We must leave Iraq

[MSgt]

Terrorism is not the same. Terrorist is not a government and it is not something new. Terrorists have existed since ever.

This is called dismissal and it is irresponsible. What if America decided that civil rights is rediculous, because racism "has always existed?" What if America decided to dismiss Al-Queda, becuase terrorist organizations "always existed?"

You are completely dismissing what is occurring today by simplifying it into something that has always existed, but you are wrong. The last time we saw an entire civilization crumble into religious terrorism was European Christianity in the 16th century. Were it not for American involvement to keep "stability," the violence in the ME would rival that.

Today's form of religious terrorism is not just an individual act. We are facing an entire civilization that is mired in religious oppression and seeking blame. We are seeing super groups that have the ability to cross oceans and to totally disrupt governments. We are seeing millions of citizens cheer for the acts of their terrorists.

By the way, could you learn how to use the

box

boxes? You only have to place a / before the second

. It's too time consuming to reply if you don't. Like this....

Without the / ........

box

With the / and "quote" spelled wrong........

box [/*****]

With the / and "quote" spelled correctly.....

box

And there you have it.

 

[Iriemon]

Oh is it? According to your interpretations of law enforced by dictators in the UN? How dare we topple a brutal dictator that is protected by the French and German's love affair for dictators and the human rights interests of China and Russia.

How luxurious it must be for dictators everywhere who brutalize within their "soveriegn" borders as the UN caters to laws that protect them. Well, at least the suffering have comfort in knowing that the world is following the Law.

Oh yes it very much is. It's called being a sheep. When the shepard seeks to protect the wolf, the sheep have to act. It is highly pathetic when the likes of Russia and China and France and Germany are supposed to dictate to the world what is right.

This is the very grave difference between us, Billo. I have the ability to step back and view reality for what it is. This ability to point out flaws with accuracy and honesty is exactly why America progresses while the rest of the world lives in the past looking for scapegoats. This is why Europeans are mired in stagnating socialism as the world they created rots around them. We aren't ashamed of our past, (of which there isn't much to be ashamed of once the exxageratiouns are stripped) and we attempt to improve. You have always been quite comfortable in your extreme Liberal mind in portraying America as the ultimate evil upon this earth as the the rest of the world, which doesn't lift a finger to act responsible about it's mistakes, sits back and criticizes along with you. The world we face is erupting in the third world and we can trace all of it to the raping of European colonialism and European forced living conditions. And you claim that until the European powers tell us it is OK to do what is right, we are wrong? They can't even admit their responsibility.

The whole contention of neocon right that the US invaded Iraq to help the poor Iraqis rid themselve of a mean dictator is just bullshit. The US did not invade Iraq because we felt sorry for the Iraqis living under a dictator. This is just an after the fact justification to excuse an illegitimate use of power by deceptive means.

 

[Flea]

We need to leave, the war is just sucking, but how do we do it successfully?

 

[Lightdemon]

The whole contention of neocon right that the US invaded Iraq to help the poor Iraqis rid themselve of a mean dictator is just bullshit. The US did not invade Iraq because we felt sorry for the Iraqis living under a dictator. This is just an after the fact justification to excuse an illegitimate use of power by deceptive means.

This is actually very accurate.

One can verify this simply by looking at the US-Iraq relation during the Reagan administration. What you will find is that the US govt actually supported Iraq in its conquest in the Middle East. We gave Saddam orders, we gave him weapons, we gave him technologies, we even gave him our state-of-the-art-helicopters.

And when you actually read the history, it'll show you how our relationship changed. We call him a warmongerer today, but we fail to see that it was the US who empowered him to begin with.

Again, very accurate Iriemon.

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
The whole contention of neocon right that the US invaded Iraq to help the poor Iraqis rid themselve of a mean dictator is just bullshit. The US did not invade Iraq because we felt sorry for the Iraqis living under a dictator. This is just an after the fact justification to excuse an illegitimate use of power by deceptive means.

True and:

Originally Posted by Lightdemon
One can verify this simply by looking at the US-Iraq relation during the Reagan administration. What you will find is that the US govt actually supported Iraq in its conquest in the Middle East. We gave Saddam orders, we gave him weapons, we gave him technologies, we even gave him our state-of-the-art-helicopters.

And when you actually read the history, it'll show you how our relationship changed. We call him a warmongerer today, but we fail to see that it was the US who empowered him to begin with.

and true. Now what?

 

[VTA]

This is actually very accurate.

One can verify this simply by looking at the US-Iraq relation during the Reagan administration. What you will find is that the US govt actually supported Iraq in its conquest in the Middle East. We gave Saddam orders, we gave him weapons, we gave him technologies, we even gave him our state-of-the-art-helicopters.

And when you actually read the history, it'll show you how our relationship changed. We call him a warmongerer today, but we fail to see that it was the US who empowered him to begin with.

Again, very accurate Iriemon.

Errr... not very accurate. America aided Iraq because it was in it's best interests that it could defeat Iran. Remember them? You'll also remember that when Sadaam embarked on his 'conquest in the Middle East', starting with Kuwait, America pulled the reigns in, realizing that he was an arrogant fool.

The word was 'Dictator', btw, not warmonger. 'Brutal Dictator'.
The change in that relationship is due entirely on the man's actions and is completely legitimate.

 

[MSgt]

The whole contention of neocon right that the US invaded Iraq to help the poor Iraqis rid themselve of a mean dictator is just bullshit. The US did not invade Iraq because we felt sorry for the Iraqis living under a dictator. This is just an after the fact justification to excuse an illegitimate use of power by deceptive means.

And why did we attack? No..no...let me guess the typical Global Left response...

1) "America just likes to kill"

2) "America just wanted oil"

3) "Bush is evil and is the real terrorist."

4) "Bush wanted revenge for the assassination plot of his daddy."

5) "America's intelligencia was too stupid."

6) "America supported Saddam in the 80's."


This is pathetic and I tire of it. Let's get past the Liberal garbage of partisan slavery or sheer Global Left anti-Americanism...

1) Too absurd and not willing to comment.

2) Considering the cost of a war, it would have been cheaper to just buy it. The "it's all about oil" stage is fragile as hell.

3) The Global Left need to believe that Bush is evil as they exhonerate our enemies, because they need to clinig to anyhitng that will excuse their absent behavior to do the right thing.

4) This is just pathetic. If he wanted petty revenge, a Marine Sniper Team would have taken care of it for about $10,000 worth of travel pay. Or he simply could have gotten the CIA to get some ME agents to plant a car bomb and blamed the Iraqis for it. Hell, we could have dropped a bomb from 30,000 feet and the world would have stopped crying about it in days.

5) Our intelligencia is not without fault, but to suggest that with of our satellites that have been tracking Iran's nuclear sites-since Khomeini put them back into production-as they drop and rebuild sites to mask them, we couldn't come up with an image for Iraq? Despite our intelligencia's inability to understand the human factor of what we face-through internal and external design, you suggest that they couldn't come to a proper conclusion about WMD?

6) Our support for Saddam was against Khomeini, not for his tyranny. This excuse to do nothing, is sheer cowardice. And cowards are never at a loss for a good reason to do nothing. Immediately after the Iran/Iraq war (for which we also supported Khomeini against Saddam), our government had pulled away from Saddam Hussein. Are we guilty of the Cold War because we were allies with Russia against Germany? Is America not supposed to make ammends for the despicable acts it took during the Cold War? The fact that we did offer Saddam a hand at survival for "stability" in the ME is all the more reason that we should do stand up to our responsibilities. In the mean time, while we continued to look away from the Middle East for oil "stability," Saddam went on to murder Kuwaitis, Kurds, Shiites, and used the UN sanctions to slaughter his people through starvation. How dare America do something.

The only logical conclusion to the events is exactly what I have written about for a year and a half on this site. The human factor and the Middle eastern failures. The NeoCons may have simply wanted a war to give their future military shaping plan credibility while fattening the defense industry's pockets as Congress gives ignorant apporoval (my thoughts on it) but they happened to have chosen the right one. If we killed just Saddam with a sniper's bullet, would that not still leave the Baathist regime and his sons? Would not the price for Iraqi oil be cheaper than what we have spent on a war-and our military blood?

The only thing left is the human suffering factor. Saddam was evil-and there is such a thing in this world-and he was a long time enemy of the U.S. and our military. He was a key figure in the Middle East's defiance towards civilized authority and snubbed his nose at the very people that allowed him a safe return into Iraq following the Gulf War. The majority of his people were victims and hated Saddam and supported his removal. Even Bin Ladden hated Saddam's ruthlessness upon Muslims (despite his ruthlessness towards Muslims in Sudan and in Iraq), but are we as the "great nation for good" supposed to accept the dictator for fear of the zealot? This is foolish and it is irresponsible. Of all the places to instill a government where all Muslims are to be treated equal, Iraq was the most advantageous and held the most possibilities. And favorable behavior of unlike people at the end of a bayonet is never and should never be acceptable to the western civilization that is supposed to stand for justice, freedom, and human rights.

And this is where the Global Left always seek to produce the carnage in Iraq today and try to pass off that they would have been better off living in tyranny and brutality under Saddam. Well, the convenience of the self-righteous left never had to lived in Iraq under Saddam and they don't live their now. This attitude that freedom is supposed to be easy and that people shouldn't die for it is pathetic at best. They have forgotten that men and women have died in the past to ensure that they have their freedom, but they have the audacity to declare that freedom for Muslims in the Middle east isn't good enough for them to fight for? How selfish. Further, we have this designed ignorance that unlike people that have been forced to live together under threat of death (thanks Europe) are supposed to embrace each other as brothers once the Dictator has been removed. This is the natural path of their success. They have to learn what is mote important to them. Sadly, some have chosen that revenge for past grievances (largely based on centuries old myth) trump the possibilities of the future. What is more sad is how the Global Left have decided to take a defeatist attitude as they declare that they minority and the terrorists have achieved far more than they have because of headline sensationalism. It's strange how the champions of human rights (the Global Left) are strangely quite about the majority of Iraqis who are holding on to the chance to live as they do.

But, I guess this is where they choose to use the aspect of oil or Bush "lies" as their exhoneration from duty and from their responsibilities to man kind.

 

[bub]

And why did we attack? No..no...let me guess the typical Global Left response...

Sometimes you may be smart, but when you bring your myth of
-> the "global left"*
-> the "global islamism who threatens us"
-> the "stupid European morons who are all anti-american"
...you are very very boring and one-sided.

* sounds like the "jewish complot against germany" and it also remembers me the nazi propaganda, warning people against the bolschevik hordes trying to invade the West...:roll:

NUANCE your rethoric.


On the one hand, it's true Saddam has been removed, and quite fast. But on the other hand, you don't have any legitimacy (so you are seen as the new ennemy of the Iraqi's) and people wonder why you suddenly decided to democratize Iraq after over 30 years of dictature.

On the one hand, it's a good thing because the path is open to democracy, but on the other hand, an UN intervention, slower it's true, but more peaceful, would have had the same effect, but without hundreds of thousands of killed and without a civil war, and would more probably have succeeded (that's a fact, I've got statistics, I'll PM you if you need proofs)

On the one hand, the invasion of Iraq brought relative freedom, but on the other hand, it's known that wapon-sellers sponsorized Bush's campaign, and there could probably be a link between where the funds of Bush's campaign came from and who has benefits from this war.

On the one hand, it's true European should have moved more and make more pressure on Saddam (and many other dictators) but on the other hand, the US military intervention and the civil war resulting are worse than a (slower) changing in Iraq with the UN legitimacy

I wrote a post based on a political science book, but you don't even read it, so

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-i...cracy-comparative-historical-perspective.html

4) This is just pathetic. If he wanted petty revenge, a Marine Sniper Team would have taken care of it for about $10,000 worth of travel pay. Or he simply could have gotten the CIA to get some ME agents to plant a car bomb and blamed the Iraqis for it. Hell, we could have dropped a bomb from 30,000 feet and the world would have stopped crying about it in days.

WRONG

You have tried several times to kill him, for years (same with Castro) but it has never worked.

 

[MSgt]

And here we have it. The first contributer. This is full of exhonerations and explained away morality to doing what is right.

Sometimes you may be smart, but when you bring your myth of
-> the "global left"*
-> the "global islamism who threatens us"
-> the "stupid European morons who are all anti-american"
...you are very very boring and one-sided.

* sounds like the "jewish complot against germany" and it also remembers me the nazi propaganda, warning people against the bolschevik hordes trying to invade the West...:roll:

NUANCE your rethoric.

Let me help you with what you think is a "myth." The Global Left are those individuals who are detemined to cast all that is wrong in the world at the feet of Americans with complete disregard at how the world was made wrong in the first place. The Global Left is that group of individuals who fester in anti-Americanism out of resentment tat the Nazi Party, Soviet communist, and today's Euro socialism (which has not quite yet matured into the next problem for Europe). And finally the Global Left are those individuals who preach on human rights and equality while ignoring the suffering, but then criticizes America when our boots hit the ground. If American boots crossed the border of Sudan tomorrow and killed a couple civilians on their way through a Radical stronghold, the Global Left would erupt in criticism from their comfortable distances as the decade and half long carnage in Sudan now becomes a silent whisper.

Plenty of Americans are a part of this group, but if you wish to paint all of Europe and no Amecans in it then go for it. I would think that you would want to examine the world you live in more closely though instead of relying on uncomfortable truths to be a "myth."


And global Islamism isn't the threat. Now, pay attention...."Radical" Islam is the threat. Do you think differently? Are you aware of what is happening in much of the Islamic world? Are you aware that the weapon of choice to destroy another is a nuclear weapon and the Radical right in Iran would like nothing more than to have one in their arsenol? And what about your lifestyle? Is your freedom of press now affected because hundreds of thousands of Radical Islamists took the streets to burn structures and murder people over a printed cartoon? We have heard the please for restraint with regards to insulting Islam from our governments as our press still find great glee in comfortably dragging Christianity through the mud with safety. How's your sense of security at airports? Stricter making life that much more of a pain in the ***? Is the spy network that many countries are involved in (including your own) that listens in on phone calls and follows would-be-terrorists, not used by people to whine about with regards to their "lost civil rights?"

All of this and much more is because the threat of Radical Islam is very real. Hiding your head in the sand like so many Europeans and their govenrments hoping it will fix itself (as France enjoys it's first of many to come Islamic riots), will prove foolish before long.

On the one hand, it's true Saddam has been removed, and quite fast. But on the other hand, you don't have any legitimacy (so you are seen as the new ennemy of the Iraqi's) and people wonder why you suddenly decided to democratize Iraq after over 30 years of dictature.

This is an exhoneration from duty. America "suddenly decided" to do something while some of the world powers decided the status quo was good enough. 9/11 sure goes a long way when considering a "suddenly."

Your attempts to extend the Sunni insurgency that long for the good old Saddam days with the Shi'tes and the Kurds as all of Iraq is transparent. Do better by remaining honest.

The sad truth of why people are wondering why America has done something after thirty years is exactly what is wrong with the world. This sense that evil may thrive as long as it is selective and maintains stability is yesterdays form of control. The staus quo has been shattered and the old thinkers don't like it, so now they pull out every stop to devalue it or to find exhoineration for their absences.

On the one hand, it's a good thing because the path is open to democracy, but on the other hand, an UN intervention, slower it's true, but more peaceful, would have had the same effect, but without hundreds of thousands of killed and without a civil war, and would more probably have succeeded (that's a fact, I've got statistics, I'll PM you if you need proofs)

A UN intercvention that wasn't going to do anything? A UN intervention that we haven't seen in Sudan? And why would the nations of China, Russia, France and Germany do anything for anybody? Have they ever?

You claim that a UN intervention (which would never happen) would incur less death as fact? Save your facts of fantasy. Show me some facts about Sudan and the rest of the world the UN ignores while blaming America.

On the one hand, the invasion of Iraq brought relative freedom, but on the other hand, it's known that wapon-sellers sponsorized Bush's campaign, and there could probably be a link between where the funds of Bush's campaign came from and who has benefits from this war.

Probably? War profiteers exist in all wars. It is impossible not to profit from war. Is this your exhoneration from doing what is right? How dare we save self-righteous Europeans from themselves twice....people made money.

The truth is that America has spent its treasure quite irresponsible in Iraq and there wewre better ways to do it. And? Still ignoring the human aspect?

On the one hand, it's true European should have moved more and make more pressure on Saddam (and many other dictators) but on the other hand, the US military intervention and the civil war resulting are worse than a (slower) changing in Iraq with the UN legitimacy

This is because of what occurred (and did not occur) after the fall of Baghdad. However, as America was doing something, where was the rest of Europe? Were they assisting in the human effort or were they sitting back producing reasons not to help people?

I wrote a post based on a political science book, but you don't even read it, so

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-i...cracy-comparative-historical-perspective.html

Your post has a lot of common sense in it. Common sense we have all said and read before. But in the end it merely acts as a reason to do nothing. The fear of trouble should never be a reason for allowing tyranny to fester.

WRONG

You have tried several times to kill him, for years (same with Castro) but it has never worked.

Lies. With our power in military and CIA, you actually think we have failed to kill in individiual in plain sight?

And at the end of your post we have pretty much collected up a nice definition of excuses to let the world rot. You replied exactly in the same manner as the post you replied to. Good job.

 

[Iriemon]

And why did we attack? No..no...let me guess the typical Global Left response...

1) "America just likes to kill"
2) "America just wanted oil"
3) "Bush is evil and is the real terrorist."
4) "Bush wanted revenge for the assassination plot of his daddy."
5) "America's intelligencia was too stupid."
6) "America supported Saddam in the 80's."

This is pathetic and I tire of it. Let's get past the Liberal garbage of partisan slavery or sheer Global Left anti-Americanism...

Gysgt, your ignorance is showing again, this time a lack of comprehension of politics that was the cause of the Iraq, which certainly wasn't some desire to provide humanitarian assistance to the poor Iraqis.

Getting Hussein out of power has been the goal of the Global neocons ever since Hussein invaded Kuwait, and had the audacity to shoot missles at Israel. You can read their arguements to depose Hussein back from the 90s, at the Project for a New American Century where guys like Cheney, Rummy, Wolfawitz and Jeb Bush were signature members. The neocons spun most of the stuff about Iraq and Hussein, a great portion of it was exagerration if not downright fiction, as later events have proved.

Add to that a president who I doubt had any real foreign policy conviction, but was influenced by the neocons in his government and had his own bone to pick with Hussein -- the guy who had defied (and embarrassed) his father and by some reports had had him targeted for an assasination (which was the same thing Bush Sr. had tried to do to Hussein).

Then comes 9-11, which provides the perfect excuse. The country was mad, and a tough-guy cowboy attitude from the president was selling well. Hussein had no doubt been a smart *** when it came to the US, and like to raise his stock by acting tough. Thus he was also the perfect foil. Add in the fact that Iraq was cutting US companies out of its huge oil business, which the neocons fantasized would easily pay for any costs in the quick and easy action they sold everyone on, and Iraq could be a great target for several interests.

Only problem was, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, Hussein was not an Islamic radical, and Iraq had little if any history of supporting terrorism. But those problems were sold with a little misinformation and misimplication that had a majority of the country believing it was Iraqis flying the jets on 9-11, and spin the WMDS a bit to make him seem far more dangerous than he was.

And there you go.

The only thing left is the human suffering factor. Saddam was evil-and there is such a thing in this world-and he was a long time enemy of the U.S. and our military. He was a key figure in the Middle East's defiance towards civilized authority and snubbed his nose at the very people that allowed him a safe return into Iraq following the Gulf War.

The majority of his people were victims and hated Saddam and supported his removal. Even Bin Ladden hated Saddam's ruthlessness upon Muslims (despite his ruthlessness towards Muslims in Sudan and in Iraq), but are we as the "great nation for good" supposed to accept the dictator for fear of the zealot? This is foolish and it is irresponsible. Of all the places to instill a government where all Muslims are to be treated equal, Iraq was the most advantageous and held the most possibilities. And favorable behavior of unlike people at the end of a bayonet is never and should never be acceptable to the western civilization that is supposed to stand for justice, freedom, and human rights.

Sounds wonderful, wish it were true, but we all know this was not the reason Bush invaded Iraq. It's the best you can come up with to justify it now, though, I agree.

If the US were really concerned about Iraqis, it might have calculated whether the effects of starting a war makes it better or worse, or even more, whether maybe the Iraqi people themselves maybe should have made this decision. You say the majority wanted him out, though even after his army was destroyed in 1991 there was no generaly uprising. Apparently a lot wanted him in.

If the US Govt was really concerned about the Iraqis, you'd think that maybe they'd keep track of how many are getting killed.

And this is where the Global Left always seek to produce the carnage in Iraq today and try to pass off that they would have been better off living in tyranny and brutality under Saddam. Well, the convenience of the self-righteous left never had to lived in Iraq under Saddam and they don't live their now. This attitude that freedom is supposed to be easy and that people shouldn't die for it is pathetic at best.

No, what is pathetic is the concept that you think you have the right to decide that Iraqis should be dying in the scores of thousands for your version of freedom.

They have forgotten that men and women have died in the past to ensure that they have their freedom, but they have the audacity to declare that freedom for Muslims in the Middle east isn't good enough for them to fight for? How selfish.

So we have Gysgt deciding that they will have it, if we have to kill 50% of them in the process.

But no one is fooled by this. Bush did not invade Iraq to free the Iraqis. This is after the fact justification of an action that was not justified on the grounds that were given for the war.

Further, we have this designed ignorance that unlike people that have been forced to live together under threat of death (thanks Europe) are supposed to embrace each other as brothers once the Dictator has been removed. This is the natural path of their success. They have to learn what is mote important to them. Sadly, some have chosen that revenge for past grievances (largely based on centuries old myth) trump the possibilities of the future. What is more sad is how the Global Left have decided to take a defeatist attitude as they declare that they minority and the terrorists have achieved far more than they have because of headline sensationalism. It's strange how the champions of human rights (the Global Left) are strangely quite about the majority of Iraqis who are holding on to the chance to live as they do.

What is really sad is that even after all the claims about Iraq and WMDs and terrorist supporting and 9-11 has all proved false, neocons and warmongers *still* want to stay the course because they can't admit their errors and for their pride.

But, I guess this is where they choose to use the aspect of oil or Bush "lies" as their exhoneration from duty and from their responsibilities to man kind.

But I guess maintaining pride is more important than admitting your mistakes and doing the right thing.

 

[Lightdemon]

Errr... not very accurate. America aided Iraq because it was in it's best interests that it could defeat Iran. Remember them? You'll also remember that when Sadaam embarked on his 'conquest in the Middle East', starting with Kuwait, America pulled the reigns in, realizing that he was an arrogant fool.

You seem to only remember half of the story. US aided Iraq AND Iran. Perhaps you've heard of the Iran-Contra Scandal that involved the Reagan administration. The white house was selling weapons to Iran, which around the same time they were selling weapons and helicopters to Iraq (as I pointed out earlier). Trading weapons with Iran was a way to improve relations with Iran.

Here's a very good history lesson:
The US is known for staying out of wars, this is where the US makes a lot of profits. That is because we are also known for selling products to BOTH sides of a war. We see this in the Napoleonic wars, we see this is WW2 before we became Allies, and of course, we see this in the Iraq-Iran war.

Now, your response to why we aided Iraq was that it was in our best interests at the time. But what would be the best interests for us to be aiding Iran?

The word was 'Dictator', btw, not warmonger. 'Brutal Dictator'.
The change in that relationship is due entirely on the man's actions and is completely legitimate.

Fair enough, but regardless, the US created him in the first place. Was it not Rumsfeld who actually met with Saddam in the week of Christmas in 1983? To establish relations with Iraq?

 

[bub]

......I read your post and will answer tomorrow (no time today)...but one of your sentence shocked me more than the rest:

Your post has a lot of common sense in it.

Common sense? COMMON SENSE? Are you kidding????

1) If you had read it, you would have seen I was not the author but I only summarized it.

2) The author is Eva Bellin, specialist in " Comparative Politics, Politics of the Middle East and North Africa, Democratization, Political Economy of Development, Religion and Politics." & BA: Harvard University PhD: Princeton University.

I have never said I was smarter than you, but YES, as a professor and specialist, SHE has more credibility than YOU. So, if there is common sense here, it's in you posts (and all your nazi-like myths) rather than in her article.

 

[Lightdemon]

Lies. With our power in military and CIA, you actually think we have failed to kill in individiual in plain sight?

Our power in the military are in missiles/bombs and aircraft. Do you recall what was the Cold War? Most of our military might amounts to bombing the crap out of other countries. Perhaps you recall what is Napalms in the Vietnam war? Do you remember when Clinton fired missles into Bosnia?

When it comes to fighting a war against another superpower, we would definately be the victor. Because we have strategies that can efficiently eiliminate bases, forts, barracks, missile silos, and other "strategic" locations that is very nice to bomb.

However, we totally suck at Guerrilla wars. Our military isn't suited for that type of fighting. There aren't any strategic places to bomb. Yet we use our bombs anyway, and that is why a lot of the civilians have been dying (on top of car bombs and such, etc.).

With that said, we can certainly bomb Castro's house, killing many civilians in the process. But that would probably violate a lot of international laws. Another person that the US has failed to kill is the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Both Castro and Chavez have very strong ties with thier own armies, and this makes it hard for outsiders to get close to them.

However, in south america, its very common to find in recent history that a president of some latin american country died in a plane crash because a bomb had gone off inside it. These presidents didn't have as strong a relationship with thier armies, and was easy to corrupt. Thier own people had planted the bomb. One such example was the president of Ecuador.

So your assumption that we are the strongest military power is somewhat a misconception. Just because we are the most "powerful" doesn't mean we have access to all avenues. We can kill some people easily, but others are untouchable. Even if they were in plain sight, the US wouldn't have the means carryout such an execution.

 

[MSgt]

......I read your post and will answer tomorrow (no time today)...but one of your sentence shocked me more than the rest:



Common sense? COMMON SENSE? Are you kidding????

1) If you had read it, you would have seen I was not the author but I only summarized it.

2) The author is Eva Bellin, specialist in " Comparative Politics, Politics of the Middle East and North Africa, Democratization, Political Economy of Development, Religion and Politics." & BA: Harvard University PhD: Princeton University.

I have never said I was smarter than you, but YES, as a professor and specialist, SHE has more credibility than YOU. So, if there is common sense here, it's in you posts (and all your nazi-like myths) rather than in her article.

Looks like common sense to me. It's more of the same things I have read in other books and case studies. I don't know what you are saying. Are you saying that what she has written is too hard to comprehend?

 

[MSgt]

Our power in the military are in missiles/bombs and aircraft. Do you recall what was the Cold War? Most of our military might amounts to bombing the crap out of other countries. Perhaps you recall what is Napalms in the Vietnam war? Do you remember when Clinton fired missles into Bosnia?

When it comes to fighting a war against another superpower, we would definately be the victor. Because we have strategies that can efficiently eiliminate bases, forts, barracks, missile silos, and other "strategic" locations that is very nice to bomb.

However, we totally suck at Guerrilla wars. Our military isn't suited for that type of fighting. There aren't any strategic places to bomb. Yet we use our bombs anyway, and that is why a lot of the civilians have been dying (on top of car bombs and such, etc.).

With that said, we can certainly bomb Castro's house, killing many civilians in the process. But that would probably violate a lot of international laws. Another person that the US has failed to kill is the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Both Castro and Chavez have very strong ties with thier own armies, and this makes it hard for outsiders to get close to them.

However, in south america, its very common to find in recent history that a president of some latin american country died in a plane crash because a bomb had gone off inside it. These presidents didn't have as strong a relationship with thier armies, and was easy to corrupt. Thier own people had planted the bomb. One such example was the president of Ecuador.

So your assumption that we are the strongest military power is somewhat a misconception. Just because we are the most "powerful" doesn't mean we have access to all avenues. We can kill some people easily, but others are untouchable. Even if they were in plain sight, the US wouldn't have the means carryout such an execution.

I hate to shatter your dreams here, but the CIA and the military have many contacts within other countries that make up the spy network the media is always trying to reveal to the people. You actually think that a single Kurd armed with a rifle or a single bomb dropped into the window of a car would be too hard for us? What saved these individuals from their deaths (before Saddam got his) was our unwillingness to dedicate to the effort.

Much like our war against religious terrorists. Until we are forced to dedicate ourselves to the effort instead of dedicating this effort to Liberal ideals and campus ideology, we are merely stringing out the death count and in the end the count will be higher.

 

[Lightdemon]

I hate to shatter your dreams here, but the CIA and the military have many contacts within other countries that make up the spy network the media is always trying to reveal to the people. You actually think that a single Kurd armed with a rifle or a single bomb dropped into the window of a car would be too hard for us? What saved these individuals from their deaths (before Saddam got his) was our willingness to dedicate to the effort.

Any facts to support this claim? With all due respect, I have provided examples of why Castro and Chavez are safe from attacks. It's no surprise that Kennedy wanted to kill Castro. Yet Castro is still alive today. And ironically, the only thing that may kill Castro is his bad health, not the CIA or our military.

But please, do provide some evidence for your assertions.

 

[MSgt]

Gysgt, your ignorance is showing again, this time a lack of comprehension of politics that was the cause of the Iraq, which certainly wasn't some desire to provide humanitarian assistance to the poor Iraqis.

Getting Hussein out of power has been the goal of the Global neocons ever since Hussein invaded Kuwait, and had the audacity to shoot missles at Israel. You can read their arguements to depose Hussein back from the 90s, at the Project for a New American Century where guys like Cheney, Rummy, Wolfawitz and Jeb Bush were signature members. The neocons spun most of the stuff about Iraq and Hussein, a great portion of it was exagerration if not downright fiction, as later events have proved.

Add to that a president who I doubt had any real foreign policy conviction, but was influenced by the neocons in his government and had his own bone to pick with Hussein -- the guy who had defied (and embarrassed) his father and by some reports had had him targeted for an assasination (which was the same thing Bush Sr. had tried to do to Hussein).

Then comes 9-11, which provides the perfect excuse. The country was mad, and a tough-guy cowboy attitude from the president was selling well. Hussein had no doubt been a smart *** when it came to the US, and like to raise his stock by acting tough. Thus he was also the perfect foil. Add in the fact that Iraq was cutting US companies out of its huge oil business, which the neocons fantasized would easily pay for any costs in the quick and easy action they sold everyone on, and Iraq could be a great target for several interests.

Only problem was, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, Hussein was not an Islamic radical, and Iraq had little if any history of supporting terrorism. But those problems were sold with a little misinformation and misimplication that had a majority of the country believing it was Iraqis flying the jets on 9-11, and spin the WMDS a bit to make him seem far more dangerous than he was.

And there you go.

Um.....no sh1t. Thanks for regurgitating my own words (with a measure of opinionated nonesense mixed in). Most of everyhting you said here has been written enough times by me I'm sick of coverng it. This is exactly where you disconnect. This is exactly where you use the above to deny the Iraqi suffering and the Middle Eastern region for what it is. This is exaclty where you are absent of vision to step back and examine what is going on. This is exactly what I mean by "Global Left." Focusing on the aspects that give them exhoneration while denying all factors involved does not alter reality.

 

[bub]

Maybe he is speaking about the same spies who revealed where was Bin Laden and then killed him? :roll:

Or the almighty CIA and its efficient contacts (who showed us where were the WMD's...don't remember?) is also a part of your myths?

 

[MSgt]

Any facts to support this claim? With all due respect, I have provided examples of why Castro and Chavez are safe from attacks. It's no surprise that Kennedy wanted to kill Castro. Yet Castro is still alive today. And ironically, the only thing that may kill Castro is his bad health, not the CIA or our military.

But please, do provide some evidence for your assertions.

Facts? Evidence? You provided nothing about our "attempts" and you declare that you have provided examples?

What exactly do you want? Weapons specifications? Bomb specifications? Flight plans? Get over it. Any fool that knows our CIA system and military weaponry can safely state that we could kill any individual on earth if we had a determination to do it. Here's some examples:

Ghudafi. We bombed his house from a safe distance. We missed him and parts of his family. Did we need to kill him after his "discovered" good behavior after this? No. Could we have? Yes.

Kennedy. I firmly believe that Oswald acted alone. But let's assume that the conspiracy nuts are right. The most powerful man in the world can be gotten to so easily but a man like Saddam and Castro could evade us? Even with Oswald alone tells us how easy it is for a determined individual to kill another.

Pablo Escobar. A Colombian drug baron was assassinated by local soldiers operating with American intelligence, training, and assistance.

And what don't we know? The act of assassination can have an accomplished effect without killing the individual. But if determination is what drives the effort, nobody is safe.

 

[MSgt]

Maybe he is speaking about the same spies who revealed where was Bin Laden and then killed him? :roll:

Don't know what you are talking about.

Or the almighty CIA and its efficient contacts (who showed us where were the WMD's...don't remember?) is also a part of your myths?

I find you annoying at best. I am not a believer in the Iraqi "immediate threat" theory that got us into Iraq. I do not and did not subscribe to the notion that our CIA was so inept that they thought Saddam had WMD as was relayed to the idiot American population for the simple reason that we have been tracking Iranian nuclear sites since the Khomeini era and have sattelite imagry to prove it..yet no imagry for Iraq.

If you are unable to discuss intellgently then what is your purpose here?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
I find you annoying at best. I am not a believer in the Iraqi "immediate threat" theory that got us into Iraq. I do not and did not subscribe to the notion that our CIA was so inept that they thought Saddam had WMD as was relayed to the idiot American population for the simple reason that we have been tracking Iranian nuclear sites since the Khomeini era and have sattelite imagry to prove it..yet no imagry for Iraq.

But you do think that we went into Iraq to replace a bad dictator (that we knew was bad for 20 years) instead of the PSA's that are about to be cashed in by the major oil company's after the signing of Iraq's new energy law.

Enjoy...


New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush

 

[Lightdemon]

Kennedy. I firmly believe that Oswald acted alone. But let's assume that the conspiracy nuts are right. The most powerful man in the world can be gotten to so easily but a man like Saddam and Castro could evade us? Even with Oswald alone tells us how easy it is for a determined individual to kill another.

again your concept of "powerful" is misleading. Being "powerful", as I have stated before, does not allow you all avenues. And I think you may have misunderstood when I mentioned Kennedy.

I was talking about "Bay of Pigs" a document that actually has CIA reports about attempts to kill Castro, and the failed attempt to invade Cuba. When I said it is no surprise that Kennedy tried to kill Castro, this is what I meant. I guess I should have said, it is no secret that Kennedy has tried to kill Castrol.

Yet, he failed, being the "most powerful man" and all. You bring up Ghudafi and Escobar, but remember I said that some people are easier to kill? That thier ties to thier own armies are not as strong as others (and thus less protected)? and some are untouchable because of thier strong ties. Castro and Chavez are untouchable because their military is very connected with thier leader.

As for evidence, what I am looking for is something that says that our military intelligence is so vast and so power, as you say, that we have access to things beyond our reach. Because this is what this is essentially. Chavez and Castro are out of reach, and the US has failed to kill them. Yet, your only response to that is that the US isn't trying hard enough. That there is no determination. But "Bay of Pigs" kind of says otherwise.

 

[Iriemon]

Um.....no sh1t. Thanks for regurgitating my own words (with a measure of opinionated nonesense mixed in). Most of everyhting you said here has been written enough times by me I'm sick of coverng it. This is exactly where you disconnect. This is exactly where you use the above to deny the Iraqi suffering and the Middle Eastern region for what it is. This is exaclty where you are absent of vision to step back and examine what is going on. This is exactly what I mean by "Global Left." Focusing on the aspects that give them exhoneration while denying all factors involved does not alter reality.

Where did I deny Iraqi suffering or ME region for what it is? The fact that I disagree with the proposition that if we don't like the way a country is being run we have the right to jump in and start a war does not mean that I deny the situation.

However, now that we all agree that the US did not start a war in Iraq because of humanitarian purposes is relevant to what we should do now that we are there. If the US in fact had sent troops in because of an internationally recognized humanitarian tradegy (or in the case for example of the first Gulf war, an internationally recognized legitimate military intervention of repelling an invasion by Iraq), we would at least have the mantle of good motives in our action, which would be more apparent if there was an internal or regional consensus that military action was warranted.

Having at least a mantle of good faith and acting in a situation recognized as justifying intervention is no guarantee of success, however, it helps. In Iraq, we have no clothing of good faith, because the reasons Bush went into Iraq were pretextual and not based on a good faith desire to provide humanitarian aid in an internationally recongized context. To the contrary, there is a lot of justification for arguing the US invaded Iraq in bad faith. And when people you mean to rule think the invader is acting in bad faith, it's going to be a heck of a lot tougher to convince them that they should accept your presence, system, and form of government. That is a big problem in Iraq today, particularly amongst the disposed sunnis.

 

[VTA]

Now, your response to why we aided Iraq was that it was in our best interests at the time. But what would be the best interests for us to be aiding Iran?

I know all that, but to answer your question, to fund the anti-Communists Contra's in Nicaragua.

Fair enough, but regardless, the US created him in the first place. Was it not Rumsfeld who actually met with Saddam in the week of Christmas in 1983? To establish relations with Iraq?

Sadaam did his own dirty work and America established relations with him, and that pic of Rummy that everyone parades around is only damning in hindsight, a luxury enjoyed by people who come in after the fact.

Iran had already established it's hostility with the hostage taking and with Khomeini's rhetoric, Iraq was the lesser of two evils and a way to weaken Iran without actually wasting American power on it.

Right or wrong, it's done and won't change anything about the struggles going on today. It's just dirt for detractors to throw in lieu of offering something tangible as to why America shouldn't be fighting Islamic extremists.

Going forward, we can hope America has learned something (so the administration say's) and keeps a better policy toward doing business with these people...

Right now, not much is being said about our support of the Ethiopian government as it destroys the Islamists in Somalia (a very shrewd tactical support). Give it 20 years and plenty will decry that support too, should Ethiopia start acting foolish.

 

[Lightdemon]

Sadaam did his own dirty work and America established relations with him, and that pic of Rummy that everyone parades around is only damning in hindsight, a luxury enjoyed by people who come in after the fact.

Not true. The american people knew what was going on in Iraq and Iran. In fact, there were hearings in the US senate where they talked about Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds, as well as Saddam's genocidal Anfal campaign. So it wasn't like we didn't know this, our own senators debated and talked about this. We knew what Saddam was capable of, we knew what kind of man he was. We knew what was going on, we are not acting in hindsight like you say. All this talk was done in 1983 BEFORE Kuwait.

In 1990, about 6 weeks before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush Sr's Administration gave hundreds of millions of dollars in credit to Iraq. On top of that, Bush Sr actually defended the US-Iraq relationship, saying that "Saddams presence was a moderation influence in Iranian agreesion" (or something like that).

So don't say we are acting in hindsight. Many people already knew what was going on at the time.

Right now, not much is being said about our support of the Ethiopian government as it destroys the Islamists in Somalia (a very shrewd tactical support). Give it 20 years and plenty will decry that support too, should Ethiopia start acting foolish.

I'd like to hear more about this side of the story as well.