# iraq



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

https://news.bbc.co.uk/

scroll to deadly iraq ambush,
2 minute video worth seeing.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Unbelievable.*

Gentlemen,

Very sad, crazy war we are in. This is one where, am a big fan of paving another part of the world, after we nuke them.
For our own parking lots.
This is a big waste of tax dollars, to leave our troops there.
They are not being supplied. This is a different class of war. Urban villages is difficult.
We know they hate us
They do not think we would push the red button.
I favor a multi million dollar bomb, bring back the 450 Billion spent.
And our troops.
Since I retired, the man in the white house, has made me ill.
He need to go.
Gentlemen, nice day

Airborne, De Oppresso Liber


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The conduct of the Iraq war fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe and created more enemies for the United States, a retired U.S. Army general who served in the conflict said on Monday.

The views of retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste buttressed an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies, which intelligence officials said concluded the war had inspired Islamist extremists and made the militant movement more dangerous.

The Iraq conflict, which began in March 2003, made "America arguably less safe now than it was on September 11, 2001," Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, told a hearing on the war called by U.S. Senate Democrats.

"If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents," Batiste said.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

DukeGrad,
As a long time anti-war leftist liberal you may not be surprised that I am against the war. I remain silent most of the time, in part because I hold in such high reguard the men and women in the armed forces and do not wish in any way to offend them. I can, and do however go off on that man in the white house who supports the troops in words only, not in action. Hollow words indeed. I'll not write more - blood pressure rising.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

The humanimality continues, our collective grave dug a bit deeper. At least we will not have to burry ourselves; the imminent ice age will take care of that.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

mpcsb,

I admrie your holding back. Since I have been out, have had the fortune of looking at things in a different light.
After seeing the homeless, the poor, the millions without health care, in this country.
I, am now, an anti-war leftist liberal.
We change, quite a bit.As we go through life, heck I was a democrat one time in my past!
I am in full support of the troops, but worry. I have been there. The 2 women that were killed last week, just made it that much harder to absorb.
We need a change, am in agreement with that.
A big change.
mpcsb, gentlemen, have a nice day


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

*Baghdad Police Academy A Disaster*

Gents,

And to make matters worse, take a look at this article:

https://msnbc.msn.com/id/15022363/


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*The Saint*

Gentlemen

Thank you for that one as well. A big mess, we all know this.
This all is so sad. 
Very sad situation.
500 million for the police academy? What were we thinking? Who had their hand in the money flow on this one?

Always a little bullet each day to awaken me, on this miserable man.
Gentlemen, a Glenlivet weekend for me, am leaving my clinic early!

Nice day my friends, and have a nice weekend


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Last comment*

Gentlemen,

After seeing the album forum, this one here helped me think about my favorite album.

Military Madness, by Neil Young! 1968?

Nice day


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> After seeing the album forum, this one here helped me think about my favorite album.
> 
> ...


Graham Nash, I think.


----------



## Patrick M Thayer (Dec 24, 2004)

Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?" 

The Marine shrugged and replied: "Recoil." 

Some of you left wingers just don't get it! -- the terrorists want to kill you too!


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I think most people, regardless of political persuasion, "get" what the terrorists are about.

Some of us just think the current administration has done a bollocks job of managing what may be the most critical task before us, namely by helping create even more lunatics.



Patrick M Thayer said:


> Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?"
> 
> The Marine shrugged and replied: "Recoil."
> 
> Some of you left wingers just don't get it! -- the terrorists want to kill you too!


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

Long Wing

You are right, I just got Neil Youngs new CD, had him on my mind. I enjoyed Graham Nash then!

Patrick Nash, enjoyed that! You are very right.

Nice day gentlemen
Back to my Glenlivet!


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Edit:

Response to Patrick M Thayer removed,
just not worth the sudden rise in blood pressure!

May the thousands of young Americans who have already fallen, rest in peace,
may someone take the time to think this through once and for all and find resolve that will not render their lost lives wasted.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

'You leftwingers are without honour' says Patrick like a Klingon made late for a trekkie convention by a political protest in the real world. My reaction to such epitaths is a flashback to Ruby Ridge skinheads stomping their jackboots, jerking off nazi salutes and spitting at the National Guard. You are in effect painting your participation in the national dialog into a corner by painting others with a broad brush dipped in pink. WANT TO END THIS MESS TOMMOROW? Announce Saddam Hussein will be returned to power, with EVEN BETTER WEAPONS than our earlier supplies and give Mushareff, Abadinejad, the House of Saud et all 72 hours to cough up bin laden & co. and behave themselves.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Patrick M Thayer said:


> Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?"
> 
> The Marine shrugged and replied: "Recoil."
> 
> Some of you left wingers just don't get it! -- the terrorists want to kill you too!


Where was this guy that Katie was interviewing? The people who are trying to kill our forces in Iraq are not terrorists. Sure, they're the enemy, but it's not terrorism to try to kill the forces of an invading or occupying army.

Left wingers like General Batiste? Is that who you're talking about? It's the conservatives and neocons who don't get it. Or don't you agree with the consensus of all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies that the terrorists have gotten stronger since we invaded Iraq?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> The people who are trying to kill our forces in Iraq are not terrorists. Sure, they're the enemy, but it's not terrorism to try to kill the forces of an invading or occupying army.


Agreed. The British thought the Colonial forces were not very sporting during the Revolutionary War when we'd sneak up on them sometimes instead of meeting face to face on a field of battle like gentlemen. Francis Marion (The Swamp Fox) used to pull surprise attacks and sneak back to the swamps of South Carolina so the British couldn't find him, but he'd have been blown away if he had to use conventional warfare, so he did what he had to do, convention be damned. Terrorists target civilians, the people attacking our troops aren't much different than George Washington sneaking up on the Hessians sleeping off their stupor. You engage in war, rightly or wrongly, and it's a little silly to believe you get to set the rules of engagement for both sides. Couric should know better, but that's TV for you.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

I am on the ground in the neighborhood as I type this. This is a very odd war we're engaged in and I fear that the lives of some of my fellow service members and a huge amount of national treasure are being spent on something we can't clearly articulate. 

I have no conceptual argument against any conflict in the interest of our nation, but we need to know what we want and what criteria we need to call it a "success". 

As for the Katie Couric/sniper anecdote-it sounds a little like an urban legend, but I have heard the same from younger troops and they're entitled, but the pol/mil situation here is a little more complicated than "you don't get it", particularly from someone ensconced in an armchair.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Patrick M Thayer said:


> Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?"
> 
> The Marine shrugged and replied: "Recoil."
> 
> Some of you left wingers just don't get it! -- the terrorists want to kill you too!


From snopes.com:

Claim: U.S. sniper, asked what he feels when he shoots an al-Qaeda member, replies: "Recoil."

Status: False.

https://www.snopes.com/politics/war/recoil.asp


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Misquoting is unfair Kav. Thayer did not say left wingers lack honour.

IMO, the US should never have gone into Iraq. Saddam was a devil we knew and he mainly stuck to killing his subjects since the first Gulf War. But we did go in, so now we need to clean house with unstoppable force. Pussy footing around is just leaving many people alive that will now blame the US for all ills in the world. Yes, most of them did already, but this war gave them abit more grist for the mill. Again though, the US is in, it needs to pacify ruthlessly or pay the consequences of living martyrs.

Clinton hid from the Islamic clash with the Western world and that was wrong. Dubya went picking a fight and that was wrong too IMO. Again though, once you are in a fight, you fight to win, no holds barred. Also, I still say, Europe must be forced to deal with Iran. Europe takes on the arm chair quarterback role too often and too easily. They need to step up to the plate.

Cheers


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Recoil...*

Maybe the whole "recoil" story is like the stories Al Gore used to make up to demonstrate how the Repubs were killing people due to not paying for their drugs. It was the message that was important, not the facts.

Just a thought.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Wayfarer, your right. I did misquote. I'm a leftist liberal according to Thayer for opposing this adventurism. I truly, and in all humility would like to bow down before the alter of conservatism and 'get it.' But Condi is saying she "does not recall" being warned of a potential attack by the C.I. A. Now Condi is supposed to be this bright, highly educated and articulate expert on a poltical entity that no longer exists. Am I supposed to accept a person in her position " does not recall' such an important communicae? If so, how does she get out the door without forgetting her panties. I seem to 'recall' this cavalier reply before by our leaders and public officials. And GW says he will stay in Iraq if only Blondie and Eva, er Laura and Barney still support him. Is that the leadership of a man with popular support? I understand doctor Strangelove Henry Kissinger is a 'member of the family' and advising GW to 'stay the course' just like Vietnam. Perhaps that airport ladder on display should be shipped to Baghdad so we have two rooftop egresses this time. Maybe when our casualties top 56,000 american and a half million iraqis we can all 'get it.' Waste deep in the big sandy, the big fool says to push on- with apologies to Pete Seeger.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav, 

Condi "not recalling"?

Why did Tenet not recall this meeting during the 9/11 commission hearings? It seems that it would be a huge fact that would be critical to the investigation, yet, apparently he forgot to recall it, also.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Kav,
> 
> Condi "not recalling"?
> 
> Why did Tenet not recall this meeting during the 9/11 commission hearings? It seems that it would be a huge fact that would be critical to the investigation, yet, apparently he forgot to recall it, also.


9/11 Commission saw the 'scary' briefing of 2001
By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The independent Sept. 11, 2001, commission was given the same "scary" briefing about an imminent al Qaida attack on a U.S. target that was presented to the White House two months before the attacks, but failed to disclose the warning in its 428-page report.

Former CIA Director George Tenet presented the briefing to commission member Richard Ben Veniste and executive director Philip Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters on Jan. 28, 2004, said three former senior agency officials.

Tenet raised the matter himself, displayed slides from a Power Point presentation that he and other officials had given to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, and offered to testify on the matter in public if the commission asked him to, they said.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

maxnharry said:


> I am on the ground in the neighborhood as I type this. This is a very odd war we're engaged in and I fear that the lives of some of my fellow service members and a huge amount of national treasure are being spent on something we can't clearly articulate.
> 
> I have no conceptual argument against any conflict in the interest of our nation, but we need to know what we want and what criteria we need to call it a "success".
> 
> As for the Katie Couric/sniper anecdote-it sounds a little like an urban legend, but I have heard the same from younger troops and they're entitled, but the pol/mil situation here is a little more complicated than "you don't get it", particularly from someone ensconced in an armchair.


 Thank you for your service, maxnharry.

Perhaps the rest of you could stop grousing long enough to say thank you - or a prayer. Some have more on the line than today's talking points.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> 9/11 Commission saw the 'scary' briefing of 2001
> By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT
> McClatchy Newspapers
> 
> ...


And now a state department spokesman confirms that records show Rice was briefed in a meeting she can't remember:

_By PHILIP SHENON and MARK MAZZETTI
The New York Times
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 - A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday. 
_

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/...&en=5de194832d554019&ei=5094&partner=homepage


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Another prime example of you completely ignoring that which does not fit your agenda. Grouse on ...


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

thanks, jackmccullough,

My reponse to Kav have specified "communicae" (communique), as did his post. The communique, or message, is still in dispute, even by the very intelligence officials who were there, and even part of the very article you linked.

"The former senior intelligence officials challenged some aspects of Woodward’s account of the briefing to Rice, including assertions that she failed to react to the warning and that the information concerned an imminent attack in the United States.

The briefing “didn’t say within the United States,” one former senior intelligence official recounted. “It said on the United States, which could mean a ship, an embassy or inside the United States.”

Meetings are important, and I'm sure Ms Rice attends hundreds. In this effort to shift place/shift blame, accurate recount of the content of the meetings is critically important. Wodward got it wrong. 

So, while Tenet did recall the meeting, he did not recall that Condi gave them the brush off (the original reason that it was such an initial bombshell), because, according to Tenets own staff, it did not happen.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Another prime example of you completely ignoring that which does not fit your agenda. Grouse on ...


I have no agenda. Nor do I need or want your assistance in deciding when to pray and for whom.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

Our current problems in Iraq are very complicated and have multiple permutations which do not lend themselves to being discussed over the internet, at least, not very well. I did two tours in Iraq for a total of 25 months; I volunteered to go back but the military needs physicians in Afghanistan more so I shall be leaving for Afghanistan this December. The only way that some of you will be convinced of necessity of the coalition winning in Iraq and seeing a stable, progressive, democratic Iraq established is for the direct opposite to occur...."let's pull out now, elect Hil president and have the dems to control both Houses." Even as the EMP from nukes in D.C. & N.Y. fries everybody's PC, Nancy Pelosi will insist that George W. should be blamed for not being kind and gentle to the rest of the world; he not the terrorists deserve the blame for the destruction of this country. Maybe a few of us who live can hide out in the mountains of this country where it will be hard to enforce complete control. Since there are so many lawyers that post on AAAC I will try to find out how you can get a license to practice Sharia law. Honestly I do have a friend in Iraq who is a lawyer in Diyala province. Sharia law will be so encompassing that someone would only have one exam to pass and you should not have to pass numerous Bar exam for several States. Think of the money one would save!!! Woops, I think you have to be Muslim to practice Sharia law... but I am sure most lawyers would sign an affadavit attesting to being Muslim. 
Bill


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Three tours?*

Smudger:

You are a true Iron Man. I would like to thank you for the service you are giving the entire free world. Three tours? That is a hat trick to be proud of. Stay safe.

Regards


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'd like to know WHY I should care about Iraq. How much, if any of our oil supply comes from there? And if not to us, to who and what are those beneficiaries contibution in young men and women securing a stable democracy for the surviors of our genocidal sanctions? Why have the magic shadows from the Lincoln memorial stretched to the Tigris now after we materially supported Saddam's brutality with weapons and intelligence. Who was it who authorised GPS locations of Kurdish rebels be given to Saddam after we abandoned them for self interests? For that matter who cares about Afghanistan? The place is nothing but a big poppie farm. Sure, they like to claim Hoffez was really an afghan and not persian, mine lapis lazuli and grow pistachios. But what has Afghanistan done for you and me lately besides provide a Kiplingesq hideaway for bin laden and produce a leader who dresses like a Ferenghi? Democracy? Charity and democracy begin at home. Places like Pine Ridge Dakota where the descendants of Crazy Horse have the nation's highest infant mortallity rate, highest unemployment, shortest adult lifespan, lowest per capita income and education, rampant alcoholism, drug abuse, high rates of suicide, widespread sexual abuse and gross pollution from industrial and military projects finding a convenient dumping ground.They deserve a few doctors too. Iraq? " Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Nuke them all, and let National Geographic sort them out.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Smudger said:


> The only way that some of you will be convinced of necessity of the coalition winning in Iraq and seeing a stable, progressive, democratic Iraq established is for the direct opposite to occur...."let's pull out now, elect Hil president and have the dems to control both Houses."


You may be surprised to know that neither I, nor any Democrat I know, supports Hillary Clinton for president. In part this is because from the beginning, and right up to the present, she supports the war in Iraq.



Smudger said:


> Even as the EMP from nukes in D.C. & N.Y. fries everybody's PC,


EMP from the nukes that Iraq never had?



Smudger said:


> Nancy Pelosi will insist that George W. should be blamed for not being kind and gentle to the rest of the world; he not the terrorists deserve the blame for the destruction of this country.


Actually, I and every Democrat I know supported the invasion of Afghanistan. The complaint is not that Bush has not been "kind and gentle", but that he has not done enough to defeat the terrorists who attacked us. Perhaps if he hadn't withdrawn the special forces from Tora Bora when they had a chance to get bin Laden and moved them to prepare for the Iraq invasion we would have been better off.

Of course, since you are unlikely to believe me, believe the NIE that finds that the terrorist threat is worse now, and that the war has actually strengthened their position.



Smudger said:


> Maybe a few of us who live can hide out in the mountains of this country where it will be hard to enforce complete control. Since there are so many lawyers that post on AAAC I will try to find out how you can get a license to practice Sharia law. Honestly I do have a friend in Iraq who is a lawyer in Diyala province. Sharia law will be so encompassing that someone would only have one exam to pass and you should not have to pass numerous Bar exam for several States. Think of the money one would save!!! Woops, I think you have to be Muslim to practice Sharia law... but I am sure most lawyers would sign an affadavit attesting to being Muslim.
> Bill


I'm not going to attest to being Muslim, but I'm also not crazy with Frist's suggestion earlier today that we we can't defeat the Taliban militarily and we should invite the Taliban into the Afghan government.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

If we must disagree with a physician that voluntarily goes into war, let us disagree with him like gentlemen and keep respect foremost. Whether or not we agreed with the Iraq war (I was against) we are in it now and must win and win in a decisive fashion.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> If we must disagree with a physician that voluntarily goes into war, let us disagree with him like gentlemen and keep respect foremost.


The physician deserves respect for going off to war, yes. But his post was highly political and seemed to leave no room for dissent. Are we to automatically give more weight to the opinions of those who serve in the armed forces? Well, it strikes me that their opinions could be formed as a result of their experiences in the war, or those opinions could have already been strongly held before their experiences over there; it varies from person to person. One person collects data and draws a conclusion, another draws a conclusion and then gathers data to support it while ignoring conflicting data, yet another person has a preexisting opinion but changes his mind as a result of what he sees there, still another person finds that after weighing all information honestly that his initial hunch was correct. We have no way of knowing, nor can we assume that one serviceman speaks for all servicemen. I detected no disrespect from those who responded to the physician's post -- respect for someone's commitment does not necessarily include blanket agreement with that person's views.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

crs said:


> The physician deserves respect for going off to war, yes. But his post was highly political and seemed to leave no room for dissent. Are we to automatically give more weight to the opinions of those who serve in the armed forces? Well, it strikes me that their opinions could be formed as a result of their experiences in the war, or those opinions could have already been strongly held before their experiences over there; it varies from person to person. One person collects data and draws a conclusion, another draws a conclusion and then gathers data to support it while ignoring conflicting data, yet another person has a preexisting opinion but changes his mind as a result of what he sees there, still another person finds that after weighing all information honestly that his initial hunch was correct.


This is hogwash.

You are limited in your capacity as a civilian to the NYT, network television and the internet, all which compress and cherry pick the news of the day. On the ground experiences will always trumph the layman for the very reason that they have to live it 24-hours a day where you can turn it off and on at will. The US military is overwhelmingly for us winning in Iraq and Afghanistan because they see quite clearly what the alternative of pulling out would bring. All of this haggling over should of, could of, would of in Iraq before 2003 is a waste of bandwidth and your time. Our efforts should be on helping the Iraqis and Afghanis fix the problems they now face.

At the end of the day the American people want solutions to complex problems, "never going into Iraq" or "pull out now" are not winning strategies, they are at best bumper sticker slogans and at worst a reciepe for disaster.


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

Ok, now the strategy is to include the Taliban in the Afghan Government after we drove them out.....huh?

Interesting article/time events about 2001 War in Afghanistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_war_in_Afghanistan


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> The physician deserves respect for going off to war, yes. But his post was highly political and seemed to leave no room for dissent. Are we to automatically give more weight to the opinions of those who serve in the armed forces? Well, it strikes me that their opinions could be formed as a result of their experiences in the war, or those opinions could have already been strongly held before their experiences over there; it varies from person to person. One person collects data and draws a conclusion, another draws a conclusion and then gathers data to support it while ignoring conflicting data, yet another person has a preexisting opinion but changes his mind as a result of what he sees there, still another person finds that after weighing all information honestly that his initial hunch was correct. We have no way of knowing, nor can we assume that one serviceman speaks for all servicemen. I detected no disrespect from those who responded to the physician's post -- respect for someone's commitment does not necessarily include blanket agreement with that person's views.


I never said we had to agree with him, merely to disagree like gentlemen. I never said he speaks for all servicemen. I never said someone's opinion deserves more weight. I never said....you get the idea crs,* I never said *all that tripe you just foisted onto my post. However, I find a certain self-admitted liberal attorney to rarely show respect with those that do not toe the line of his beliefs and that was the motivation of my post. I even included I was against the War but you gloss over me showing dissent also. Why is that? Because I simply wanted a person who I find noble in action to not be treated with disrespect?


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*The War*

Gentlemen,

I shall try to distill the debate for us being in Iraq, in Afghanistan and fighting in other places succintly as possible. First of all, read Paul Fregosi's book, Jihad; then read as many of Bernard Lewis's books on Islam and the Middleast. One fundamental fact, that does not seem to register with many Westerners, is that there is a sizable element of people who attest to being Muslim who not only hate us but do so with a vitriol we Westerners find hard to undertstand...it may beyond understanding. Buy a copy of the Koran in English and read it along with Fregosi's book. Then go to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries for a first hand look. Go out and live with them in remote small villages; then go to the large cities and try to mix and mingle with populace at large. Spend some time there, maybe six months. Then review the video of the airliners crashing into the twin towers. The same motives that lauched jihad in the second half of the first millennium drives this current war against infidels, us. If Sadaam had stayed in power, he would have obtained nukes and would have expanded his arsenal of biological and chemical agents expanded to very threatening levels. When his military was restored and his weaponary prepared, he would have declared an all out war aginst the U.S. and our allies. Iraq would have become a giagantic training base for jihadists from the world over. Another minor reason that Iraq was attacked is that Sadaam had done the world a tremendous favor in suppressing the Mullahs and other Muslim extremists and he pushed for an educated technocratic class who travelled abroad. (before the 1990-91 war in which I spent 6 months) This class of people let the U.S. know that they wanted a secular, democratic and progressive state. The President and his advisors thought that if that type of state could be established it would be a beacon throughout the Middleast that, in turn, would lead to more democracies being established in Muslim countries. Sadaam, even though he had oppressed the Mullahs and other religious groups earlier in his career, he was willing to get into bed with the jihadists for support against the Great and Little Satans. The jihadist are maybe 10 to 30% of the populations but they command respect and sympathy from most if not all Muslims. There are many fine Iraqis that I meet throughout the Middleast but they are very afraid of being killed. I saw a lot of the jihadist handy work. Try to see the HBO special Baghdad ER.....you see me for two seconds with the young soldier who asked for some beer. (I do not think I have much of a future in acting). The jidhadist want to kill everyone of us who is not Muslim....if you do not see and understand that fundamental point all these words have been wasted. The Muslim world and specifically those jihadist is very different from us who have this wonderful Judaeo-Christian civilization in which to live. Yes, history matters. So as many of you want to bash Bush, the Republicans, their supporters, Christians or any other group in this war.....think that maybe the jihadist are responsible!!

Bill


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I never said we had to agree with him, merely to disagree like gentlemen. I never said he speaks for all servicemen. I never said someone's opinion deserves more weight. I never said....you get the idea crs,* I never said *all that tripe you just foisted onto my post. However, I find a certain self-admitted liberal attorney to rarely show respect with those that do not toe the line of his beliefs and that was the motivation of my post. I even included I was against the War but you gloss over me showing dissent also. Why is that? Because I simply wanted a person who I find noble in action to not be treated with disrespect?


My comments were in response to yours but not directed at you, if you can appreciate the difference, and I apologize if that wasn't clear. My intent was more along the lines of saying if the physician wants to post a political rant, that's a whole other thing from simply telling us of his experiences in Iraq. Once he starts bringing Hil, etc., into it, he has to expect heated political discourse in which his views carry no more weight than anyone else's.



whnay. said:


> You are limited in your capacity as a civilian to the NYT, network television and the internet, all which compress and cherry pick the news of the day. On the ground experiences will always trumph the layman for the very reason that they have to live it 24-hours a day where you can turn it off and on at will.


But an individual serviceman gets to see only a small part of the whole. A large news organization attempts to capture the big picture and show what's representative of that. Macro vs. micro.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs, fair enough.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*The War*

Gentlemen,

I see the war in a far greater context than you think..moreso than a lot of political pundits who do not see or understand the hatred of these Muslim groups towards the West. If my words appear seem to be a tirade they were meant to be as such...a stout warning that Western Civilization is facing its gratest threat since Hitler. It is a war more difficult to win than previous war...it trys one's patience. It is called asymmetric and is frustrating to Americans who like to wage all-out war and get it over. As statedearlier most Westerners will not believe this is a seriously threatening war until Paris, London, Ottawa, and New York are nothing but ashes and smoke. We are at that stage of Toynbee's downward spiral and nothing short of the miraculous will stop it.

"Horae pereunt et imputantor"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Smudger said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I see the war in a far greater context than you think..moreso than a lot of political pundits who do not see or understand the hatred of these Muslim groups towards the West. If my words appear seem to be a tirade they were meant to be as such...a stout warning that Western Civilization is facing its gratest threat since Hitler. It is a war more difficult to win than previous war...it trys one's patience. It is called asymmetric and is frustrating to Americans who like to wage all-out war and get it over. As statedearlier most Westerners will not believe this is a seriously threatening war until Paris, London, Ottawa, and New York are nothing but ashes and smoke. We are at that stage of Toynbee's downward spiral and nothing short of the miraculous will stop it.


Smudger:

I agree with that 100%. I have been saying repeatedly for months here that the mistake so many are making is believing we are at war with various nation-states. That is not true. The West is being attacked by the pan-Islamic world and that is the true battle. I have been told I am full of it. I hope I am.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

An autobiographical admission, perhaps?


crs said:


> ...another draws a conclusion and then gathers data to support it while ignoring conflicting data...


Smudger: Thank you for your service.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> An autobiographical admission, perhaps?


That's an ignorant statement. Stick to being a seamstress.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Alex is a tailor and forum moderator, both of no mean ability.He is also well regarded by the forum family, and that tanslates into reading his thoughtswith respect if not full agreement. If you seek a similar standing, knock off the playground insults. That there is a 'pan-islamic' anti west sentiment is a given. And 'west' is a clumsy term that includes japanese shinto/buddhist/tao MBAs, world jewry and polynesian cargo cultists.My arguement is with a wrong and ill thought battlefield- Iraq and not the war. Boudicca had Rome on the run until she charged headlong into a classic Legion defensive position. The west needs to find that strategic battlefield.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I think if you read the thread, Kav, you'll see Alex took the first shots. His snide comments about my line of work are just as ignorant, inaccurate and mean-spirited as if I wrote that custom shirtmakers take your measurements and then ship them off to Land's End to have them made at one-tenth the cost. It's obvious to me that he's completely uninformed.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*The War*

Granted that the Muslim fanatics have not or at least have not made any hostile statements towards countries like China, Japan and other countries of the far East, the fact remains is this: what has been discussed and understood for centuries is a notion of Western Christendom or Western Civilization which is understood to have certain cultural virtues....granted we have not always been virtuous throughout our history but the humble fact is that we can write and disagree on many subjects using this medium is testimony to certain intangible virtues that we take for granted. I have a Muslim friend who lives in a rather poor neighborhood of northern Baghdad. She does not have a PC at home but she goes to what we would describe as a commercial internet cafe. She used to e-mail me and tell me about what was going on in her area as my battalion was stationed near her home. The al Quaida locals, somehow, would monitor where her messages were messages were being sent and threatened to kill her even if she used the cafe again. The next day they blew up the cafe and killed the owner and his wife. Kav, al Quaida is in Iraq in large numbers and when we cut bait and run, as I well believe will happen, there will be a major bloodbath in the country. Granted that Iraq is a modern construct being formed after WWI, there is a strong sense of nationality amongst the educated classes in Iraq. Unfortunately there is also a strong hatred between the Sunni and Shia based on history and on what Sadaam has done relatively recently. What has to be done is for the Shia miltias which probably have 10-20% of the male shia as members needs to be disarmed and beni-Sadir needs to be imprisoned. Then, all of al Quaida needs to be rounded up and jailed as well. About 5-10% of the Sunni males belong to al Quaida. Then when the oil money is flowing, Iraq needs to have its infrastructure rebuilt and modernized; also, money should be spent on building homes and businesses. The American military is not a bunch of woad-colored Celts changing into battle. One disgruntled general disagreeing with current military thinking and actions does not invalidate the views of others in reference to Iraq....or even twenty generals disagreed. The establishment of a prosperous, peaceful, and democratic Iraq is the most important objective in this current war. When I first went to the Middleast in 1990, I was suprised to find some Saudi store-clerks worrying that I was going to pull out my pistol and rob them as this was what they had been told in school as what would happen if infidels ever came into their country. Likewise most of the Iraqis feared the Americans; but when we did good things like repair their schools and water treatment facilities they became much more appreciative and willing to view Westerners in a better fashion. Excuse the rambling....what also needs to occur is for other countries, like Japan, the Phillipines, the rest of Europe to contribute as if we do not stop jihad, jihad will reach their countries (maybe in a century or two). I repeat, Sadaam would have obtained nuclear weapons and delivery systems if he had more time. Also, he would have reconstituted his stock of biological and chemical agents and been more than willing to supply any terrorist group with what they needed. Alex, thank you for the kind comments. I am strong supporter of Israel and volunteered to go as a military observer in the latest fight with Hezbollah; alas my boss told me to forget it and get back to work!!! Sadaam with nukes is bad enough, but Iran with nukes should scare every one of you...this is another issue but Iran's hatred of what they call the Great and Little Satans is very scary. If these few words do not convince any of you of the rightness of our cause in Iraq we are doomed as I believe there will be change in our government and a quick withdrawal of our troops. Today, we expect everything in our wars to be perfect....not unlike a video game that so many think is reality.
Bill


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

*"Lacking"*

I think Bertie and Kav sized the issue quite nicely. The execution, handling and management of this "engagement" (can we honestly call this a war??) from a military perspective and civilian (winning of hearts and minds) has been at best "lacking" in every regard. I can't remember the name of the article on MSNBC website, but they said that combat for American Troops in Iraq is similar to gophers popping their heads out of the ground. They try to hit them and they pop their heads underground. There is a term they use for this. Can't remember.

Cheers
TheSaint


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Smudger said:


> The only way that some of you will be convinced of necessity of the coalition winning in Iraq and seeing a stable, progressive, democratic Iraq established is for the direct opposite to occur...."let's pull out now, elect Hil president and have the dems to control both Houses."


From a former fellow Kentuckian, thank you for your service.

I believe this statement of yours hits the nail on the head with regard to the current situation. Although I completely support the President's objectives in the ME I can see no way that his legacy or contributions to our country and its security will be viewed or remembered fondly. This is the problem with a war of preemption; because we will never see how bad the outcome would have been if allowed to run its course, future generations will always see the sacrifices made as too great. I'm confident that we will triumph in the ME and that the threats of Islamofascism will fade, but because so many can't see the alternate outcome they will never appreciate the necessity of this war.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*gophers*

What the coalition is doing in Iraq is more than shooting gophers. You do not hear about all the civic action programs and do not see the good works of the Iraqi government as the media, for whatever reasons, does not tell you of these programs. There is a tremendous effort going into rounding up all sorts of bad guys....which is occurring day by day. The Iranian government is in this fight in a major way. Lincoln would have been hounded from office if the public of today was his public in the 1860's.

Bill


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> I think if you read the thread, Kav, you'll see Alex took the *first shots*. His *snide comments about my line of work* are just as ignorant, inaccurate and mean-spirited as if I wrote that custom shirtmakers take your measurements and then ship them off to Land's End to have them made at one-tenth the cost. It's obvious to me that he's completely uninformed.


With all due respect, crs, you seem to be exhibiting a case of paranoid delusion.

1] *My First Shot:* _Thank you for your service MaxnHarry. Could the rest of you stop grousing for a moment and offer thanks ... or a prayer?_
Either your ego gets the better of you - or you are paranoid - to presume that remark to be directed at you or even written with remembrance that you exist.
2] *... snide comments about your line of work: *Again, you exhibit an extreme opinion of your own importance. I have not a clue in hell what your "line of work" is. Thus I could not comment upon it, snide or otherwise.

What you miss, again with all due respect, is that I came to this thread for one purpose: There are members of the military who are members of AAAC. Some of them are even posting in this very thread. My sole purpose in posting was to thank them ... and perhaps to get a thinking member or two to remember that their words are being read by men taking bullets for them.

You immediately followed my post with a lecture of great importance to those wearing Kevlar vestiment: _And now a state department spokesman confirms that records show Rice was briefed in a meeting she can't remember._ 
Thank you for your respect and consideration for these brave men and women.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> 1] *My First Shot:* _Thank you for your service MaxnHarry. Could the rest of you stop grousing for a moment and offer thanks ... or a prayer?_
> Either your ego gets the better of you - or you are paranoid - to presume that remark to be directed at you or even written with remembrance that you exist.


Shot 1:


Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Another prime example of you completely ignoring that which does not fit your agenda. Grouse on ...


Shot 2:


Alexander Kabbaz said:


> An autobiographical admission, perhaps?





Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I have not a clue in hell what your "line of work" is. Thus I could not comment upon it, snide or otherwise.


The two of us certainly discussed it here:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=56520&page=2&highlight=written

Don't lie to us, Alex.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> or even written with remembrance that you exist.


To refresh your memory, shall I post your PMs, such as the one in which you called me "a bloviating sack of bias?"

You are not being at all truthful in your last post. People should know that.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

CRS, make like a member of our western Christian culture and forgive Alex for any injuries perceived or truly inflicted. Your crying like a Geshe mujahadeen . Smudger, my comparison to the british rebellion was meant to compare us to the romans. We have this wild insurgancy seemingly using classic asymeterical guerilla tactics in Old Mao's guerrilla swimming in the sea of the people stuff. I'm perhaps being an armchair startegist here, but it seems we need to do a little asymetrical back at them, and like that legion pick a battlefield suitable to our plan. I am perhaps to emotionally involved to make measured replies. I spend more time than I care to at our V.A. Hospital as an outpatient. This is the same building I remember holding the doors open for a Spanish American war vet as my WW1 grandfather, WW2 and Korea uncles respectfully waited. I was scared to death I'd fall into the huge urinals. Now My last surviving uncle is that white haired vet instead of the dashing P 61 pilot who looked like a german Dean Martin, I'm in late middle age, passed a painfull kidney stone totally unplanned for in that tiny urinal and was embaressed and there are all these- kids with Iraq injuries. And I look on the wall at the icon of the latest leader with beautific smile and have very dark thoughts about our great Nation having to deal this B.S. again.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Kav said:


> CRS, make like a member of our western Christian culture and forgive Alex for any injuries perceived or truly inflicted.


Of course I will, if he apologizes for his insults and his attempt to mislead the board.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*The War*

Kav et al. There are many of us who have long family histories of service to our country: instead of digressing to list my family history I prefer to try to convince many of you of the rightness of our cause in Iraq!!! Sounding like a broken record, broken record, broken record, I repeat that establishing a democratic, prosperous and modern Iraq is one of if not the most important objectives in this war on terrorism. It is a complicated situation but if you read what I have posted you might understand some of the reasons why we are continuing to fight. A democratic Iraq will blow winds of change all throughout the Middleast which, hopefully, will reduce the threat of Islamic terrorism. Loosing this war will be a disaster for the West. No matter how one disparages the notion of Western Civilization you will recognize those very real and significant differences if you live and travel abroad throughout the world. I hope your suggestion for someone to ask for forgeveness is authentic and not just a simple wink of the eye. Forgive this personal digression but I have to do as such so that you will see that I have a lot of experience with and knowledge about the Middleast, Islam and their histories. And I have more than just a schoolboy's knowledge of what has been termed as Western Civilization. Being in the military, my wife and I have lived over nine years outside of the U.S.. Two and 1/2 years were spent in the Middleast. I have travelled all over the world and, believe me, there is a marked difference between the West and other countries. Most of the far Eastern countries are following the West and in many respects, is close to being totally Western. The Muslim countries are different. Islam thinks of itself as a religion which is divided into countries with artificial boundaries and Islam must be re-established again in those countries where they once ruled, i.e. Iberia, the Balkans and Greece. In Islamic religion, the world can be divided into two parts: dar-el Islam and dar-el Harib. Dar-el Islam is the land of the true believers; dar-el Harib is the land of the infidels or non-believers. It is the duty of Muslims to change dar-el Harib into dar-el Islam. The process of doing this is jihad...which can be anything from a peacefully educational process to a bloody armed attack. I recommend that you purchase Paul Fregosi's book Jihad from Books-A-Million. Fregosi is a very learned French historian who has mastered a lot of primary sources when he wrote this book. Kav, when I read about you going to the VA Hospital and you seeing these young service members my initial visceral reaction was to unload on you and tell you all about the blood, gore, dead bodies I have had to pronounce and how many uniforms and boots I've had to throw away as they were soaked with blood; but that would be wrong. Instead I praise you for going to the VA and recognizing these, the most recent of our national heroes. Every generation has had their fallen heroes. and them that carried terrible scars and mutilations indicating their sacrifice. War is horrible and evil but, sometimes, with all its horror and devastation war is the far lesser of two evils. This war is very frustrating but we must win. I am convinced that many people would rather see us defeated and pulled out of Iraq so as to embarass and hurt President Bush. Obtaining control of the national governement is more important than winning this war. Many Americans despise him more than they despise the enemy; in fact, there are many who believe there really isn't a true enemy but some misguided individuals who should be handled by criminal justice systems throughout the world.

Cheers,
Bill


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

Gentlemen

Thank all the service members, AK you are right. I concur with your thoughts.
There are servicemen there, as we enjoy AA forums.
Maxnharry, you always have my best thoughts, and prayers.
How you doing shipmate?
Hang in there, retirement, is worth it!!
Gentlemen, have a nice evening

Airborne, De Oppresso Liber


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> To refresh your memory, shall I post your PMs, such as the one in which you called me "a bloviating sack of bias?"
> 
> You are not being at all truthful in your last post. People should know that.


 OK. I re-read the thread you linked to. My God, man! Do you really consider yourself so important that people will remember two words you wrote four months ago? "A journalist".

Do you know how many times I have posted instructions on how to launder shirts - supposedly a core purpose of this board? And still the question gets asked, virtually bi-weekly. Members can't even remember how to wash their shirts and you expect me to remember your occupation? I apologise for not remembering that you claim to be a journalist. Mea culpa.

Now what does your supposedly being a journalist have to do with anything I wrote? And how does anything I wrote insult you because of your alleged career? Please explain for the lowly seamstress. There may be one or two others as unintelligient and forgetful as I reading this thread.

____________________________________________________
P.S.: The fact that I consider you a bloviating sack of bias is true. I question its relevance to the matter at hand except as an attempt to divert attention from the presence of military members on this thread.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Come off it, Alex. I have saved your snotty PMs, and playing dumb just won't wash. It just isn't manly to lie like that. Nor is it manly to try to use the flag as a shield while taking shots at people you don't agree with. This thread began with comments critical of the war. We don't have to change direction just because it doesn't agree with your bias. If you want to have a thread praising servicemen, fine, start one. Don't hijack one that begins as the opposite of your view and expect everyone to follow. Just because you buy some ads here doesn't mean people have to take your crap.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Smudger said:


> I repeat that establishing a democratic, prosperous and modern Iraq is one of if not the most important objectives in this war on terrorism.


Bill, given the fact that you've lived and worked in the Middle East, hasn't it become clear to you that establishing a democratic Iraq is impossible? Also, do you really think that what we've done in Iraq has been a help in the war on terrorism? Osama Bin Laden and company couldn't have asked for anything better than us invading Iraq. It makes us look like evil war mongers who hate the Muslim world and it makes him look like he was, well, right. It seems like we've made Iraq another rallying point and breeding ground for those that hate us and for no good reason. Recruiting for Al Quida must be good.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

crs said:


> Come off it, Alex.


Knock it off, you two. If you would like to discuss Iraq or other topics germane to this thread, please do so. If you would like to continue the petty bickering, take it elsewhere.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

jcusey said:


> Knock it off, you two. If you would like to discuss Iraq or other topics germane to this thread, please do so. If you would like to continue the petty bickering, take it elsewhere.


Yes, sir. :icon_hailthee:


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

I just got an e-mail from one of my clients who is in the service over there. He said that his Zimmerli underwear is holding up well even in the rigors of the base laundry.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I just got an e-mail from one of my clients who is in the service over there. He said that his Zimmerli underwear is holding up well even in the rigors of the base laundry.


Can those be made with Kevlar?


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

Odoeater,

One of many compelling reasons for invading Iraq was that Iraq (thanks to Sadaam) has a large population of university educated people amongst the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds. There are several expatriate groups of Iraqis who were very confident that once Sadaam was deposed, there would be a large majority of people of all ethnic and religious groups who would step up and form a democratic government. A major mistake was made by the coalition in not keeping the Iraqi army intact and paid well to keep order. Then in the summer of 2003, various Sunni groups and al Quaida started this terrorist campaign using IEDs and VBIEDs. Al Quaida targeted the Shia, especially those that cooperated with the coalition. Beni Sadir and his militias started retaliating by killing Sunnis. In the meantime, the Shia dominated government did not come down hard on the Shia militias as they should have. The Iranians loved this chaos and moved in and are now funding the Shia militias on a massive scale. Slowly but surely, the coalition is killing more al Quaida than are coming in....which is by far the major source of al Quaida-not the peoples of Iraq. The simple fact is that foreign terrorists come to Iraq to wage jihad and the coalition is killing them in large numbers. It will be frustrating and difficult but if we can hang on until a stronger Iraqi government, which suppresses the Shia militias with a strong Iraqi army, the whole world will benefit. Attaturk had a very tough time of trying to establish a modern government and society in Turkey and it took time but it occurred! Good people in Iraq are very much afraid that we will pull out (which probably will happen) and they will be slaughtered. Several of my Iraqi friends have been begging me to help them emigrate to the U.S., but I have no power to do such. Every American casualty is to be very much grieved but if reducing or eliminating American casualities is what most Americans want then we need to ask our allies to help in this situation. Then what is needed is for NATO and a large contigency of troops from Jordan to go into Iraq and hunt down the bad guys. I repeat....a stable, modern, democratic and prosperous Iraq is in the best interest to the civilized world. I cannot urge you enough to read Fergosi's book and the books of Bernard Lewis. I volunteered to go to Iraq for two tours and now I have volunteered to go to Afgahanistan this December. Ten years from now I can reflect and say that I did what I could to win the war on terror and to stop the bloodbath in Iraq.....which will occur if my reading of the American public is true.


Bill

Bill


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Bill, I appreciate your well thought out response. I guess at this point, I agree with what you are saying - but, I still find it hard to believe that Iraq will ever be democratic. It might some day come under control where there is law and order, but I seriously doubt that it will be in the form of a democracy. In any case, I agree that we can't just pull out now and that we have to finish the job; however, we should stil hold our political leaders in this country accountable for what has turned out to be a tremendous folly. We can't just say to the people that got us into this war, "gee fellas, you guys really fucked up here by getting us into this, but we'll let you stay in power for a few more years until we get this all straightened out." If our current leaders made this many bad decisions so far, there's nothing to say that they won't continue making bad decisions into the future.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

Big O,

I respect your opinions but respectfully disagree. This war has cost a lot in lives and money but so has ever other large scale war in which we have been involved...we have simply forgotten the tragedy and costs. The British have had the most experience in this asymmetric warfare with their conflicts in Malaysia, Kenya, Northern Ireland and Palestine. Although one may argue that the British failed in many of those conflicts,the British did have controlled wins in some; and one important thing is that they-the Brits-were very patient and did not have a public clamouring for immediate success. We have made many mistakes in this war but show me one war anytime which did not have a lot of mistakes both on the "good guy or bad guy" sides. It is not a morass in Iraq. A large majority of the troops going back to Iraq are doing it voluntarilly. If the U.S. has to go it alone with the Brits, it will take another 3 or 4 years to get Iraq quietted down and stable; also we have to get Iran out of the Iraq as the Iranians are funding and agitating the Shia militias. Iran fears a modern democracy in Iraq will cause their own people to rise up against the mullahs and their government. If you had seen all the Iraqi people proudly displaying their ink-stained index fingers indicating that a person had voted, that I did on two separate elections, you would have felt that democracy was the future for Iraq. It is a great feeling to think that one was helping democracy being established in Iraq. One of the problems is perspective that Americans have because of the media. You do not see the good things...like a stock market being established for the first time ever in Iraq. The horrific bombings are indicative of desperation in the ranks of al Quaida and of course, some of the bombings are vengeful actions on the part of the Shia. Likewise, the kidnapping and executions are Shia vs Sunni. We will win but as in so many wars of this nature it takes time.....we-the coalition forces-have had a lot to learn but we have learned ! As stated earlier, if we want to minimize our casualities we need to lean on our allies, who receive a lot of American aid, and have them shoulder some of the burden of this war....the winning of which is in their best interests. Please forgive my spelling errors and syntax errors.....I am a physician who has dictated almost everything I have ever had to put into print. 
Cheers,
Bill


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Bill, I understand that mistakes are inevitably made in the conduct of war. My bigger problem is with getting into this war in the first place. We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first instance, but like you said, now that we're there, we have to do the job right.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I know someone who works over there in conflict resolution among the Iraquis, and that person is not very optimistic that democracy will work. If you predict an outcome, no matter which outcome you predict, you are guessing. I am skeptical whenever anyone expresses a certainty about any resolution of any conflict in the Middle East, except a prediction of perpetual unresolved conflict because that is the only prediction supported by past performance. It is easy to say "finish the job," but there is no indication that finality will ever be reached. Eventually we may have to accept that we will have to pursue our goals through other means.


----------



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

A hog fair will be held in downtown Jedda sooner than " democracy " takes root in Iraq. Or is that Eyerack (TM) ? 
Now back to our right-wing talk radio echo chamber for the neocon talking points of the week.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> I know someone who works over there in conflict resolution among the Iraquis, and that person is not very optimistic that democracy will work. If you predict an outcome, no matter which outcome you predict, you are guessing. I am skeptical whenever anyone expresses a certainty about any resolution of any conflict in the Middle East, except a prediction of perpetual unresolved conflict because that is the only prediction supported by past performance. It is easy to say "finish the job," but there is no indication that finality will ever be reached. Eventually we may have to accept that we will have to pursue our goals through other means.


Here here. I have a feeling that this conflict will outlive all of us, and perhaps our children too.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Here here. I have a feeling that this conflict will outlive all of us, and perhaps our children too.


I have a feeling that eventually we'll put into power some blood sucking dictator that will bring law and order to iraq only to screw us over 20 years down the line. that's how we usually handle these situations.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Jimmy G said:


> A hog fair will be held in downtown Jedda sooner than " democracy " takes root in Iraq. Or is that Eyerack (TM) ?
> Now back to our right-wing talk radio echo chamber for the neocon talking points of the week.


In the words of the late Martin Luther King....

"the soft bigotry of low expectations."


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*Iraq and Democracy*

Gentlemen,

If you read David Bergamini's mammoth, slightly dated but comprehensive history of Japan (Japan's Imperial Conspiracy), you will seriously doubt that democracy would ever be established in Japan. If democracy cannot be established in Iraq, that failure belies the liberal notion that all cultures and peoples are equal. Fukiyama,s book comes to mind; it best explains this liberal notion that all peoples want and can establish liberal democracy. The first actions should be to get control or elminate the Shia militias, then hunt down all the Sunni terrorists, foreign or Iraqi. I believe in the old Judeo-Chrisitian notion of original sin; this is the biological genes that lead to a behavior which is more suited for paleolithic times than now. What part of behavior is substantially based or determined by genetics is up to debate in today's science-psychological circles. If you remember, the decision to invade Iraq was agreed upon by large number of Democrats in Congress who had access to the same classified material that the administation had. President Bush did not lie or fool those in Congress with known false information. He and the government acted in good faith. Democracy can be established in Iraq but it will be too slow a process for many Americans who think these things can be obtained as fast as you can get a Whooper at Burger King. Back to genetics; if we pull out of Iraq too soon, (like what happened in Viet Nam when Saigon fell) there will be a bloodbath. The only way to overcome and control these instincts is to have the benevolent discipline of institutions, like the family, schools, higher education, work sites and government. Human's have this repetoire of behavior which was very helpful in paleolithic times such as outbursts of violence which are not always compatible in modern times. After a few years of peace and prosperity Iraqis, if the Islamic fundamentalist can be controlled, will passionately hold onto democracy. Patiences, gentlemen, patience.

Cheers,
Bill


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JimmyG, nice to see you weigh in with a polite, rational, and cogent addition to this thread. How as lunch with Al Franken yesterday?

Smudger, I was about to bring up the point concerning cultural equality. This whole situation is putting liberals into a very akward position, namely that to buttress their argument against Dubya and the War yet stick to their cultural relativism thesis, they must admit that actually it does appear some cultures are less able than others to move towards representative democracy. While outside the Iraq sphere, the group that best demonstrates this double-think to me is centered in Berkley, Gays for Palestine. The seem very oblivious to the fact that they would be stoned to death by most good Palestinians for their sexual orientation.

Cheers


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> This whole situation is putting liberals into a very akward position, namely that to buttress their argument against Dubya and the War yet stick to their cultural relativism thesis, they must admit that actually it does appear some cultures are less able than others to move towards representative democracy. While outside the Iraq sphere, the group that best demonstrates this double-think to me is centered in Berkley, Gays for Palestine. The seem very oblivious to the fact that they would be stoned to death by most good Palestinians for their sexual orientation.
> 
> Cheers


Indeed, emotional victimhood is the bond they share. And to think the Left is so quick to denounce the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> This whole situation is putting liberals into a very akward position, namely that to buttress their argument against Dubya and the War yet stick to their cultural relativism thesis, they must admit that actually it does appear some cultures are less able than others to move towards representative democracy.


Just as you differ with conservatives on a number of issues, liberals are not in agreement on everything, either. I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. My opinion is that true liberals accept and embrace cultural differences while conservatives want to impose a dominant culture on other cultures within that realm. An oversimplification, of course. But I see no inconsistency with a liberal believing that people in other countries may not see our way of life as the ideal to which they must aspire. In fact, I hold that such a view would be the live-and-let-live essense of true liberalism, as opposed to those who call themselves leftists but are of a more totalitarian nature and not far removed in temperament from their political opposites.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> My opinion is that true liberals accept and embrace cultural differences while conservatives want to impose a dominant culture on other cultures within that realm. An oversimplification, of course. But I see no inconsistency with a liberal believing that people in other countries may not see our way of life as the ideal to which they must aspire. In fact, I hold that such a view would be the live-and-let-live essense of true ...


Cultural differences or moral differences? Often liberals/leftists confuse the two or purposely ambiguate it so as not to have to deal with the issue of morality. It at least seems that part of the culture of the Islamic middle east is suicide bombing. As that is the culture do you embrace it. The problem with moral relativism is that it eventually comes back to bite you in the A**. It assumes that other cultures are neither predatory or violent and that all peoples see this as a baseline for behavior. Based on the events of the past 30 years I would argue that the Islamic middle east is a predatory culture that will take advantage of the West's openness yet will not respect it (Theo Van Gogh, Danish cartoons, etc.). What if the aspirations of that group is to destroy us? Should we respect that aspiration?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> Cultural differences or moral differences? Often liberals/leftists confuse the two or purposely ambiguate it so as not to have to deal with the issue of morality. It at least seems that part of the culture of the Islamic middle east is suicide bombing. As that is the culture do you embrace it. The problem with moral relativism is that it eventually comes back to bite you in the A**. It assumes that other cultures are neither predatory or violent and that all peoples see this as a baseline for behavior. Based on the events of the past 30 years I would argue that the Islamic middle east is a predatory culture that will take advantage of the West's openness yet will not respect it (Theo Van Gogh, Danish cartoons, etc.). What if the aspirations of that group is to destroy us? Should we respect that aspiration?


I think there is a big difference between defending ourselves and imposing our values on others. And even if we were in agreement that imposing our values on a foreign people were the moral choice and were rightly ours to make, the question remains whether this is feasible. I think not.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Just as you differ with conservatives on a number of issues, liberals are not in agreement on everything, either. I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. My opinion is that true liberals accept and embrace cultural differences while conservatives want to impose a dominant culture on other cultures within that realm. An oversimplification, of course. But I see no inconsistency with a liberal believing that people in other countries may not see our way of life as the ideal to which they must aspire. In fact, I hold that such a view would be the live-and-let-live essense of true liberalism, as opposed to those who call themselves leftists but are of a more totalitarian nature and not far removed in temperament from their political opposites.


crs, here is the key thing: accepting differences is one thing, refusing to say something like "female genital mutilation is wrong" is another. The true liberal cultural relativist cannot be consistent in that position without allowing that while some might find the mutiliation repugnant, one can not say it is wrong, as within that culture it is accepted. So back to my Berkley people example, they will have to admit that within Palestinian society, stoning gays to death is neither wrong nor right, merely an aspect of that society one must accept without judgment. That led me to the double-think comment as I have to say I would deem stoning gays to death just for being gay is 100% wrong, 100% of the time and that to back a group that would kill me for being me requires a certain amount (well total actually) of double-think.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs, here is the key thing: accepting differences is one thing, refusing to say something like "female genital mutilation is wrong" is another. The true liberal cultural relativist cannot be consistent in that position without allowing that while some might find the mutiliation repugnant, one can not say it is wrong, as within that culture it is accepted. So back to my Berkley people example, they will have to admit that within Palestinian society, stoning gays to death is neither wrong nor right, merely an aspect of that society one must accept without judgment. That led me to the double-think comment as I have to say I would deem stoning gays to death just for being gay is 100% wrong, 100% of the time and that to back a group that would kill me for being me requires a certain amount (well total actually) of double-think.


You are taking a lunatic fringe and citing them as if they are representative of all or even many liberals, which is unfair. By that logic, neo-Nazis have some conservative viewpoints, therefore they speak for conservatives. I mean, come on, both sides has its kooks.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> You are taking a lunatic fringe and citing them as if they are representative of all or even many liberals, which is unfair. By that logic, neo-Nazis have some conservative viewpoints, therefore they speak for conservatives. I mean, come on, both sides has its kooks.


No, that is an incorrect analogy crs and you know it. The bedrock thesis of the neo-Nazis movement is not the bedrock thesis of "conservatives". However, cultural relativism *is* a bedrock thesis of modern liberalism. The "lunatic fringe" you speak of are merely those that have the courage of their convictions and can maintain consistency with the cultural relativist paradigm. You are correct in that most will be like you (not meaning an insult here) and be "soft" on the thesis, leaving room for themselves to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. While you have questioned above in another post the morality of imposing our values on others, you still wish to retain the ability to deem something outrageous as wrong. You can not do this under cultural relativism. You either accept all cultures and cultural practices as morally equivalent *or* you do not and thus become inconsistent. I am not meaning to be insulting or argumentative, but if you can show me where my logic breaks down, I will feel myself enlightened, as for two decades now, since I became aware of ethical philosophy, I have pondered this question.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> I think there is a big difference between defending ourselves and imposing our values on others. And even if we were in agreement that imposing our values on a foreign people were the moral choice and were rightly ours to make, the question remains whether this is feasible. I think not.


Do you think we are imposing our values on them though? We're not treating them as though we were a 19th century colonial power. They have had free elections, they are in the process of developing an army led and manned by them with a General Staff of their own. I would argue that we are providing the environment by which they can rule according to their own values and within a cultural framework they understand.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It's been 31 years since I sat in situational ethics class, taught by a minister, by the way. I don't believe most people see life in black-and-white terms, much less live their lives that way. The fact that one subscribes to a viewpoint in general does not mean that they must hold to it in a hard line on every issue. On a newspaper, for example, there exists a stylebook, a written guideline for the usage of words. The best stylebook I used said, "The purpose of this book is settle arguments, not create them, but these guidelines are not intended to overrule common sense." In other words, in normal situations, this is the law, but we recognize unusual circumstances when one must make exceptions. What you term have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too is merely that loophole that enables any of us to substitute common sense and compassion in extreme situations. In some cultures it's OK to eat a dog. I suppose I must respect that in their culture it is no more wrong to eat a dog than a chicken and will not impose my beliefs on them and demand they stop eating dogs, but it is so distasteful to me on an emotional level that I wish no part in it and refuse to have anything to do with it or be of any assistance to the dog-eaters.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It's been 31 years since I sat in situational ethics class, taught by a minister, by the way. I don't believe most people see life in black-and-white terms, much less live their lives that way. The fact that one subscribes to a viewpoint in general does not mean that they must hold to it in a hard line on every issue. On a newspaper, for example, there exists a stylebook, a written guideline for the usage of words. The best stylebook I used said, "The purpose of this book is settle arguments, not create them, but these guidelines are not intended to overrule common sense." In other words, in normal situations, this is the law, but we recognize unusual circumstances when one must make exceptions. What you term have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too is merely that loophole that enables any of us to substitute common sense and compassion in extreme situations. In some cultures it's OK to eat a dog. I suppose I must respect that in their culture it is no more wrong to eat a dog than a chicken and will not impose my beliefs on them and demand they stop eating dogs, but it is so distasteful to me on an emotional level that I wish no part in it and refuse to have anything to do with it or be of any assistance to the dog-eaters.


So then, what you are saying, is that despite your protests above where you question the morality of "imposing our values on others", when the excrement hits the fan, you want an out? That you want to be able to question Dubya for his wish to impose Western values such as democracy on Iraq yet when confronted with female genital mutilation or the stoning of gays, you wish to be able to say, "That is wrong"? You might call this "common sense" but I would call it hoisting others on your pitard yet never allowing said pitard to be pointed your way for the very same reasoning.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

crs said:


> I think there is a big difference between defending ourselves and imposing our values on others. And even if we were in agreement that imposing our values on a foreign people were the moral choice and were rightly ours to make, the question remains whether this is feasible. I think not.


Not feasible? Democracy is a western value contruct, the Japanese are as structurally as western as the rest of Europe, the list goes on.

If the people of the ME cannot get their **** together than by God we'll have to do it for them because the stakes are to high to frette over interference or cultural insenstitivity, we cannot afford to pretend the problem doesn't exist anymore. The degradation of woman, the backwardness of business, the corruption at all levels of society, the religious zealotry must be eradicated, whether diplomatically or via the sword. We cannot stand as a model for the rest of the liberal world by not standing up for which we believe in, especially if the going gets difficult. In fact, as noted above, it is our weakness with regards to our cultural supremecy that serves as a crutch for illiberal movements to live on and prosper.

While we're arguing whether GWB is the second cousin of J. Stalin our enemies are spreading hate like wildfire and teaching children the tenets of martydom and religious bigotry. While we're probing for information by depriving people of sleep our enemies are lopping off informants heads or using captives as drugged up suicide bombers.

Wake up!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So then, what you are saying, is that despite your protests above where you question the morality of "imposing our values on others", when the excrement hits the fan, you want an out? That you want to be able to question Dubya for his wish to impose Western values such as democracy on Iraq yet when confronted with female genital mutilation or the stoning of gays, you wish to be able to say, "That is wrong"? You might call this "common sense" but I would call it hoisting others on your pitard yet never allowing said pitard to be pointed your way for the very same reasoning.


There is a certain point where we make a personal choice while respecting the rights of others to make theirs. The ACLU will defend on principle the rights of neo-Nazis to march; that doesn't mean they approve of neo-Nazis or intend to march with them. The fact that I believe a people has the right to determine its form of government without interference from mine does not give blanket approval to anything that government will do. It is not inconsistent to say I believe in your right to run your country, but I cannot be party to certain practices and will neither attack nor cooperate as long as these practices exist.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

crs said:


> There is a certain point where we make a personal choice while respecting the rights of others to make theirs. The ACLU will defend on principle the rights of neo-Nazis to march; that doesn't mean they approve of neo-Nazis or intend to march with them. The fact that I believe a people has the right to determine its form of government without interference from mine does not give blanket approval to anything that government will do. It is not inconsistent to say I believe in your right to run your country, but I cannot be party to certain practices and will neither attack nor cooperate as long as these practices exist.


Though anti-Americanism has always existed, today's parents were only dimly aware of it during their childhoods. Our kids have a scarier reality. In a post-9/11 world, they are used to seeing a constant stream of TV images of hostile overseas rallies, with thousands chanting against us.

"The anti-Americanism is ironic," said Brian Bowman, a student at Lahser High School in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. "They say we're evil, but they accept every dollar we give them. It's like they're saying, 'We hate you, but we need you.' "

The National Association of School Psychologists offers Web pages of advice to help children cope with world affairs. As parents, we're told we shouldn't dwell on worst-case terrorism scenarios, or let kids watch endless war coverage, which could heighten their anxieties.

But in the classes I visited, students -- regardless of their politics -- said they wanted to know more. "We're probably similar to teenagers in the Middle East, but we don't get to see that," said Emily Maki, at Farmington.

Erika Mayer, a Lahser student, lived in Indonesia for two years, while her dad, an auto executive, was based there. "The anti-American feelings were more than you can imagine," she said. "They burned the flag every week in front of the [U.S.] Embassy. I didn't understand how they could hate us so much, because I know we have freedoms they don't have. They don't see the whole picture. They see only our mistakes."

Several Lahser students pointed out that ours is "a government of the people," so all of us are responsible for the nation's reputation. "A lot of countries don't like Bush and blame us for electing him twice," said Katherine Clair.

*Given how news spreads globally today, Kara Koppinger said she wishes the U.S. media would be more careful. "Our media feeds off of our failures, broadcasting them all over the world." People in other countries see American teens carousing in decadent movies, but they don't know that U.S. teens are among the world's leaders in community service.*

*Last month in Denver, 10 Nobel Peace Prize recipients spoke to 3,000 teens at an event called PeaceJam. Some of the Nobel laureates blamed the U.S. for waging war in Iraq rather than feeding the world's hungry and building schools. Others called for negotiations with terrorists. The Michigan students rejected the idea of negotiations with al Qaeda, and many were unhappy that PeaceJam included so much finger-pointing at President Bush and the U.S.*

At Lahser, Brittney Galliers was wearing dog tags with a small photo of her cousin attached. He was a U.S. soldier in Iraq who died in a roadside bombing in December. All this anti-American talk "would make him sick to his stomach," she said, because he felt he was fighting for freedom in Iraq.

On the day I visited Farmington, teacher Lisa Sievert showed her class a 2005 survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. *It found that in Jordan, for instance, 60% of those surveyed had confidence in Osama bin Laden as a world leader; 41% had an unfavorable view of Christians, and 100% had an unfavorable view of Jews. In Lebanon, 49% of Muslims supported using suicide bombings against U.S. soldiers in Iraq.* In Pakistan, just 22% have a favorable view of the American people. Large numbers of non-Americans in the survey labeled us as "rude," "immoral" and "violent."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> There is a certain point where we make a personal choice while respecting the rights of others to make theirs. The ACLU will defend on principle the rights of neo-Nazis to march; that doesn't mean they approve of neo-Nazis or intend to march with them. The fact that I believe a people has the right to determine its form of government without interference from mine does not give blanket approval to anything that government will do. It is not inconsistent to say I believe in your right to run your country, but I cannot be party to certain practices and will neither attack nor cooperate as long as these practices exist.


You get extra points for continuing to use neo-Nazis as your example of choice. I think we could grant you the "First to Mention Hitler" award by default on this thread.

However, fighting for their free speech vs. fighting for a government to allow female genital mutilation are substantially different. I would think that a newsperson of your experience, intellect, and wit would see this. Unless of course, you are drawing them as moral equivalents. Allowing a society to form or continue with their own type of government is not equivalent to tacit endorsement of abhorent practices such as stoning gays. You are being very cagey not to make a statement of right vs. wrong but personalizing it to yourself. Have the cajones to take a stand and say, "Female genital mutilation is wrong no matter the cultural mileu."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> You get extra points for continuing to use neo-Nazis as your example of choice. I think we could grant you the "First to Mention Hitler" award by default on this thread.
> 
> However, fighting for their free speech vs. fighting for a government to allow female genital mutilation are substantially different. I would think that a newsperson of your experience, intellect, and wit would see this. Unless of course, you are drawing them as moral equivalents. Allowing a society to form or continue with their own type of government is not equivalent to tacit endorsement of abhorent practices such as stoning gays. You are being very cagey not to make a statement of right vs. wrong but personalizing it to yourself. Have the cajones to take a stand and say, "Female genital mutilation is wrong no matter the cultural mileu."


Which U.S. politician is fighting in favor of female genital mutilation? You use the most severe examples possible hoping to thus rope someone into agreeing with you so you can then say, aha, if you agree with me here, you have to agree with me there. I am being careful because I do not wish to play that game. Hitler, genital mutilation, both outrageous. You don't care for my analogy, I don't care for yours. I win First To Mention Hitler, you win First To Mention Destruction Of My Favorite Place On Earth, female genitals.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Which U.S. politician is fighting in favor of female genital mutilation? You use the most severe examples possible hoping to thus rope someone into agreeing with you so you can then say, aha, if you agree with me here, you have to agree with me there. I am being careful because I do not wish to play that game. Hitler, genital mutilation, both outrageous. You don't care for my analogy, I don't care for yours.


I am not saying a US politician is fighting for it. I am saying people should take a stand against it and that if you stand against it yet deem yourself a cultural relativist, you are being a hypocrit. Yes, I am indeed trying to get you to agree with me on this issue. I understand you are being careful to try and toe the relativist line yet somehow make out you are against such practices. It is indeed an impossible situation I have put you in and I did it on purpose.

It is not that I do not care for your initial analogy using neo-Nazis, it is just that it was not a valid one. You yourself said that neo-Nazis and conservatives share the same stance on some issues. I do not disagree with that. What you did not say is that the core principles of the neo-Nazis movement *are the exact same* core principles as conservatism. As I pointed out, the analogy is flawed because cultural relativism *is a core principle, *a bedrock thesis to modern liberalism and you have yet to deny this (which would be silly as we both know it is a core principle).



crs said:


> I win First To Mention Hitler, you win *First To Mention Destruction Of My Favorite Place On Earth, female genitals.*


Okay, that wins Funniest Statement award for this thread. That was a good one


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*GHWB with his daughter Doro on Larry King*

As I write this GHWB is on Larry King with his daughter Doro.

It's amazing how different the son is from the dad.

GHWB basically says that GWB doesn't normally get his opinion on major decisions. He says that he doesn't want to interfere and that it's now GWB's turn.

That's admirable for GHWB but sad for this country!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> As I write this GHWB is on Larry King with his daughter Doro.
> 
> It's amazing how different the son is from the dad.
> 
> ...


Fascinating how American Presidents are much more likable once they are out of office.


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

Interesting, informed, rational conversation here.

It's rare for an Iraq related conversation to last five minutes before at least one party has descended into emotionality, vitriol and insults.

So far I agree with Wayfarer.

This relativism is a way of shirking responsibility for the social problems in other countries. There are women - African women - campaigning against genetic mutilation but their voices are drowned out by the passionately apathetic (for want of a better term.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Newton said:


> Interesting, informed, rational conversation here.
> 
> It's rare for an Iraq related conversation to last five minutes before at least one party has descended into emotionality, vitriol and insults.
> 
> ...


Finally, someone that agrees with me!

Seriously though, welcome to the board and The Interchange. Whether we agree on a topic or not, polite, spirited debate is something I always enjoy


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*History of Islam*

I, very politely, challenge you, my fellow AAAC collegues to obtain some of the books I have mentioned and read them. Then write your critical comments about the war in Iraq. If you want to read only one book, read Paul Fregosi's Jihad.
Cheers,
Bill


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Smudger said:


> I, very politely, challenge you, my fellow AAAC collegues to obtain some of the books I have mentioned and read them. Then write your critical comments about the war in Iraq. If you want to read only one book, read Paul Fregosi's Jihad.
> Cheers,
> Bill


Barnes & Noble customers rate this book a 3 on a scale of 1-5.

From The Critics
Booknews
Rather frantic conservative polemic in the guise of a history of Muslim "holy wars" against the Christian West. Seeks to root all contemporary political violence by Muslims in the militant doctrines of Islam, and warns of a dire long-term threat from Islamic civilization. Includes b&w photographs of victims of Muslim terrorism and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem raising his arm in Hitlerian salute, in case you hadn't made the connection. Annotation c. by Book News, Inc., Portland, Or.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Smudger said:


> I, very politely, challenge you, my fellow AAAC collegues to obtain some of the books I have mentioned and read them. Then write your critical comments about the war in Iraq. If you want to read only one book, read Paul Fregosi's Jihad.
> Cheers,
> Bill


I have read Fregosi's book and found it unimpressive. I have also read an ample, but not exhaustive, selection of Bernard Lewis's vast output. Lewis is impressive when writing as a scholar; he is less so when writing as a foreign policy maven, grand strategist, and holder of proprietary insights into the "Muslim mind."

As an alternative, I would suggest reading several of the following volumes:

_The Modern Middle East: A History_ James Gelvin
_A History of the Modern Middle East_ William Cleveland
_The Modern Middle East: A Reader_ Hourani & Khouri (eds.)
_The Venture of Islam_ (3 vols.) Marshall Hodgson
_A History of Islamic Societies_ Ira Lapidus
_Warriors Of the Prophet_ Mark Huband
_The Mantle of The Prophet_ Roy Mottahedeh
_All The Shah's Men_ Stephen Kinzer
_A History of the Arab Peoples _and _Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age 1798 - 1939_ Albert Hourani
_Orientalism_, and numerous other volumes by Edward Said
_Unholy Wars_ John K. Cooley
_Mirage_ Aileen Keating
_The Crusades_ Carol Hillenbrand
_The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy_ Emran Qureshi (ed.)
_A Peace to End All Peace_ David Fromkin 
_God's Rule: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought _Patricia Crone
_Medieval Islamic Philosophical Writings_ Muhammad Ali Khalidi (ed.)
_The Encyclopedia of Islam_ is staggering work of scholarship, of prohibitive cost, but browsing through its volumes at a well-stocked university library can be a fascinating way to pass a rainy afternoon.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

You all have left out:

_Wayfarer's Way: The Pan-Islamic War on the West or Paranoid Canuck?_


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You all have left out:
> 
> _Wayfarer's Way: The Pan-Islamic War on the West or Paranoid Canuck?_


From all good bookstores?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Might I add a notable book to the possible reading list?

From Wikipedia (admittedly sometimes a questionable source, but, in this case, accurate):

"Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq or Milestones -- first published in 1964, is a book by Egyptian Islamist author Sayyid Qutb in which he lays out a plan and makes a call to action to re-create the Muslim world.

The title Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq translates into English as "Milestones Along the Way" or "Milestones Along the Road". English translations of the book are entitled simply "Milestones," (The book is also sometimes referred to as "Signposts").

Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq is probably Qutb's most famous and influential work, the most important ingredient making up the ideology known as of Qutbism, and one of, if not the most influential Islamist tracts ever written. It is often described as a major influence on radical Islamist terrorists [specifically bin Laden]."


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*Books*

Despite the reviewers criticisms of Fregosi's book, it is something one interested in the Iraq problems should read nonetheless. The ruthless, barbaric and bloody acts and the human suffering as a result of these acts that I saw can be understood only when you read some work like Fregosi. In Iraq, we meet several men who had been taught all their lives to hate Christians and Jews and that we were going to kill them, rape their women and enslave their children. Said's book is a counterbalance to Fregosi and should be read as well. I am not a learned scholar of the Middleast as many of you are but, I have lived for 2 and 1/2 years in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and this experience, to me, lends a lot of credence to Fregosi's book. That does not mean that I am a Islamophobe who wants to kill all Muslims but there is a barbarity that can be only understood in the context of history. In December of 1990 our squadron landed in Saudi Arabia at King Fahd International Airport near Daharan. Over the next few days my job was to make contact with the Saudi Air Force Medical system and see if we could help each other. We did the same with other coalition medical facilities as well. I was invited into an Iraqi physician's home where he was wonderfully gracious and a fine host. Early in the evening, his wife spoke sternly to their children-in Arabic of course-and urged them to go to bed. The physician laughed a little bit and told me that his wife was mildly scaring the children to go to bed as "Richard the Lion-hearted" was going to get you if they did not obey their mother. It turns out that for centuries, instead of using the "boogey-man", Muslims having been scaring children with Richard the Lion-hearted. In OIF, we saw some horrendeus atrocities committed against innocent women, children and old men....we often heard that al Quaida and any other bad guys would justify the killing of innocents by saying if they-the victims-were good Muslims they would go to heaven!! I do not wish to demonize Islamic Societies. Rather, I am trying to explain why and how there is such a marked difference between what we see in Islamic countries and elsewhere. Reading Mein Kampf helps one to understand Hitler and what happened to the Third Reich; however, that does not mean that you agree with it necessarily. My military frends who had tours of duty in the Balkans in the 1990's were astonished at the hatred between Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim ethnic groups.....reading Fregosi helps you understand that hatred. Before anyone wants to condemn me as a right-wing religious nut please know that I have many Muslim friends and am trying to help some obtain academic positions in the U.S.; we need to rebuild Iraq and do all we can to help the Iraqis establish a modern, prosperous Iraq. This will take time and sacrifice from us; I have tried to do my part in a small way. I head to Afghanistan in December.

Cheers, 
Bill


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Smudger said:


> Despite the reviewers criticisms of Fregosi's book, it is something one interested in the Iraq problems should read nonetheless. The ruthless, barbaric and bloody acts and the human suffering as a result of these acts that I saw can be understood only when you read some work like Fregosi.


Life is short, Bill, and if I were to spend my free time reading a book about the Middle East, I would want to choose a book that experts respect, and one in which the author does not seem to have an axe to grind. I do not have the time or inclination to make a yearlong, intensive study of the problems in the Middle East, therefore I would want what I read to be either a scholarly work or a piece of journalism because they conform to fairly standardized systems of proof, and from what I see, Fregosi does not seem to qualify on those grounds.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*Books*

Trying reading his book first, then decide. 
Bill


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Life is short, Bill, and if I were to spend my free time reading a book about the Middle East, I would want to choose a book that experts respect, and one in which the author does not seem to have an axe to grind. I do not have the time or inclination to make a yearlong, intensive study of the problems in the Middle East, therefore I would want what I read to be either a scholarly work or a piece of journalism because they conform to fairly standardized systems of proof, and from what I see, Fregosi does not seem to qualify on those grounds.


Let's be fair to all sides here. We are most likely to read a book that supports our already existing views on the topic. Add to that the odds of getting an insightful, well researched, unbiased book on the topic are slim to none.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*books*

Read Said's book on Orientalism to balance Fregosi then decide whether to read more. Only two books!!

Bill


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Add to that the odds of getting an insightful, well researched, unbiased book on the topic are slim to none.


Hmmm. Well, yes. This is why I content myself with reading newspapers for such information. And, come to think of it, most of the non-fiction books I read are by newspaper journalists.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Smudger said:


> Read Said's book on Orientalism to balance Fregosi then decide whether to read more. Only two books!!
> 
> Bill


I would suggest that both of these volumes are too tenditious to merit recommendation in this manner. The second edition of Ira Lapidus' _A History of Islamic Societies_ is far preferable as an overview of Islamic society, culture, and thought. Originally published in 1970 as a supplement to the _Cambridge History of Islam_, the second edition is current through 2002. Among its many virtues is an exhaustive 56-page bibliographic essay which will direct the interested reader to any number of specialized works on important topics.


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

Smudger said:


> Despite the reviewers criticisms of Fregosi's book, it is something one interested in the Iraq problems should read nonetheless. The ruthless, barbaric and bloody acts and the human suffering as a result of these acts that I saw can be understood only when you read some work like Fregosi. In Iraq, we meet several men who had been taught all their lives to hate Christians and Jews and that we were going to kill them, rape their women and enslave their children. Said's book is a counterbalance to Fregosi and should be read as well. I am not a learned scholar of the Middleast as many of you are but, I have lived for 2 and 1/2 years in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and this experience, to me, lends a lot of credence to Fregosi's book. That does not mean that I am a Islamophobe who wants to kill all Muslims but there is a barbarity that can be only understood in the context of history. In December of 1990 our squadron landed in Saudi Arabia at King Fahd International Airport near Daharan. Over the next few days my job was to make contact with the Saudi Air Force Medical system and see if we could help each other. We did the same with other coalition medical facilities as well. I was invited into an Iraqi physician's home where he was wonderfully gracious and a fine host. Early in the evening, his wife spoke sternly to their children-in Arabic of course-and urged them to go to bed. The physician laughed a little bit and told me that his wife was mildly scaring the children to go to bed as "Richard the Lion-hearted" was going to get you if they did not obey their mother. It turns out that for centuries, instead of using the "boogey-man", Muslims having been scaring children with Richard the Lion-hearted. In OIF, we saw some horrendeus atrocities committed against innocent women, children and old men....we often heard that al Quaida and any other bad guys would justify the killing of innocents by saying if they-the victims-were good Muslims they would go to heaven!! I do not wish to demonize Islamic Societies. Rather, I am trying to explain why and how there is such a marked difference between what we see in Islamic countries and elsewhere. Reading Mein Kampf helps one to understand Hitler and what happened to the Third Reich; however, that does not mean that you agree with it necessarily. My military frends who had tours of duty in the Balkans in the 1990's were astonished at the hatred between Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim ethnic groups.....reading Fregosi helps you understand that hatred. Before anyone wants to condemn me as a right-wing religious nut please know that I have many Muslim friends and am trying to help some obtain academic positions in the U.S.; we need to rebuild Iraq and do all we can to help the Iraqis establish a modern, prosperous Iraq. This will take time and sacrifice from us; I have tried to do my part in a small way. I head to Afghanistan in December.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bill


Bill, a good read, but can you please use the enter key more often as my eyes were swimming there!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Smudger said:


> Despite the reviewers criticisms of Fregosi's book, it is something one interested in the Iraq problems should read nonetheless. The ruthless, barbaric and bloody acts and the human suffering as a result of these acts that I saw can be understood only when you read some work like Fregosi. In Iraq, we meet several men who had been taught all their lives to hate Christians and Jews and that we were going to kill them, rape their women and enslave their children. Said's book is a counterbalance to Fregosi and should be read as well. I am not a learned scholar of the Middleast as many of you are but, I have lived for 2 and 1/2 years in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and this experience, to me, lends a lot of credence to Fregosi's book. That does not mean that I am a Islamophobe who wants to kill all Muslims but there is a barbarity that can be only understood in the context of history. In December of 1990 our squadron landed in Saudi Arabia at King Fahd International Airport near Daharan. Over the next few days my job was to make contact with the Saudi Air Force Medical system and see if we could help each other. We did the same with other coalition medical facilities as well. I was invited into an Iraqi physician's home where he was wonderfully gracious and a fine host. Early in the evening, his wife spoke sternly to their children-in Arabic of course-and urged them to go to bed. The physician laughed a little bit and told me that his wife was mildly scaring the children to go to bed as "Richard the Lion-hearted" was going to get you if they did not obey their mother. It turns out that for centuries, instead of using the "boogey-man", Muslims having been scaring children with Richard the Lion-hearted. In OIF, we saw some horrendeus atrocities committed against innocent women, children and old men....we often heard that al Quaida and any other bad guys would justify the killing of innocents by saying if they-the victims-were good Muslims they would go to heaven!! I do not wish to demonize Islamic Societies. Rather, I am trying to explain why and how there is such a marked difference between what we see in Islamic countries and elsewhere. Reading Mein Kampf helps one to understand Hitler and what happened to the Third Reich; however, that does not mean that you agree with it necessarily. My military frends who had tours of duty in the Balkans in the 1990's were astonished at the hatred between Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim ethnic groups.....reading Fregosi helps you understand that hatred. Before anyone wants to condemn me as a right-wing religious nut please know that I have many Muslim friends and am trying to help some obtain academic positions in the U.S.; we need to rebuild Iraq and do all we can to help the Iraqis establish a modern, prosperous Iraq. This will take time and sacrifice from us; I have tried to do my part in a small way. I head to Afghanistan in December.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bill





crs said:


> Life is short, Bill, and if I were to spend my free time reading a book about the Middle East, I would want to choose a book that experts respect, and one in which the author does not seem to have an axe to grind. I do not have the time or inclination to make a yearlong, intensive study of the problems in the Middle East, therefore I would want what I read to be either a scholarly work or a piece of journalism because they conform to fairly standardized systems of proof, and from what I see, Fregosi does not seem to qualify on those grounds.





Newton said:


> Bill, a good read, but can you please use the enter key more often as my eyes were swimming there!


It would seem to me that a reading recommendation coming from an "eyewitness to history" should carry considerably more weight than book reviews issued by professional writers who rarely venture far from the security they enjoy behind their desk or more than a stones throw from the most available research library. Herein lies the crux of our present problem (s) in Iraq...we should be listening more to the opinions being expressed by the "boots on the ground" and less to the (so called) intellectuals in Washington, who have frequently never heard the whine of a bullet passing close to their head or felt the searing rush of hot air that hits just prior to shrapnel striking ones body. Thanks for the recommendation Smudger...some of us are listening! Regarding the third quote, I agree with Newton, breaking up the script a bit really aids in the reading!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

It would depend, of course, on who that 'eyewitness' is. Primary sources are very important, but so are the subsequent analyses by disinterested professionals.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> It would seem to me that a reading recommendation coming from an "eyewitness to history" should carry considerably more weight than book reviews issued by professional writers who rarely venture far from the security they enjoy behind their desk or more than a stones throw from the most available research library.


I see. So, then, if one seeks to learn something about Polish history and culture one should neglect works of scholarship by Iwo Pogonoski, Norman Davies, and Anita Prazmowska in favor of memoirs by men who served in the Wehrmacht and the Red Army? Or, should one wish to understand the essence of Irish history and the Irish people, one should avoid, say, R. F. Foster's _Modern Ireland: 1600 - 1972_, and rely instead upon tales told by former SAS men after they've had a few pints? Or if one is curious about the Mau Mau insurgency and the end of Empire in Kenya one should ignore _Histories of the Hanged_ and _Imperial Reckoning_, two recent studies based upon extensive archival research, and read in their stead the novels of Robert Ruark and Karen Blixen, because Ruark and Blixen were "eyewitnesses to history", hence more reliable and authentic? Or should Japanese history and culture be one's interest, one would be best served reading E. B. Sledge's remarkable war memoir, _With the Old Breed, _rather than the numerous excellent and comprehensive works by "secure" scholars, because Sledge's "boots were on the ground" and theirs were not? And from this is one correct in assuming that the most thorough and reliable information one may obtain about an alien nation or culture is that acquired by the occupying forces of a foreign imperial power? Splendid. I only wish that I'd had known this years ago. I would certainly have saved a good deal of time and money if such is the benchmark.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*Books about Iraq*

First of all, I apologize about the stated problems of my postings. I am an old physician who is not very adept at using computers. When I took my first and only computer course many years ago we used punch cards and I then swore-off using such technology. Lushington, I do not think that the writing of good history can easily be divided between those who are" there and those who were not there" There are good and bad examples of written history that come from either side in this type of dichotomy. What I am saying in a very simply fashion is that I understand the problems in Iraq and Islamic Sociey as a whole having read Fregosi. That a book may be very tendentious does not mean necessarily that the facts and analyses found in those works are wrong. I shall try to obtain the supplement from CUP that you mentioned. The history of Islam is very much marked by violence, and terrorism. Although the history of Christendom has had its sordid moments, large segments of the Islamic countries still are fired-up and motivated by Jihad as witnessed by the events of today and those of the recent past, starting in about 1979. The fact remains that a large segment of Islam wants to kill all who do not convert to Islam. What did we, the West or the U.S. or the people who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon do to justify what happened on Sept 11th?

Bill


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Hmmm. Well, yes. This is why I content myself with reading newspapers for such information. And, come to think of it, most of the non-fiction books I read are by newspaper journalists.


crs, you're precious. [sarcasm]Amazing how you can get all conversations to turn back to that paragon of virtue, accuracy, and non-bias, the US newspaper industry. [/sarcasm].

By your very words, "...most of the non-fiction books I read are by newspaper journalists" you prove my point that we are most likely to read things we already agree with. QED.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> It would seem to me that a reading recommendation coming from an "eyewitness to history" should carry considerably more weight than book reviews issued by professional writers who rarely venture far from the security they enjoy behind their desk or more than a stones throw from the most available research library. Herein lies the crux of our present problem (s) in Iraq...we should be listening more to the opinions being expressed by the "boots on the ground" and less to the (so called) intellectuals in Washington, who have frequently never heard the whine of a bullet passing close to their head or felt the searing rush of hot air that hits just prior to shrapnel striking ones body. Thanks for the recommendation Smudger...some of us are listening! Regarding the third quote, I agree with Newton, breaking up the script a bit really aids in the reading!





Lushington said:


> I see. So, then, if one seeks to learn something about Polish history and culture one should avoid works of scholarship by Iwo Pogonoski, Norman Davies, and Anita Prazmowska in favor of memoirs by men who served in the Wehrmacht and the Red Army? Or, should one wish to understand the essence of Irish history and the Irish people, one should avoid, say, R. F. Foster's _Modern Ireland: 1600 - 1972_, and rely instead upon tales told by former SAS men after they've had a few pints? Or if one is curious about the Mau Mau insurgency and the end of Empire in Kenya one should ignore _Histories of the Hanged_ and _Imperial Reckoning_, two recent studies based upon extensive archival research, and read in their stead the novels of Robert Ruark and Karen Blixen, because Ruark and Blixen were "eyewitnesses to history", hence more reliable and authentic? Or should Japanese history and culture be one's interest, one would be best served reading E. B. Sledge's remarkable war memoir, _With the Old Breed, _rather than the numerous excellent and comprehensive works by "secure" scholars, because Sledge's "boots were on the ground" and theirs were not? And from this is one correct in assuming that the most thorough and reliable information one may obtain about an alien nation or culture is that acquired by the occupying forces of a foreign imperial power? Superb. I only wish that I'd had known this years ago. I would certainly have saved a good deal of time and money if such is the benchmark.


I don't believe I said that one should not read "works of scholarship" written by academics. Indeed I would recommend the incorporation of such works on one's reading list. However, I also feel very strongly that "works" recommended for our consideration by those that have been there and looked the enemy in the eye, merit far greater consideration than the summary dismissal offered by several participants in these fora. Having been honored with the opportunity to carry the spear for this great Nation in the past, I was at times amazed with the lack of connection between the direction provided by the civilian leadership in Washington and the realities of the battlefield (for example, the rules of engagement for air operations in Korea and Vietnam). Those disconnects led to the loss of far too many good people. So go ahead and read the books written by academics and professional writers but, also try to give fair consideration to the work done by those who don't make their primary living by sitting at the keyboard. First hand observation and personal experience is also valuable.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Smudger said:


> What did we, the West or the U.S. or the people who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon do to justify what happened on Sept 11th?
> 
> Bill


I haven't the smallest interest in debating the cause and effect of 9/11, the merits of the Iraq occupation, or any other matter related to the "clash of civilizations." In response to your rather limited recommendations, I have offered an alternate list of suggested readings for those who may be curious about Islamic history, culture, and thought. Take them or leave them as you please. I couldn't care less.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*books*

Lushington,

Your words are those of a true gentleman. I apologise for you having to deal with such inferiors as myself. 
With kindest regards,
Bill


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*books*

This thread started off discussing Iraq and the war in which we find ourselves. There are many books and articles which shed light on the current situation; the two books I mentioned were not the only books which I have read but they both helped me understand our present situation the most. Please forgive me if this appears as bragging, but I have read four books by Lewis, Hourani's large history of the Arabs, Runciman's History of the Crusades and A Peace to End All Peace is next on my reading list. I have been trying, hopefully in a gentlemanly way with respect to others who may disagree, to understand and help others understand this current war in the Middleast. It is very difficult to understand the hatred much of Islam has for us if you have not seen and experienced this war first hand. I do not think, at least in this thread, we are trying to understand the totality of Islamic culture which is a very big task indeed.
Bill


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> By your very words, "...most of the non-fiction books I read are by newspaper journalists" you prove my point that we are most likely to read things we already agree with.


Nah. I wrote earlier on this thread that I prefer non-fiction books written by academics or journalists because they have standardized systems of accuracy. I understand how journalists work, I trust the system, although certainly mistakes happen. And after decades of editing them, I feel I can see what's flawed and what isn't. It's not a matter of choosing what I agree with, but of choosing the technique I understand and trust.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Nah. I wrote earlier on this thread that I prefer non-fiction books written by academics or journalists because they have standardized systems of accuracy. I understand how journalists work, I trust the system, although certainly mistakes happen. And after decades of editing them, I feel I can see what's flawed and what isn't. It's not a matter of choosing what I agree with, but of choosing the technique I understand and trust.


Again, amazing how all topics turn to the wonder that are journalists.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Patrick M Thayer said:


> Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?"
> 
> The Marine shrugged and replied: "Recoil."
> 
> Some of you left wingers just don't get it! -- the terrorists want to kill you too!


Recoil?! LOL fantastic!


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

The BBC reports that the death toll has now hit 655,000.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

The undisputable is that this conflict is being managed very poorly and was poorly thought out to begin with.

That said, this conflict, being based in such deep routed, long stated and blind hatred is condemned to a dead end.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

Z tell me of a war that has been managed well or at least better than what we are doing now. This is a totally different type of warfare which is very, very difficult to deal with; but win it we must. Winning this war is paramount for liberal democracies. 

Bill


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Smudger said:


> Z tell me of a war that has been managed well or at least better than what we are doing now. This is a totally different type of warfare which is very, very difficult to deal with; but win it we must. Winning this war is paramount for liberal democracies.
> 
> Bill


Paramount in what sense, pray tell?


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Smudger said:


> Z tell me of a war that has been managed well or at least better than what we are doing now. This is a totally different type of warfare which is very, very difficult to deal with; but win it we must. Winning this war is paramount for liberal democracies.
> Bill


Canada, the US and Britain are winning absolutely no ground.
I realize that most think Canada has nothing on the line, but we lose a young man or women in Afghanistan almost every other day.

This is not a war,
it is a conflict, which although similar in nature, is a totally different beast.
Until brains win out over brawn, it will be long, painful and fruitless.

Resolve must be sought, the clash of the cultures must end, to the satisfaction of both sides to ensure a long term peaceful solution.

We are on a dead end path that will not lead us to such results.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

Z, I have nothing but humble thanks and praise for all the brave Canadians who are serving and have lost their lives in this war and of course,all those Canadians who died at places like Vimy Ridge, Juno Beach, and Korea. In this war on terrorism, the media does not show the extensive special forces civic and military actions going on throughout the country; Also, you do not see the building and rebuilding of the infrasructure of Iraq. Many pundits have asked the Democrats the question "What new ideas, plans, or programs do you have to change this war for the better?". What is happening in Iraq is very much a war; random criminal violence never reaches the level of destruction seen there. There are terrorists, who attack in groups, sometimes numbering up to 50. Also, the bad guys have weapons the ordinary criminal does not have, such as 120mm mortars. I have been in several mortar attacks in Iraq and although criminals in Kentucky can be very resourceful, I have not seen any of them use mortars. There are very sophisticated cells of terrorists who have camps where recruits undergo training with tools and weaponry that no criminals have ever used. You only see the tip of the iceburg when you rely on the media for information about the war. Also, there is a large Iranian presence in Southern Iraq which is working with the Shia militias who are attacking the Sunnis and trying to destabilize the elected Iraq government. So, Z the question remains what would you do to change, for the better, the way this war is being waged? Also, I forgot to praise those wonderful Canadians who died at Dieppe. All the best, Bill


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

I will be back later tonight to address your question,

in the mean time,

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6046332.stm


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Bill,

I thought about my response and truth be told,
my thoughts on this are a touch radical, I think even George W would be squeamish at the thought of them. 

This is not the place for me to express such thoughts. 
Given I am the son of two military officers, the subject has been the center of much heated discussion.

The fact is, there is no way out and no way to make it better at this point, as it has gone out of control for far too long, without taking extremely radical action that most will find unpalatable. 

The reality is, we will withdraw licking our wounds and looking the fool. 

Afghanistan I can support far more than Iraq, we should not be there (Iraq) in the first place and now, the US is spread too thin to deal with the issues that are pressing, Iran and North Korea.


From the BBC:

......The agency also says the number of internally displaced is growing,
with some 365,000 Iraqis uprooted this year.

Earlier this week the Baghdad government estimated that about 300,000 people had been internally displaced since February.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

One last thought,

I received an e-mail from a friend of mine who is in SF on his 4th tour in Southern Iraq. He commented that the Iranians are doing all they can to foment a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia and that the Shia in Southern Iraq can unit with Iran or at least form an Islamic Republic similar to Iraq. He also pointed out that the Iranian e-mail traffic to the radical Shia militias in Iraq refer to the notion that Bush will be out of office soon and that the Americans have given up and the elections this November will reflect that. There are a lot of brave Iraqis of various ethnicities are working for democracy and freedom who will be slaughtered if we leave prematurely. If we lose, the Iranians will have another country to help in global jihad. 

Bill


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Zegnamtl*

My friend,

I am in agreement with you as well. Myself, prior military, retired. All male in my family served, GF WW1, my dad WW2, and my 2 brothers.
I spend a lot of time reading the BBC, this is where, you get precise information about what is going on.
My background, is prior SF, many years. 25 total. My friends would hate me, because of the change in my politics.
On the other hand, I see a lot of need, here in this country.
We can do better, and get the men out of there, as soon as we can.
Unfortunately, we will not nuke anyone, anymore.
We should, put their misery to rest.
Anyway, danka for your insight, it is a mess over there.
I am very impressed with the British general, speaking up.

Nice day gentlemen.
And weekend


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Unfortunately, we will not nuke anyone, anymore.
> We should, put their misery to rest.


Who should we 'nuke', and why?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Jargon alert:

SF?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

JLPWCXlll

I am sorry my friend for the comment. It is my own opinion, and I feel an easier way to end things, cheaper.
And we can do it from here, when everyone is back home.
And with the monies saved, start taking care of this country.
Again, my own dumb opinion, am very sorry.
I have a hatred for that part of the world.

You have a nice day my friend, and weekend!


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

Dukegrad et al.,

SF =Special Forces

I have a long family history of military service as well....going back to when we were colonies. Also, I have had three tours of duty for a total of 31 months in the Middle East and I was Surgeon for the 7th Group at Bragg in the early 1980's. I have no love for the Middle East or Islamic countries in general. Tha damned "tough bullet to chew" is the hard fact that there is a large and eager section of the Islamic world who want to kill everyone of us who are not Islamic!!! What does it take to wake you up to this fact?!!!. We have to stay engaged and win this war somehow and someway!! After South Viet Nam fell, there was a blood-bath as will occur if we leave Iraq too soon. An amazingly large percentage of the soldiers who re-enlist do so to return to Iraq. Iran is the major culprit in Iraq as it is they who are funding the Shia militias and Sadr. Iran wishes to see us elect a new Congess and President and pull out. The British general was way out of line, if he is indeed still on active duty. Another D. McArthur. When Iran gets their nukes World War III will have started full-tilt!! Until you see these guys and their handywork you will not be convinced of their threat to us. Unfortunately, I had to pronouce death certificates on many of our troops in Baghdad; and I know the horrors of modern weaponry and it always makes me sick. You can see me for 3 seconds in Baghdad ER produced by HBO. I am no hero but I volunteered to go back for a third tour and the brass wants me to go to Afghanistan instead, so I head out to Afghanistan this December. Most all of the soldiers who have served in the Global War on Terror support this war and understand its importance in the big scheme of things. 

Cheers,
Bill


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

Thank you, Bill, for your service. Rest assured that at least half of us back home DO understand.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Bill,

Please understand that there is not one soul who stands this side of the pond that does feel for the men and women who are there. We do!

We lost two more today, via rocket-propelled grenades.
Not common street ware as you have mentioned.
Worse still, they were assigned to a road reconstruction project.
Lives lost while rebuilding the country, maddening to say the least.

This is not about "supporting the troops".
Our leaders have tried to turn this into a support the troops issue so that it becomes unpatriotic to criticized the government's plan of action.

The two are as separate as a cold Canadian winter and hot Texas summer.

The US had the opportunity to assassinate Saddam years ago but backed off at the last minute. These SF type operations are what we should have been used in place of all out military movement. We do not belong in Iraq.
Dealing with Iran and North Korea are more pressing issues that Iraq ever was.

Bill, you are brave man to volunteer to return and save the lives of the injured. I think it is safe to say that everyone here takes off their hat to you and thanks you for your service. How many families have you touched by patching up their children? Too many to count I would guess.


The fact remains, the only way to deal with this problem, is play smart, play tough and play dirty. 
Forget the rule book, forget the old ways. This is a new frontier.
Deal with the leaders of this new frontier, without making millions of innocent people live through hell as they are caught in the cross fire, and by that I refer to here and abroad. The bulk of the CDN soldiers lost had young families back home.


~~~~

"you will not be convinced of their threat to us"

I completely agree that the radical element of that society is ready and proud to die to kill. But our current plan of action is only growing that element's market share of the population that will be readyand willing to do so.

~~~~

"When Iran gets their nukes World War III will have started full-tilt!!"

We can not allow this happen. This is an urgent world matter.
I never believed that Pakistan would push the button, Iran, NK.......god help us!

~~~~

I have broken a promise to myself, I had said I would stay out of the interchange and I have not.
I doubt I will look back here any time soon.

Bill, 
I wish you health and safety on your return tour of duty.
If the opportunity presents itself, please post and let us know how you are doing. I am sure the restrictions on what can be said are high, but just a note to let us know you are safe and sound.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Bill,

You are deserving of the praise of everyone in the country. As a military man you are doing your duty to the country, which is to obey your orders regardless of your personal feelings, beliefs, wishes, or safety. You did your duty in the same way that John McCain, John Kerry, John Murtha, Tammy Duckworth, and many others who have gone before you did.

My duty to the country is different. My duty is to scrutinize the claims of the President and other members of the government, to evaluate the evidence and logic supporting those claims, to decide whether the claims are valid, and to advocate for my understanding of what is best. If this leads me to disagree with the government, it is my duty to oppose the actions of the government.

You bring up the example of Vietnam. Before and during the Vietnam War, we were told that if we didn't stand up and defeat the Communists in Vietnam, soon they would take over Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, and then on to the United States. We now know that this was not true, and that the dominoes never tipped over.

Almost everybody on the Left, almost everybody who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, or who opposes it now, supported the invasion of Afghanistan. We knew that the people who attacked the United States in 2001 were based in and supported by Afghanistan. We believed, and continue to believe, that allowing the totalitarian Islamist regime in Afghanistan to continue was a threat to our national security, and that it was essential to defeat the Taliban and to replace with with a government that did not threaten our safety.

When Bush and his people started beating the drums to invade Iraq most of us evaluated his claims in support of the invasion. This was made difficult because the mainstream media did not subject these claims to any kind of skeptical analysis, and even the newspaper that the Right identifies as a left-wing rag, the New York Times, acted as Bush's megaphone, although they have since had to admit that they failed in their duty.

We now know that those of us who opposed the war in Iraq were correct on every point: contrary to the claims of the Bush administration, Hussein had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks; Hussein did not have te chemical and biological weapons that Bush and Colin Powell claimed; contrary to the claims of Bush and Rice, those aluminum tubes had nothing to do with nuclear weaponr; in fact, Hussein had no nuclear weapons program.

In short, in 2003 we invaded a country that posed no threat to the United States based on assertions made by our government representatives that were not only false, but that they knew to be false at the time. Moreover, the harmful consequences of invading Iraq, that we predicted at the time, have come to pass, and Islamic extremism has gotten stronger as the result of our war in Iraq.

I think you are trying to be honest in the way you describe the things you have observed in your military assignments. Nevertheless, by referring to Iraq as having anything to do with a global war on terror is not only false, it can only be described as wilfully false. Invading Iraq actually helped, rather than hurt, terrorism.

I don't dispute that catastrophe is likely to follow our withdrawal from Iraq. There is no reason to believe, however, that there will be any point in the future in which that will not be the case. The Administration has not presented any plan to resolve the situation in Iraq that can give us any assurance that anything we are doing has the chance of making things better. Every day we are there imposes real costs, both on Iraq and on the United States. We're killing our people, we're killing their people, we're costing billions of dollars. If these costs were investments in the future that would be one thing, but the evidence suggests that every day we're there just delays the inevitable catastrophe that will result when we inevitably leave. That being the case, none of the good that is supposedly being delivered by our forces can outweigh the immeasurably greater harm we are causing.

The real meaning of "Stay the course" is "More of the same", and the interests of the United States, Iraq, and the world demand that we withdraw.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> When Bush and his people started beating the drums to invade Iraq most of us evaluated his claims in support of the invasion. This was made difficult because the mainstream media did not subject these claims to any kind of skeptical analysis, and even the newspaper that the Right identifies as a left-wing rag, the New York Times, acted as Bush's megaphone, although they have since had to admit that they failed in their duty.


Just like the politicians who once favored the war and now oppose it, the media were basing that early coverage on the faulty intelligence the government provided. Without _proof_ to the contrary, it was a valid decision to trust that information -- indeed it was the _only_ decision possible. And it remains possible that the president wasn't lying, that he was as misled by the faulty information as the rest of us were. You are expecting either clairvoyance or monumental information-gathering well beyond the capabilities of even the largest news organizations, which were limited not only by resources needed to check for WMD but by access.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> Just like the politicians who once favored the war and now oppose it, the media were basing that early coverage on the faulty intelligence the government provided. Without _proof_ to the contrary, it was a valid decision to trust that information -- indeed it was the _only_ decision possible. And it remains possible that the president wasn't lying, that he was as misled by the faulty information as the rest of us were. You are expecting either clairvoyance or monumental information-gathering well beyond the capabilities of even the largest news organizations, which were limited not only by resources needed to check for WMD but by access.


Yet you speak as though that evidence was overwhelming and irrefutable. As you know, many millions of us at the time were not convinced. We cannot let the media so easily off the hook. Too many have suffered and died because if it.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

crs said:


> Just like the politicians who once favored the war and now oppose it, the media were basing that early coverage on the faulty intelligence the government provided. Without _proof_ to the contrary, it was a valid decision to trust that information -- indeed it was the _only_ decision possible. And it remains possible that the president wasn't lying, that he was as misled by the faulty information as the rest of us were. You are expecting either clairvoyance or monumental information-gathering well beyond the capabilities of even the largest news organizations, which were limited not only by resources needed to check for WMD but by access.


To take two salient examples:

Bush's claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger was scrubbed from a speech he gave in Cincinnati before the State of the Union address because the intelligence agencies knew the claim to be false. I read an article in the New Yorker before the invasion of Iraq that clearly exposed the falsity of the claims and the fact that the documents that the claim was based on were obvious forgeries.

When the pro-war factions in the government were making bogus claims about aluminum tubes, everyone in the government who had ever had anything to do with actually operating power plants and enriching uranium knew, and said, that the tubes were not usable for this purpose, yet the Administration, and Rice in particular, continued to claim that the only possible use for those tubes was in centrifuges.

There was no emergency, no need for immediate action. In matters of war, of life and death, it is more important than at any other time for the government to be certain of the grounds for its decision, and to be honest with the people. The Bush administration grossly failed in these obligations.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Smudger!*

Gentlemen

Smudger, the 7th Group at Bragg! Nice to meet you. I was with the 10th Group, in Devans in the early 70 time frame 1975. 
I was at Bragg, a lot during my tour at Devans.
I know a lot of the surgeons that were at Bragg, who went on to wonderful military careers.
The surgery department rotated the Duke residents through for a month at a time.
The general surgery department, was very good then!
Quite a few of my friends then, went on to wonderful careers in the Army.
Led departments at various places in the country.
I cherish my time then, and the people I knew, and met.
Womack, was a very great hospital then, at least in surgery!
Oh, and ortho!
Nice to know you Smudger, the Andy forum is fun to meet people as well.

Airborne my friend, De Oppresso Liber as well!
Nice day gentlemen


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> To take two salient examples:
> 
> Bush's claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger was scrubbed from a speech he gave in Cincinnati before the State of the Union address because the intelligence agencies knew the claim to be false. I read an article in the New Yorker before the invasion of Iraq that clearly exposed the falsity of the claims and the fact that the documents that the claim was based on were obvious forgeries.
> 
> ...


That's fine. But I think that in blaming the news media in your previous post you fail to understand that there is a fairly high burden of proof before mainstream media is willing to call the president a liar. To be fair we have to operate with a presumption of innocence even now; it is OK to fault the administration but not Bush himself because it is unclear where the deceit began -- was it handed down or handed up? Were the critics of the Iraq war at the time of initial engagement that credible that they were to be believed more than the official intelligence? Without the benefit of hindsight, I don't think so. If a major news organization were going to seriously challenge that intelligence, it needed solid _proof_, not mere skepticism expressed by critics.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I'm wondering how someone reads this:

I am no hero but * I volunteered to go back for a third tour *and the brass wants me to go to Afghanistan instead, so I head out to Afghanistan this December. *Most all of the soldiers who have served in the Global War on Terror support this war and understand its importance in the big scheme of things. *

interprets it as this:

*As a military man you are doing your duty to the country, which is to obey your orders regardless of your personal feelings, beliefs, wishes, or safety.*

I read it as he is volunteering to go back (not following an order to go back) precisely because of his personal feelings, beliefs, wishes, and safety.

Bill, God speed to you and yours; and Thank You Very Much!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I am no hero but * I volunteered to go back for a third tour *and the brass wants me to go to Afghanistan instead, so I head out to Afghanistan this December. *Most all of the soldiers who have served in the Global War on Terror support this war and understand its importance in the big scheme of things. *


Most? It would seem that all soldiers serving in the 'war on terror' [sic] support it by definition. I don't think it's as cut-and-dried an issue as to whether one 'understands its importance' or not, since it is still rather ambiguous just what the 'war on terror' exactly is. Where is the evidence that 'most' of the soldiers understand? And as the issue is still controversial, whose version of understanding are we discussing? It simply is more complex than this anecdote would have us believe.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Most? It would seem that all soldiers serving in the 'war on terror' [sic] support it by definition. I don't think it's as cut-and-dried an issue as to whether one 'understands its importance' or not, since it is still rather ambiguous just what the 'war on terror' exactly is. Where is the evidence that 'most' of the soldiers understand? And as the issue is still controversial, whose version of understanding are we discussing? It simply is more complex than this anecdote would have us believe.


Is it ambiguous because you say it is and refuse to accept reality? No.

In fact, I don't think you can even call it controversial. What it is, is unpopular. That doesn't mean people don't know what it is, or why it is, only that they wish there was an alternative.

Unfortunately, there isn't an alternative to the 'war on terror'. But, since CW seems to be only fight a war if there is no other alternative that doesn't seem like a complaint. And, having spoken with several returned vets from Iraq that certainly seems to be the majority view (there is no alternative).

I think it's clearly evident what the war on terror is to those that truly want to know. If you require first hand evidence, see your local recruiter and join Bill in the sandbox. I'm sure he could use the help and you wouldn't be relying on anecdotes - both problems solved.

Until then, would I tend to give more leeway for using 'most' to someone voluntarily returning for their 3rd tour? UNAMBIGUOUSLY, YES.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Is it ambiguous because you say it is and refuse to accept reality? No.


Okay, so apparently you believe the term "war on terror" is unambiguous. That means that it is susceptible of one, and only one, meaning. Let's test that hypothesis a bit.

Do you believe that the invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq have anything to do with fighting terror in the world? Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? Do you believe that the war on Iraq has made us any safer from terrorist attack than we were before?

I am in favor of fighting terrorism. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. I think what smudger and his comrades are doing in Afghanistan is the right thing to do, only we should be doing more of it, so we don't have a situation where the Senate Majority Leader says we need to open the government of Afghanistan to the Taliban.

But I also think that the answer to every one of the questions I asked above is no, and that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.

And if your answers to those questions are not the same as mine, and if you think that the war in Iraq is part of some global war on terror, then you have just demonstrated that the term is ambiguous.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm still waiting to hear just who exactly we're supposed to nuke. 

That's a line I've heard from other friends, ex-military, born out of their frustration with the current course (e.g. the elective misadventure sprung by the current administration). Because Iraq was planned poorly by the Bush team and so isn't progressing like a 60-minute TV crime drama, all neat ends by the last commercial break, the best option is, therefore, to unleash diabolical weapons, most of which would murder untold numbers of civilians? 

Now that's some evil shite friends.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, so apparently you believe the term "war on terror" is unambiguous. That means that it is susceptible of one, and only one, meaning. Let's test that hypothesis a bit.
> 
> Do you believe that the invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq have anything to do with fighting terror in the world? Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? Do you believe that the war on Iraq has made us any safer from terrorist attack than we were before?
> 
> ...


There are some people who argue everything. Some claim the 'moon landing' was a hoax. Does this mean everything is ambiguous? No, it doesn't. Would we say 'the holocaust' is ambiguous because there are 'those that deny it'? No. Is God ambiguous because there are atheists? No.

So, your imposed test for ambiguity is false. While your explanation of your position is fine and clear - you agree and disagree with some facets of the war on terror - it doesn't mean the war on terror is ambiguous. Although, it could mean you are! ;-)

ambiguous: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Is it ambiguous because you say it is and refuse to accept reality? No.


No, it's ambiguous because reality is more complex than a White House press release.



> Unfortunately, there isn't an alternative to the 'war on terror'. But, since CW seems to be only fight a war if there is no other alternative that doesn't seem like a complaint. And, having spoken with several returned vets from Iraq that certainly seems to be the majority view (there is no alternative).


Seems to be the majority view? That's circular. The majority view of all soldiers must be X, because the soldiers you have spoken with seem to believe X, which in turn seems like the majority view. Interesting how your perception of the 'majority view' seems to precisely correlate with your own view.



> I think it's clearly evident what the war on terror is to those that truly want to know. If you require first hand evidence, see your local recruiter and join Bill in the sandbox. I'm sure he could use the help and you wouldn't be relying on anecdotes - both problems solved.


They would still be anecdotes. We need more objective analyses of this war, not more subjective ones.



> Until then, would I tend to give more leeway for using 'most' to someone voluntarily returning for their 3rd tour? UNAMBIGUOUSLY, YES.


I would presume that people who do three tours are atypical.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I would presume that people who do three tours are atypical.


Well, that presumption would be wrong. Depending on the branch of service they are doing two, three, or four tours per enlistment.

I'm 38, so the people I know that are in the service are 30-40 yr old, married, w/ children reservists. They have all have been twice or on their second tour now.

Enlisted Marines, etc. are on their 3rd or 4th tour.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Most? It would seem that all soldiers serving in the 'war on terror' [sic] support it by definition. I don't think it's as cut-and-dried an issue as to whether one 'understands its importance' or not, since it is still rather ambiguous just what the 'war on terror' exactly is. Where is the evidence that 'most' of the soldiers understand? And as the issue is still controversial, whose version of understanding are we discussing? It simply is more complex than this anecdote would have us believe.


Are you suggesting that soldiers don't have the wherewithal to grasp the finer points or complexity of the war on terror? Is your assertion that anyone who "supports" the war is devoid of this understanding and if endowed with a better understanding would change his opinion?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Are you suggesting that soldiers don't have the wherewithal to grasp the finer points or complexity of the war on terror?


I'm sceptical that 'most' do, since no one has provided any evidence.



> Is your assertion that anyone who "supports" the war is devoid of this understanding


Of course not. Please re-read my posts.



> and if endowed with a better understanding would change his opinion?


Perhaps.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Well, that presumption would be wrong. Depending on the branch of service they are doing two, three, or four tours per enlistment.
> 
> I'm 38, so the people I know that are in the service are 30-40 yr old, married, w/ children reservists. They have all have been twice or on their second tour now.
> 
> Enlisted Marines, etc. are on their 3rd or 4th tour.


I never said I doubted that some were doing two, three or four tours per enlistment. I simply doubted that 'most' do.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I never said I doubted that some were doing two, three or four tours per enlistment. I simply doubted that 'most' do.


Well, now you know you were wrong ;-)

The best actual numbers I've seen:

An estimate - 341,000 persons had served two or more tours as of August 2005. That's over half of those on active duty.

And a survey - Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

As I said, it depends on the service. The length of tours vary, and the shorter tours go more often like the AirForce. A lot of them are on their 4th tour.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

In a battle to preserve civilisation

https://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/09/11/bush.memorials/index.html

as Bush has claimed, one would think there would be a draft to ensure we had sufficient forces to get the job done right. Wonder how long if would take for the waning public support for this misadventure to vanish entirely if conscription was reintroduced.

No one should have to pull four tours. Even if they wanted to, it's probably not so good for the mental health.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> There are some people who argue everything. Some claim the 'moon landing' was a hoax. Does this mean everything is ambiguous? No, it doesn't. Would we say 'the holocaust' is ambiguous because there are 'those that deny it'? No. Is God ambiguous because there are atheists? No.
> 
> So, your imposed test for ambiguity is false. While your explanation of your position is fine and clear - you agree and disagree with some facets of the war on terror - it doesn't mean the war on terror is ambiguous. Although, it could mean you are! ;-)
> 
> ambiguous: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend


You can quote the definition accurately, but you clearly don't understand the concept. Just because Bush says that Iraq is part of the war on terror doesn't mean that it is, or that it is unambiguous. For that matter, your assertion that the phrase "war on terror" is unambiguous doesn't mean that it is.

The same is true with your other examples. For instance "god" isn't ambiguous because because of atheists, it is ambiguous because different people using the word mean different things by it. When they say "god" some people mean the Christian god, some mean the Jewish god, some mean Allah, some mean an impersonal force that created the universe, some mean one of a legion of Hindu, Norse, Pagan, or animist gods. The fact that you think you know what it means doesn't mean that your idea is the only one.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> No one should have to pull four tours. Even if they wanted to, it's probably not so good for the mental health.


You underestimate the resilience of American military personnel.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> You underestimate the resilience of American military personnel.


Maybe, but you ignore the substance of my point.

If we're truly engaged in a battle for civilisation, one that Bush has linked in magnitude to WWII, why no society-wide sacrifices to advance the noble cause? Why, instead, only more tax cuts?

I'm happy to keep my money, mind you, but it seems bloody daft for him to then go on TV and tell me, essentially, to do nothing more than watch for colour-coded terror alerts.

And this

cites research by the VA (scroll down) claiming 20 percent of Iraqi vets have been diagnosed with psychological disorders. Maybe some had problems coming in (raising a whole other concern about relaxed recruiting standards given a taxed military--hey, at least someone's getting taxed), but 1 out of 5 isn't sounding good.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> You underestimate the resilience of American military personnel.





> _Conclusions_ This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of such care





> Interpretation
> For regular personnel in the UK armed forces, deployment to the Iraq war has not, so far, been associated with significantly worse health outcomes, apart from a modest effect on multiple physical symptoms. There is evidence of a clinically and statistically significant effect on health in reservists


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You can quote the definition accurately, but you clearly don't understand the concept. Just because Bush says that Iraq is part of the war on terror doesn't mean that it is, or that it is unambiguous. For that matter, your assertion that the phrase "war on terror" is unambiguous doesn't mean that it is.
> 
> The same is true with your other examples. For instance "god" isn't ambiguous because because of atheists, it is ambiguous because different people using the word mean different things by it. When they say "god" some people mean the Christian god, some mean the Jewish god, some mean Allah, some mean an impersonal force that created the universe, some mean one of a legion of Hindu, Norse, Pagan, or animist gods. The fact that you think you know what it means doesn't mean that your idea is the only one.


Sir, you are incorrect. That something is disputed does not mean it is ambiguous. Perhaps you are confusing the concept with something else?

If I say, "The world is flat." Clearly I am wrong, but I am not being ambiguous.

The 'War on Terror' includes Iraq, even to those who think it shouldn't. Everyone 'knows' what the 'War on Terror' is and what it means. It's not ambiguous.

You just don't like it. "tra la la" that doesn't change the meaning of words.

FTR I was being ambiguous, but since you caught me on it (good job) God capitalized means God which is also Jehovah, not Allah, not one of some other norse/greek/make believe gods. It's not ambiguous either. You may not believe in God, but everyone knows who God is and to whom the Name of God refers. I was trying not to blast both barrels, but clearly that was a bad choice in regards to God.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The 'War on Terror' includes Iraq, even to those who think it shouldn't. Everyone 'knows' what the 'War on Terror' is and what it means. It's not ambiguous. QUOTE]
> 
> So that's it: you say the "War on Terror" includes Iraq, so that settles it.
> 
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Consequently, you are not capable of engaging in reasoned debate.


That's good to know. Thanks.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Exhibit A on why these wars are fought over fairy tales.

I'm having T-shirts made reading: My band is an AWESOME band!

Makes about as much sense--no, more actually--than this religious nonsense that leads to mass murder on all sides.

As the Dead Kennedys once said: "God told me to skin you alive!" The song? "I Kill Children."

Rock on, crusaders (of all lunatic stripes).



ksinc said:


> Sir, you are incorrect. That something is disputed does not mean it is ambiguous. Perhaps you are confusing the concept with something else?
> 
> If I say, "The world is flat." Clearly I am wrong, but I am not being ambiguous.
> 
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Exhibit A on why these wars are fought over fairy tales.


Referring to my post or your signature? ;-)


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I was referring to religion, which I see as a pernicious scourge and inducement to mass murder worldwide.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports this thesis.



ksinc said:


> Referring to my post or your signature? ;-)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> I was referring to religion, which I see as a pernicious scourge and inducement to mass murder worldwide.
> 
> The evidence overwhelmingly supports this thesis.


Oh, I agree 100%. Religion is a scourge. I think God agrees too. Certainly 'religious war' and 'holy war' are just dumbfounding concepts. As is 'conversion by the sword'.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I was referring to religion, which I see as a pernicious scourge and inducement to mass murder worldwide.
> 
> The evidence overwhelmingly supports this thesis.


Some of the worst atrocities imaginable have been committed by secularists due to ethnic, not religious differences. I don't think Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot invoking religion as an excuse. In fact I would argue that when political violence unimpaired by the temperance of religious values and morality tends to be much deadlier and vicious.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Some of the worst atrocities imaginable have been committed by secularists due to ethnic, not religious differences. I don't think Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot invoking religion as an excuse. In fact I would argue that when political violence unimpaired by the temperance of religious values and morality tends to be much deadlier and vicious.


You're both right. Dogmatic intolerance...whether against another's religion, ethnicity, colour, sexual orientation, creed, nationality, philosophy, etc (_ad infinitum_), is the top of the slippery slope which leads to atrocity.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Ah, religious temperance. From the Inquisition on, something you can hang your hat on. Or just hang.

The maniacs you cite merely substituted the State for the Sky King. Equally deplorable.

You want to tout religion's balm, go for it. Just be sure to ignore the Crusades, Northern Ireland, the Balkans and the Middle East. Did I forget any? Jonestown? Biblical support for slavery?

Though it's a common enough assumption, there's no logical reason that civil society needs be founded on religion.



pt4u67 said:


> Some of the worst atrocities imaginable have been committed by secularists due to ethnic, not religious differences. I don't think Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot invoking religion as an excuse. In fact I would argue that when political violence unimpaired by the temperance of religious values and morality tends to be much deadlier and vicious.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> You're both right. Dogmatic intolerance...whether against another's religion, ethnicity, colour, sexual orientation, creed, nationality, philosophy, etc (_ad infinitum_), is the top of the slippery slope which leads to atrocity.


Or even the cominbation of the two, as in Islamic-Fascism. Which although a bit redundant (according to their prophet), is so dangerous people don't even want our President to say it out loud.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Ah, religious temperance. From the Inquisition on, something you can hang your hat on. Or just hang.
> 
> The maniacs you cite merely substituted the State for the Sky King. Equally deplorable.
> 
> You want to tout religion's balm, go for it. Just be sure to ignore the Crusades, Northern Ireland, the Balkans and the Middle East. Did I forget any? Jonestown? Biblical support for slavery?


War and conflict are as natural to human existance as breathing air. Its unfortunate yes but then again are traffic accidents yet they happen. When God is removed from these human happenings that's when true barbarism occurs. I will comment only on your claim to slavery. Slavery had been an institution of human civilization from ancient times. If the Bible was used to support slavery it was also used to abolish it. Remember the abolitionist movement was a Christian movement based on Christian ideals.



> Though it's a common enough assumption, there's no logical reason that civil society needs be founded on religion.


Every civil society is founded on some notion of religion. May I ask where you derive your sense of right and wrong, good and evil (assuming you believe in good and evil). That some may disavow the role of religion in the make up of civil society does not change the fact that it is. Nor did you address my original premise: When societies turn away from God (Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China) atrocities occur wholesale without the potential temperance that the Church provides. Society loses its voice of conscience and the one source of moral authority. It was Lenin afterall that said that if you take away religion and God from the people it will be easier to fill the void with your own ideology.


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*postings*

Reading the postings from some of you makes me despair of our country's future. Some of you pontificate as if you are experts and ready to accept reports that bolster your arguments without critically looking at the sources and how that data was collected. You need to go to Iraq and spend a lot of time talking and above all listening to what coalition troops and the Iraqis have to say about what is going on in this war. Why don't some of you volunteer and work at your local VA hospital and help our wounded troops recover from their wounds. What I expect from most of you is that you will come up with some flimsy excuse, in line with lack of willingness to serve your country in one way or the other. The same phenomenon occured in Rome. We will lose our identity as a nation over the next 50 years and most people will continue to shun the military.

Bill


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> And this
> 
> cites research by the VA (scroll down) claiming 20 percent of Iraqi vets have been diagnosed with psychological disorders. Maybe some had problems coming in (raising a whole other concern about relaxed recruiting standards given a taxed military--hey, at least someone's getting taxed), but 1 out of 5 isn't sounding good.


Unfortunately this is a occurance in every war that has ever been fought anywhere and at anytime. Believe me I no less than anyone else wishes that we reach a day when we no longer have to fight. However there are times that we do and we should not back away from it because of the mental health problems that it may cause. Being diagnosed with a psychological problem can mean just about anything these days. The media is fond of painting the picture of the brooding, psychologically atrophied Viet Nam but since we're throwing about articles here's one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/...rss&adxnnlx=1161116035-wKDEv2UV6dTM3+Inn0XOIw


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Smudger said:


> Reading the postings from some of you makes me despair of our country's future. Some of you pontificate as if you are experts and ready to accept reports that bolster your arguments without critically looking at the sources and how that data was collected. You need to go to Iraq and spend a lot of time talking and above all listening to what coalition troops and the Iraqis have to say about what is going on in this war. Why don't some of you volunteer and work at your local VA hospital and help our wounded troops recover from their wounds. What I expect from most of you is that you will come up with some flimsy excuse, in line with lack of willingness to serve your country in one way or the other. The same phenomenon occured in Rome. We will lose our identity as a nation over the next 50 years and most people will continue to shun the military.
> 
> Bill


You're right. It's a pity that so many of the chicken hawks (especially in the media and politics) downplay or ignore the true toll of this war. Many thousands will be scarred and terribly wounded for life, long after the neo-cons have moved on to new ideological pastures.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> War and conflict are as natural to human existance as breathing air. Its unfortunate yes but then again are traffic accidents yet they happen. When God is removed from these human happenings that's when true barbarism occurs. I will comment only on your claim to slavery. Slavery had been an institution of human civilization from ancient times. If the Bible was used to support slavery it was also used to abolish it. Remember the abolitionist movement was a Christian movement based on Christian ideals.
> 
> Every civil society is founded on some notion of religion. May I ask where you derive your sense of right and wrong, good and evil (assuming you believe in good and evil). That some may disavow the role of religion in the make up of civil society does not change the fact that it is. Nor did you address my original premise: When societies turn away from God (Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China) atrocities occur wholesale without the potential temperance that the Church provides. Society loses its voice of conscience and the one source of moral authority. It was Lenin afterall that said that if you take away religion and God from the people it will be easier to fill the void with your own ideology.


War is natural? For whom? Not for me. I'm certainly sorry if you feel a biological urge to join a war every so often.

By the way, if you're having difficulty understanding how people can be moral without being religious, I invite you to read this:


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6060544.stm

....... The panel, led by a former US secretary of state, is also said to think that "staying the course" is untenable............


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Major Change Expected In Strategy for Iraq War

By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A01

The growing doubts among GOP lawmakers about the administration's Iraq strategy, coupled with the prospect of Democratic wins in next month's midterm elections, will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking.

Senior figures in both parties are coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame. Agitation is growing in Congress for alternatives to the administration's strategy of keeping Iraq in one piece and getting its security forces up and running while 140,000 U.S. troops try to keep a lid on rapidly spreading sectarian violence.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

This is going great:



BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized total control of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by one of the country's powerful, unofficial armies, witnesses and police said.


Does anybody have an updated figure on what this fiasco is costing the U.S. public each day? I see a Marine spokesperson calculated it (back in January) as being $4.5 Billion a month:



Hey, it's almost tax season again! Sharpen those pencils.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

BertieW said:


> This is going great:
> 
> BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized total control of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by one of the country's powerful, unofficial armies, witnesses and police said.
> 
> Does anybody have an updated figure on what this fiasco is costing the U.S. public each day?


Nobody really knows how much the GWOT is costing. Here is a link to a recent GAO report:

The GAO website contains many other reports on the subject, which can be located and accessed by a simple or advanced search.

Here is a link to a site that maintains a running tally of the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

The "Congressional Appropriations" link in that page opens another window containing a explanation of how the running tally is calculated.

And here is another link with a discussion of various funding issues, with citations to source documents:

https://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3601&from_page=../index.cfm#_ftnref3


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*mpcsb, You've read my mind!*



mpcsb said:


> DukeGrad,
> As a long time anti-war leftist liberal you may not be surprised that I am against the war. I remain silent most of the time, in part because I hold in such high reguard the men and women in the armed forces and do not wish in any way to offend them. I can, and do however go off on that man in the white house who supports the troops in words only, not in action. Hollow words indeed. I'll not write more - blood pressure rising.


You've read my mind! I just ran into someone that lost a son in Iraq. I'm not advocating this. But if GWB, Cheney, or Rumsfeld (the great warriors!) were to experience something like the loss of a child, do you think it might change them?

After I consider their unbridled arrogance hubris, and dishonesty I think not!  

I love our country, love and support our soldiers, and detest the aforementioned trio. Am I a decent American and citizen?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I still support the decision to go to war in Iraq. I still think that this could have been a successul operation with a huge upside for American security and the region. What I did not count on was how incomptently this war would be managed. It is now imperative that we win this war but with the myopia of the current administration I am not sure we can. Rumsfeld must go after the mid-terms or all hope is lost.

2008 is shaping up to be 1968 all over again. I am a Republican but boy do we deserve to lose Congress (though in my own safe GOP district I can't support the Dem and will vote Libertarian. I am toying with the idea of voting Kinky for Governor bc I am not a fan of Perry, though.) I only hope that a return to majority will have make the Dems more responsible and reasonable. The thought of Speaker Pelosi chills me to the bone but Hastert is a non-entity at best. 

Stay healthy John McCain!

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I can't even get my mind around these numbers. Stupifying.

What a bloody waste.



Lushington said:


> Nobody really knows how much the GWOT is costing. Here is a link to a recent GAO report:
> 
> The GAO website contains many other reports on the subject, which can be located and accessed by a simple or advanced search.
> 
> ...


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*The Nation Needs a Great Baseball Commisioner!!!*

We need a great Baseball Commissioner. Someone of authority, with related Baseball experience, who's served at a high executive level and has the required gravitas.

Anybody have any ideas for oneic12337:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

rnoldh said:


> We need a great Baseball Commissioner. Someone of authority, with related Baseball experience, who's served at a high executive level and has the required gravitas.
> 
> Anybody have any ideas for oneic12337:


I assume you're thinking of Bush, but I'm afraid he has approximately the same level of baseball sense and gravitas as Bud Lite, so he would be no improvement.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

This quote is telling:

"Right now I support the presence of the Mahdi Army," said a senior judge on Iraq's criminal court, who declined to be named out of concern for his safety. "I know this is unacceptable in law, in politics, in society, but in this unusual time we are living in, this is the reality."

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/world/middleeast/21militias.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

If a /judge/ is saying that, what hope is there that everyday thugs are willing to embrace the rule of law?

Somebody skipped the due diligence on this one, chaps.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*"Into the abyss"*

And today, this:
https://www.latimes.com/news/nation...23oct23,0,361375.story?coll=la-home-headlines


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

BertieW said:


> And today, this:
> https://www.latimes.com/news/nation...23oct23,0,361375.story?coll=la-home-headlines


And this: https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/19/60minutes/main2109200.shtml

For some real eye-glazing reading, one can review the reports available at the website of the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction:

Some interesting things may be found there.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Stunning. Thanks for the link.

What's more amazing is that we've been (repeatedly) told that the Republicans are the fiscally responsible ones. And the morally superior party. Truth will out. Granted, politicians of all stripes are worthy of suspicion, but the ones in power now ought to make any decent American concerned.

Thought this bit from Lushington's first link was esp. telling:

One of the people praised in former U.S. Ambassador L. Paul Bremer's memoirs is a major suspect in the case. Ziad Cattan was in charge of military procurement at a time when the ministry of defense went on a $1.2 billion buying spree. Allawi estimates that $750 to $800 million of that money was stolen. Judge Radhi al-Radhi, head of Iraq's Commission on Public Integrity, which investigates official corruption, tells Kroft that a lot of the money that wasn't stolen was spent on outdated, useless equipment.

Didn't they give this guy a medal?

Gimme a bucket...



Lushington said:


> And this: https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/19/60minutes/main2109200.shtml
> 
> For some real eye-glazing reading, one can review the reports available at the website of the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction:
> 
> Some interesting things may be found there.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

And people in the other thread wonder why I am against spending money on a meaningless 'war on terror'. They don't seem to be able to explain exactly what it is, either. And the numbers above don't even address the tens of thousands (hundreds of thouands?) of corpses, melted skin, blindness, amputations, paralysis, etc. which has resulted from this epic horror.

Karl, why, after all of this, do you still support this silly war? At least use the gift of hindsight to your own advantage.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> And people in the other thread wonder why I am against spending money on a meaningless 'war on terror'. They don't seem to be able to explain exactly what it is, either. And the numbers above don't even address the tens of thousands (hundreds of thouands?) of corpses, melted skin, blindness, amputations, paralysis, etc. which has resulted from this epic horror.


And what is the alternative? When people with guns clash ugly things happen. That does not mean that conflict should be avoided at any cost. As to the term "war on terror" I agree with you on that. I think we need to be more distinct and call it what it is and against whom it is; Islamic radicals.



> Karl, why, after all of this, do you still support this silly war? At least use the gift of hindsight to your own advantage.


I won't answer for Karl but I continue to support the war. Hingsight is useful for determining future tactics however the reasons for fighting (most at least) are as valid now as before. That doesn't change with hindsight unless one is prone to vacillate morally. One can say what one wants regarding tactics however once support is given it should not be pulled just because things get tough or difficult.

Karl is correct when he expresses the upside. It is one thing to have never given support to the war. I suppose those people have the luxury of sitting back now and saying "I told you so". Mind you however that the story is not yet finished. What gets me are those who were so eager to jump on the bandwagon and now that the political winds are blowing in a different direction turn their sails in that direction. Its one thing for us to argue amongst ourselves; our opinions catry weight only with us and for the most part only matter as much as our vote. However our elected leaders in Congress speak and their words carry around the globe. Those not schooled in American politics then think all they have to do is blow up a few more people, rattle the cages of the congress and eventually enough of a critical mass will develop that we will have no choice but to abandon our interests in the Middle East in the same way as we did in Viet Nam.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

You may hold to some idealistic notion of this war, pt4u, but watch how fast the administration "cuts and runs", er, shifts tactics, after Nov. 7.

Once any political gains garnered by lambasting the Democrats as cut-and-runners is exploited, Bush will be whistling a different tune after the midterms.

Fine by me, but let's start now and not be coy about it.



pt4u67 said:


> And what is the alternative? When people with guns clash ugly things happen. That does not mean that conflict should be avoided at any cost. As to the term "war on terror" I agree with you on that. I think we need to be more distinct and call it what it is and against whom it is; Islamic radicals.
> 
> I won't answer for Karl but I continue to support the war. Hingsight is useful for determining future tactics however the reasons for fighting (most at least) are as valid now as before. That doesn't change with hindsight unless one is prone to vacillate morally. One can say what one wants regarding tactics however once support is given it should not be pulled just because things get tough or difficult.
> 
> Karl is correct when he expresses the upside. It is one thing to have never given support to the war. I suppose those people have the luxury of sitting back now and saying "I told you so". Mind you however that the story is not yet finished. What gets me are those who were so eager to jump on the bandwagon and now that the political winds are blowing in a different direction turn their sails in that direction. Its one thing for us to argue amongst ourselves; our opinions catry weight only with us and for the most part only matter as much as our vote. However our elected leaders in Congress speak and their words carry around the globe. Those not schooled in American politics then think all they have to do is blow up a few more people, rattle the cages of the congress and eventually enough of a critical mass will develop that we will have no choice but to abandon our interests in the Middle East in the same way as we did in Viet Nam.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> You may hold to some idealistic notion of this war, pt4u, but watch how fast the administration "cuts and runs", er, shifts tactics, after Nov. 7.


Mine is not an idealistic notion. Its one based in reality. As for any "shift" in tactics that's a straw man and you know it. So any alteration in tactics will now be labelled cut and run?



> Once any political gains garnered by lambasting the Democrats as cut-and-runners is exploited, Bush will be whistling a different tune after the midterms.


Its not as though the GOP is making up anything. The Dems have said as much between their leadership and outbursts by the likes of Murtha. I suppose "re-deployment" doesn't qualify as cut and run as long as its said by those with whom you are in agreement with.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> And what is the alternative? When people with guns clash ugly things happen.
> 
> Those not schooled in American politics then think all they have to do is blow up a few more people, rattle the cages of the congress and eventually enough of a critical mass will develop that we will have no choice but to abandon our interests in the Middle East in the same way as we did in Viet Nam.


One of the alternatives is, strangely enough, to use alternative fuels and energy sources. That way you stop funding those who fund the terrorists, and prevent the world from turning into an uninhabitable ice cube at one and the same time. Building more mass transit is another part of the equation too. And securing the borders of civilised nations - national ID cards would help with this (as well as refraining from putting port security in the charge of Arab companies). Just a few things to start - and Bush seems to be going against all of them.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII,

You are right about alternative sources of energy. On 9-12-2001 President Bush should have launched a Manhattan Project style program over the next 15-20 years to develop and identify pratical alternative fuels and build the infrastructure to distribute it. This administration cannot think outside of the box and of all of its sins the unwillingness to take bold action regarding alternative fuels (especially in regard to national security, not to mention the trade deficit) is the most damning. Bush haters are not the only ones counting the days to 2008.


Karl


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> One of the alternatives is, strangely enough, to use alternative fuels and energy sources.


I couldn't agree more. However I think we should stop being so slavish to the notion of preserving every square inch wilderness area from development by energy companies. I quite confident that the caribou will be able to mate around oil exploration platforms in Alaska and the whales will still be able to hump one another in the Gulf in the presence of more off shore oil rigs.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> JLPWCXIII,
> 
> You are right about alternative sources of energy. On 9-12-2001 President Bush should have launched a Manhattan Project style program over the next 15-20 years to develop and identify pratical alternative fuels and build the infrastructure to distribute it. This administration cannot think outside of the box and of all of its sins the unwillingness to take bold action regarding alternative fuels (especially in regard to national security, not to mention the trade deficit) is the most damning. Bush haters are not the only ones counting the days to 2008.
> 
> Karl


Karl - I can hardly believe I'm typing this - but, I agree completely.

Andy, I think we just broke an AAAC record!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I couldn't agree more. However I think we should stop being so slavish to the notion of preserving every square inch wilderness area from development by energy companies. I quite confident that the caribou will be able to mate around oil exploration platforms in Alaska and the whales will still be able to hump one another in the Gulf in the presence of more off shore oil rigs.


Just like the alcoholic selling the family jewels for a few more pints.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII,

I find that you sir, are a most reasonable and intelligent fellow when you agree with me. Dare we permit ourselves the hope that we will agree on something else in the future?

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Ah, another person starting to look more closely at the numbers associated with this fiasco.

Iraq and Your Wallet

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 24, 2006
For every additional second we stay in Iraq, we taxpayers will end up paying an additional $6,300.

So aside from the rising body counts and all the other good reasons to adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, here's another: We are spending vast sums there that would be better spent rescuing the American health care system, developing alternative forms of energy and making a serious effort to reduce global poverty.

https://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/opinion/24kristof.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> JLPWCXIII,
> 
> I find that you sir, are a most reasonable and intelligent fellow when you agree with me. Dare we permit ourselves the hope that we will agree on something else in the future?
> 
> Karl


Karl, Why would you want to be wrong again too? The oil companies have record profits. Do you really think that IF oil is no longer viable down the road that Chevron, Exxon, and BP won't own the new technology? They have all learned from AT&T, which got caught holding too tight to the cash cow and ignoring the new technology.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*Brookings link on war costs*

This is an interesting link, courtesy of today's Kristof editorial:

Hope you've finished breakfast.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Karl, Why would you want to be wrong again too? The oil companies have record profits. Do you really think that IF oil is no longer viable down the road that Chevron, Exxon, and BP won't own the new technology? They have all learned from AT&T, which got caught holding too tight to the cash cow and ignoring the new technology.


Not sure they have learned. Greed is a powerful thing.

But, yeah, they are branching out some.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

WA said:


> ......Greed is a powerful thing....


Is there anything more powerful?
Sadly, these days I think it wins out even over love!


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Use 50MT cluster of W88 warheads and Iraq problem will be over.
The oil can be decontaminated rather easily and will not ne a long term factor in gas prices. One or two hunded millions is only 1-1.5% of the population. This will be compensated in the long term.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Oktagon,

Spoken like a true Chekist! Good thing you weren't in the Strategic Rocket Forces during your service to the Soviet state. Your willingness to employ nuclear weapons reminds me of the old Cold War joke - What is the difference between tactical and stratehic nuclear weapons? Tactical nukes only explode in Germany.

Karl


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

I had coffee this week with a friend who is town for a break from covering Iraq and other major conflicts. He is one of the worlds top shooters in hard news.

He always carries a small video cam too,
he gave me a video, that will never see play here in Can or in the US.

A line of cars are waiting a check point near his hotel.
As one car gets to the guard, there is no more traffic waiting,
the soldier walks up to the car and in a blinding flash of light,
it is all over for them.

The soldier did not stand a chance.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

T'is a shame those that are pushing to murder that way don't do it themselves instead of conning others to do it for them. 

These wars would be over if these hypocrites would do it themselves. 

But they pursue the downtrodden to do what they won't do themselves.

Some Muslims don't seem to think. They just follow orders like zombies. Hypocrite is a red flag for those that think, isn't it?


----------

