs the question of why the US went to war.

The best way to win a war, any war, is to annihilate the opposition. If they are no more, then they will not (can not) fight. The Ayn Rand article esposes this.

Is that what you went to war for?

If you believe that annihilating all opposition is the only way for you to sleep well in your beds, then I pity you.

Why do you think that you went to war? Self-defence?
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 09:07 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[B]That's not my position. What Democrats (or at least a good chunk of them) fervently oppose isn't terrorism itself. It's treating terrorism as the threat it is.
That's why the Democrats in Congress voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Pelosi and Clinton are in the background. Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards are very much influential now.

It is incumbent upon the current administration to either defend the country or not.
The Bush Administration hasn't done a thing to reduce the threat of Iran and its nukes. They needed the wake-up call of 9-11 before they did anything about Al Qaeda and terrorism.

Today's Republicans are NOT Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower or John Foster Dulles. They are a bunch of humanist homos, afraid of brinkmanship. It's no wonder the international community plays America for a sucker.
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 09:09 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

A party that can't tell the difference between a domestic social policy and a mortal threat isn't ready for government.

So how exaclty was Iraq a 'mortal threat' before the invasion/occupation?
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 09:15 AM
 
Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
An excerpt from aynrand.org
gee, that strategy might work if one was conducting a genocide...but we aren't quite there yet are we? Oh and we all know how well that stratgey worked out for the Russians in Chechnya, I mean they sure crushed them didn't they.
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 09:15 AM
 
Originally posted by christ:
Whilst the article may be true, it begs the question of why the US went to war.

The best way to win a war, any war, is to annihilate the opposition. If they are no more, then they will not (can not) fight. The Ayn Rand article esposes this.

Is that what you went to war for?

If you believe that annihilating all opposition is the only way for you to sleep well in your beds, then I pity you.

Why do you think that you went to war? Self-defence?
America, as a free country and one where a large amount of individual rights are still enjoyed, has the right to defend itself against brutal attack in a forceful manner.

America had no choice but to go to war against Afghanistan, a country that sponsored, trained, supported, and harbored Al Qaeda, the very people who attacked us on September 11th. What's pathetic is that Bush Administration thought they could solve this matter by diplomacy, not even by brinkmanship, thereby wasting nearly a month to respond.

I don't believe that annihilating all opposition will make us sleep well. I believe that fighting a war against a known enemy who attacked you, and annihilating THEM, or otherwise forcing them to unconditional surrender, is a strong step in the right direction and fully justified.

The Bush Administration failed miserably in Afghanistan to do this. Osama Bin Laden's still on the loose. All that means is that they cannot declare victory as the enemy is still ever-present.
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 09:15 AM
 
Pres. Bush says "We do not need a permission slip from the UN to defend ourselves."

Hmm... so we invaded Iraq to defend ourselves. So what are we defending ourselves against?

WMD
WMD related activities
Sadam, he is evil
Terrorist, they are all in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is our buddy.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 09:21 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What Democrats (or at least a good chunk of them) fervently oppose isn't terrorism itself. It's treating terrorism as the threat it is.
Being ex army we expect you to be in favour of the War in Iraq. Army blokes like seeing tanks roll across the TV screen and troops scurrying for cover while plumes of smoke fly out the back of an Apache. I can therefore understand that you prefer the candidate that supports the War in Iraq. I don't understand why you support Bush over Kerry on the War on Terror because it seems to me Kerry eloquently expounds many of the ideas you've put forward.

John Kerry has never, to my knowledge, said that battling terrorism shouldn't be seen as a war. In fact, if you read Madeleine Albright's biography, she says that the Clinton Administration always treated their dealings with Al Qaeda as war. They didn't use the marketing language of the Bush Administration, but their methods were similar. It was more difficult for them to manouever in the political climate they had, but that changes little.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Until I see Democrats grapple with the full dimentions of the war on terror and start doing more than coming up with objections, silly "lied" claims, stop cheering the bad news and booing the good, and stop all the stupid, childish conspiracy theories, I conclude that any mouthings of support for the WOT are insincere.The Democratic Party of today is not the Scoop Jackson party, or the JFK party. The Democratic Party today is the party of Cynthia McKinney and Nancy Pelosi. You simply aren't a serious national defense party. You are not ready to take the reins in a war you basically don't believe in.
I'm not sure you're paying enough attention to what John Kerry is saying. You should read this speech I think. IMHO, Kerry has a holistic approach to the WOT that is sadly lacking in the Bush camp. They've spent most of their term concentrating on an invasion that had little if anything to do with the WOT and has produced terrorists where there were none previously and generally negatively impacted on the US reputation. Bush seems to me to be all talk. He sprouts off binary arguments about good and evil, with us or against us but his strategy for dealing with terrorism is singularly unintelligent. As far as the WOT goes, Kerry seems singularly eloquent if you ask me not to mention battle experienced. I don't agree with everything he says, but he at least appears to have thought about the challenges and how to meet them. Bush seems to be clutching at straws. Iraq is an example of how he's implemented pre-existing policies that were never designed to deal with the threat of terrorism without having developed a comprehensive global strategy. Here are some extracts from Kerry's speech:
"I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little."

"Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations."

"In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment. The President’s budget for the National Endowment for Democracy’s efforts around the world, including the entire Islamic world, is less than three percent of what this Administration gives Halliburton – hardly a way to win the contest of ideas. Finally, by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security strategy that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face."

"George Bush has no comprehensive strategy for victory in the War on Terror – only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay. If I am Commander-in-Chief, I would wage that war by putting in place a strategy to win it.

We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests. But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances."

"[I] will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops ... strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement ... reform our intelligence system by making the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets ... train more analysts in languages like Arabic ... break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement ... cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money .... we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons ... I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons. We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured ..."

"Next, whatever we thought of the Bush Administration’s decisions and mistakes – especially in Iraq – we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan."

"But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas ... We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world."

"I believe we can bring a real victory in the War on Terror."
Actually I think the point that Madeleine Albright and Kerry are making about the war of ideas is an excellent one. I think the greatest weapon the West has against international terrorism is the strength of our ideas on how societies should function. I think that if these ideas are put forward in the right way, they have the power to change the course of events in the Middle East. Bush hasn't maximised the impact of our ideas; he's tried to maximise brute force. He is driving people to fundamentalism and exhibiting the worst aspects of Western, democratic society.
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 09:25 AM
 
Originally posted by hyteckit:
Pres. Bush says "We do not need a permission slip from the UN to defend ourselves."

Hmm... so we invaded Iraq to defend ourselves. So what are we defending ourselves against?

WMD
WMD related activities
Sadam, he is evil
Terrorist, they are all in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is our buddy.


Yes, Iraq does sponsor terrorism.

Yes, Iraq is an international threat, as they were in 1991 when they invaded Kuwait and illegally tried to control the Persian Gulf.

Yes, Saddam is evil and slaughtered many of his opponents.

Bush was fundamentally right when he said "We do not need a permission slip from the UN to defend ourselves."

Still, why Iraq? How did they become a priority? Because they violated a no-fly zone? Because they had some serin-releasing weaponry?

It's coming out that Bush had Iraq in his crosshairs ever since he came into office.

Bush Sr. erred mightily by not moving to overthrow Hussein back in 1991. I wonder if that wasn't inthe back of Bush Jr.'s mind all along.
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2004, 09:31 AM
 
Originally posted by saab95:



Still, why Iraq? How did they become a priority? Because they violated a no-fly zone? Because they had some serin-releasing weaponry?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,