DescentBB

At this point in time I can see both sides of the issue about keeping more troops in Iraq. I would even agree with Durbins assesment tonight that the Iraqi's have to do much more to control civil strive. Be it as it may the one thing that I read in Bush's speech that was heartening was:

\" And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.\"

This one line may be the single most important part of what will be done new. Let the troops do what they are trained for instead of have to follow a 7 step RoE before they can shoot at suspected insurgents. Get real tough and I suspect the insurgents will start either dying faster or leaving faster.
The idea of allowing \"Mooki\" al Sader free run of Bagdad is ludicrous. It will be interesting to see what unfolds in the coming months.

RoE changes won't make up for the lack of numbers.

Dudes, \"too many restrictions\"??

Yeah, like that pesky ol' \"Geneva Convention\" and those really annoying and outdated \"Laws of War.\"

Let me tell you that America has committed many very serious war crimes, AND crimes against humanity in its time in Iraq. There a bundle of US soldiers who are now subject to the death penalty under International Law. This also extends to the very top of the US command chain.

I think, before screaming that your troops need to be \"set free\", you need to study what they have already done, and what they do regularly now.

Read \"Failed States\" by Naom Chomsky.

Mobius wrote:Let me tell you that America has committed many very serious war crimes, AND crimes against humanity in its time in Iraq.

/me keeps an eye out for members of Humanity's Police Department....
Face it Mobius, despite the facade of United Nations blue helmets the only real international law is the one someone can back up with force! Just ask the ghost of Saddam Hussein, he called their bluff and bribed some of their officers and almost pulled it off right up until the U.S. said 'Screw this, were going in alone if we have to...'.
The rules are only there if you can back them up....

Mobius, before you spout your favorite America hating author perhaps you should look homeward and fix the fence around the sheep pen:

\"The year 2004 was one of the most pivotal years for race relations in New Zealand in nearly a century. Once again the grievances of Maori were heard and the majority of European New Zealand society responded negatively. Why? The control of the foreshore and seabed was at stake.\"

http://www.twm.co.nz/racerenz.html

The Maori experience of colonization and the contemporary reality of marginalization and deprivation in everyday life mean that ethnic identity in Aotearoa/New Zealand is a site of struggle and resistance.

Contested Realities: Race, Gender and Public Policy in Aotearoa/New Zealand by Tracey McIntosh

http://tinyurl.com/tcjbd

Less restrictions is evidently beyond your scope of thinking Mobi. You do know that our troops can only fire on Iraqi's when they are being shot at by Iraqi's? Any other time they have to go through a chain of command to get permission. To help you understand a bit better if our troops see a sniper on a roof and the sniper is pointing a rifle at them, our boys have to call someone up to get permission to shoot said sniper. Of course by the time they get permission the sniper has made his shot and disappeared.
Do try and read up a little before repyling. Makes one look ar least a little eurodite.

LOL Chomsky now there's a good source

He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980-1992 time period, and was the eighth most cited scholar in any time period.[3][4][5] Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky

and by the way the IWW is a socialist orginization
Mobius good grief. glad you chose an unbiased source to quote from. Chomsky

I agree with woodchip.

I was/am not for the war in Iraq, but if you are going to go to war, then you can't do it half-way. Going to war half-way is like breaking up with a long-time girlfriend and agreeing to be best friends. It seems like the moral high road but in the end it just makes things really really ugly.

Look at the wars where America successfuly defeated and helped rebuid (Japan, Germany), vs the ones we have lost/are loosing (Vietnam, Iraq). We carpet bombed Germany and we Nuked Japan twice.

If you are going to use force, then it has to be overwhelming force which leaves the other side with no hope for victory. Right now America really is running in circles on what to do over there.

If the insurgents are in a mosque, blow up the mosque. If they are all in a school, blow up the school. War is not pretty; people need to accept that this is what war means. You can't shoot a guy's neighbor and expect him to consider you a 'nice and respectful nation' at the same time.

It's just unrealistic.

Gooberman wrote:If the insurgents are in a mosque, blow up the mosque. If they are all in a school, blow up the school. War is not pretty; people need to accept that this is what war means. You can't shoot a guy's neighbor and expect him to consider you a 'nice and respectful nation' at the same time.

It's just unrealistic.

Why not just nuke the whole Middle East and be done with it then, eh?

Oh, and Cuda, do you have a point?

Nice hit and run.

Historically, argue a war that was effective while the offensive country significantly \"held back\". You are a History Buff, I'd be interested in seeing what you can come up with.

Again, I was not for the war, because this is what 'war' means to me.

Palzon wrote:Why not just nuke the whole Middle East and be done with it then, eh?

Why not ask more questions that are based on illogical emotional hyperbole instead of addressing the difference between enough force to prevail and sloppy indiscriminate slaughter that won't even produce a long term tactical or strategic advantage but would fuel the future resistance on a much larger scale?

Will Robinson wrote:

Palzon wrote:Why not just nuke the whole Middle East and be done with it then, eh?

Why not ask more questions that are based on illogical emotional hyperbole instead of addressing the difference between enough force to prevail and sloppy indiscriminate slaughter that won't even produce a long term tactical or strategic advantage but would fuel the future resistance on a much larger scale?

Bombing mosques wouldn't fuel the resistance?

Palzon wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Palzon wrote:Why not just nuke the whole Middle East and be done with it then, eh?

Why not ask more questions that are based on illogical emotional hyperbole instead of addressing the difference between enough force to prevail and sloppy indiscriminate slaughter that won't even produce a long term tactical or strategic advantage but would fuel the future resistance on a much larger scale?

Bombing mosques wouldn't fuel the resistance?

Not on the scale of 'nuking the whole middle east'!!!
Even in warfare you have to do a cost benefit analysis!
Basically they saw us go balls to the wall in Afghanistan and lots of leaders in the region flinched. Lots of others like Russia and France who don't usually see things our way also backed off..

Then the leftwing stood up and said "Things are rough over there, we can oppose this WOT effort blame Bush and it will get us re-elected because our constituents are batshit crazy and actually believe the kind of hyperbole that Palzon will dump in a DBB thread!"
Almost immediately those who flinched went back to their old ways as did Russia and France. America quickly went from being an unstoppable rampaging force that you better get on the good side of.... to a divided weakened threat of a country lining up to re-enact the Vietnam War failure!

My point being, Afghanistan fueled the resistance to some degree, the democrat party putting party power above U.S. victory fueled the resistance even more.
But nuking the middle east is completely insane!
The trouble it would cause is so incredible that it can't even be measured by the same means used to measure a conventional invasion or the liberals subterfuge.
But you already know that....

Will Robinson wrote:The trouble it would cause is so incredible that it can't even be measured by the same means used to measure a conventional invasion or the liberals subterfuge.
But you already know that....

I believe the technical term is "Mutually Assured Destruction".

Well it should be obvious but I'm not for nuking the Middle East or for bombing mosques. Goob was making a point about fighting with the gloves off like we did in WWII and not using half-measures. Nothing is more full bore than a nuke (and we have done it before).

I'm not a hit and run poster. I was just leading up towards two subtle points here.

First, the current conception of the WOT is that it should be fought like some kind of global Vietnam War; a war that never ends EVER, against an enemy that cannot be defeated by purely military means. We defeated Germany and Japan because each had a vulnerable State, economy, and military.

Second, we're never ever going to win this war by relying as heavily as we have on military options. The solutions are ultimately more political than military, though the two cannot really be separated.

Historically, the Muslim world got the short end of Western Colonialism. Most of it was British or French. Yet the USA played its part. The British and French may have started it all, but now the USA is the big figure. So if the Muslim world feels shortchanged, the USA is as high up as they can complain.

Iraq is like a giant tarbaby. The harder we hit it, the more stuck we become. The main effort to fight the WOT would best be a combination; one that focuses on political/diplomatic solutions and improvements to homeland security, along with military action that is more nimble and able to strike at the most valuable targets on a smaller scale.

As I have said elsewhere, I have come to believe that Osama desired the exact outcome that we see unfolding before us today. Osama certainly anticipated we would respond militarily.

Why would he want that?

US forces engaged to their limit. US policy under fire abroad. Growing numbers of willing terrorists feuled by what they see as another Crusade. US prestige and influence damaged by failure. If the American people lose the will to continue the WOT then Al Qaeda would have greater freedom to operate unmolested in the Middle East.

By leaping before we looked, I fear we have played right into Al Queda's hands.

If you think of the terrorists as nothing more than madmen or evildoers you cannot fight them. You must try to understand them in order to fight them. Our leaders (on both sides of the aisle) don't understand the enemy. If Bush had a hundred years he would not win the war on terror at this rate. I'm not sure anyone in Washington has the right stuff. But our current policies will not only fail, but will hasten our failure.

░

The problem is Palzon that we have been fighting a PC war. A colonel got court martialed because he fire his pistol next to a prisoners head to get him to tell where a ambushed was being planned. It worked but the camp gitmo haters called for the officers head and got it. \"Mooky\" al Sadar should have been eliminated when he first declared Sadar city was his. When the terrorist and thugs started to see what the constrictions on our troops were, it was a open invitation to cause civil strife. Like the Vietnam war the politicians are trying to manage it. Turn our troops loose like they were in WW2 and watch for a change of events in Iraq. Bomb a mosque sound horrible to you? Read up on the destruction of the Montecassino Monastery during WW2. Those who want to kill our troops have to learn that no place is sancrosanct to store weapons. Hyperbole and calling for a end of the war only kills more of our troops.

Will Robinson wrote:we can oppose this WOT effort

the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the War On Terror when it was started.

You see, the ACTUAL enemy is radical Islamic fanaticism. Iraq was a very bad place, but it was NOT a home to radical Islamic fanaticism. By attacking it, we removed one of Iran's major enemies and gave Iran a training ground for it's terrorists. By the way, Iran IS a home to radical Islamic fanaticism. And unless our direction changes soon, we are going to walk out of Iraq and hand the place over to Iran. The situation will be uncountably worse than when we started.

Palzon wrote:I have come to believe that Osama desired the exact outcome that we see unfolding before us today ...
By leaping before we looked, I fear we have played right into Al Queda's hands.

That sums it up quite nicely.

Woodchip wrote:The problem is Palzon that we have been fighting a PC war.

Here I will agree with the right wingers. I wish we had never gotten in to this stupid war. But right now, the WORST thing we can do is NOT win it.

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:we can oppose this WOT effort

the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the War On Terror when it was started.....

That's not true, if you disagree with the reasons for including Iraq fine, but don't try to revise history just to make it easier for yourself to say it's all wrong.
Iraq was a small part and Palzon even layed out the many facets of how the WOT should be fought, Iraq was one of those. You want take issue with that bit of strategery fine but don't pretend it wasn't a part of the plan hatched by the commander in chief.
It wasn't ever a War-on-a-few-terrorists-but-not-all-of-them....it is a grand ever reaching all encompassing plan because that's what Islamo-facsism is! The Iraq phase has gone to hell in a hand basket, just like the first battle of the civil war did....but don't tell me that wasn't a part of the civil war just because it went badly!

Will Robinson wrote:if you disagree with the reasons for including Iraq fine, but don't try to revise history just to make it easier for yourself to say it's all wrong.

Sorry, allow me to clarify.

Iraq was a very small bit player it Terrorism. Saddam gave money to families of suicide bombers. He may have met once with some al-qaeda people, but nothing came of it. He made one strike against Bush Sr., but that was personal.

This all puts him as a petty player in the Terrorism world. Behind almost every other Arab nation. Behind most of our allies over there.

So, I'm not denying that Bush may have felt that attacking Iraq was an important goal in defeating terrorism. I'm not crazy enough to think we were fighting over oil or anything like that. We were fighting because Bush had a grudge against Saddam and MADE him part of the war on terrorism. And because Bush had this ridiculous idea that if he just whooped up on Saddam, Iraq would become a wonderful democracy and the new base of operations for the US in the middle east.

But he was wrong. Blatantly, obviously, and predictably, wrong. He put us BEHIND in the war. It's hard to think of much he could have done that would have been WORSE than this.

I'm actually beginning to think that we might have been better off with a whimp who had just backed down and run after 911. To clarify, I would in no way have APPROVED of that tactic, but Bush has fumbled the ball here so badly that I'm no longer certain some namby pamby "can't we all just get along" strategy, even though bad, wouldn't have hurt us LESS. I'm not certain on that, but its a possibility.

\"By the way, Iran IS a home to radical Islamic fanaticism. And unless our direction changes soon, we are going to walk out of Iraq and hand the place over to Iran.\" Kilarin

It looks as though something is building in regards to Iran:

Snip
It was reported Tuesday that a second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS John C. Stennis, will arrive in the Middle East in about one month, the first time since the U.S.-led Iraq war in 2003 that the United States will have two carrier battle groups in the region.

http://tinyurl.com/28gh8t

woodchip wrote:Read up on the destruction of the Montecassino Monastery during WW2. Those who want to kill our troops have to learn that no place is sancrosanct to store weapons.

There's probably nothing you could have said to prove my point more so than to bring up the bombing of the Abbey atop the Monte Cassino massif. I will presently illustrate how the same bankrupt thinking in our Iraq War prosecution took place at Cassino.

I am quite familiar with the event. True story: though I have read many accounts of the incident at Monte Cassino, I am this very night reading from John Keegan's book on the Second War and was on the very page where the destruction of Cassino is recounted when I read your post.

What you and everyone here should know about our destruction of the monastery is this: there were no German troops within the monastery and it's destruction was not only unnecessary, but barbaric and even self-destructive.

Monte Cassino was a Benedictine Abbey. The local German Corps commander, Frido von Senger und Etterlin, was a lay member of the Benedictine Order. He disallowed the use of the monastery buildings for defense. The monastery was not used as a lookout post. No German forces occupied the monastery itself until after its destruction by Allied forces on the night of February 15th.

The attacks failed to dislodge the German 1st Parachute Division from the positions. However the attack succeeded in killing innocent civilians and (ultimately) pulverizing a place of worship that had been first established in the 6th century. To make matters worse, the final destruction of the Abbey by repeated bombing improved the Germans position at our expense.

Keegan wrote:Again the attack [of 15 - 23 March] failed, leaving the Cassino position still more impregnable than it had been at the outset: constant bombing and shelling had tumbled the monastery and the town below into a heap of ruins, into which the German parachutists burrowed to form tunnels and bunkers.

So Woody, got any other WWII examples you'd like to throw out there? Because this one is a perfect example of how blockheaded thinking and faulty intelligence can lead to tragic unnecessary consequences.

Lastly I want to add for the fifty millionth time that I am not a pacifist, I just don't like seeing our soldiers lives squandered and our objectives thwarted because of the numbskulls in power. If we were making real progress the squandering might even be worth it, because it would really mean something. So far it's just senseless squandering.

* It might also be worth mentioning for those who care to know that the Italian front was the only major front on which the Germans were never forced to surrender. Though the Italian campaign began in September of '43, the Allies did not reach the River Po (in the north of Italy) until 22 April '45, barely a week before the war ended.

Edit: to Will...

Will Robinson wrote:It wasn't ever a War-on-a-few-terrorists-but-not-all-of-them....it is a grand ever reaching all encompassing plan because that's what Islamo-facsism is! The Iraq phase has gone to hell in a hand basket, just like the first battle of the civil war did....but don't tell me that wasn't a part of the civil war just because it went badly!

Got news for ya, I have a grand ever reaching all encompassing plan to make a million copies of Descent 4 for distribution but that doesn't mean my "plan" is realistic, likely, or even remotely possible.

Just because millions of Muslims are pissed off about centuries of invasion and colonial interference from the West does not mean they have a coordinated plan among them to destroy us. It is just this type of thinking that will make the WOT last 100 years. The groups who have actually attacked us are relatively small. Don't "revise history" by projecting an Al Qaeda conspiracy onto the majority of Muslims even if said Muslims are angry with the West.

What will mark the point when the war is over? Who will capitulate for the Islamo-Fascist side assuring us that victory is won and peace secured? The point I'm coming to is that there is no war to be fought at this time, only battles. And we need to pick our battles wisely. And if we're really smart, then todays enemies could be tomorrows allies if we put the proper care and effort into our own alliances and diplomacy with the Muslim world at large. Any attempt to conceive of the WOT in conventional terms (as in set piece battles) is mistaken. This one aint goin down like that.

If we run around bombing Mosques, we cement the views of those certain we want only their destruction. I'm not saying we should use kid-gloves on the bad guys for risk of offending the good guys who may be out there. I'm saying that if we wage this war stupidly, our enemies will become even further entrenched than they are already.

I'm interested in overall consequences; greater peace and security for our country and the world. John Wayne aint gonna win this one (Sorry, Woody). Our current tendency to treat this as WWIII will be self-fulfilling.

I stand corrected Palzon. Versions of the MC bombing give a different version (ala History Channel). I can also understand faulty intel and ego driven commanders(Read \"Not A Good Day To Die\" by Sean Naylor about Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan). Still, if a holy place IS being used as a ammo bunker then it is a legitimate target.

Kilarin wrote:Iraq was a very small bit player it Terrorism. Saddam gave money to families of suicide bombers. He may have met once with some al-qaeda people, but nothing came of it. He made one strike against Bush Sr., but that was personal.

This all puts him as a petty player in the Terrorism world.

True enough, but that only sums up the past participation by Saddam. That past behavior put him on the list but that isn't why he became a more important target than others on the list.

Saudi Arabia -
We have a pretty good relationship with the monarchy that holds it's boot firmly on the neck of 22 million muslim, many of which are members of an extreme sect of Islam. Also Saudi Arabia hasn't ever shown any sign of trying to take over and/or unite the middle east and Saudi Arabia hasn't shown any sign of trying to build a nuclear arsenal.

Syria -
I don't know why we haven't invaded that hell hole, I've been screaming that we should for at least 20 years. Although to be fair they also haven't tried to take over the region nor do they seem to be trying to build a nuclear arsenal like Saddam definitely was trying to do pre-gulf war and was definitely poised to resume as quickly as France and Russia got him out from under the U.N. sanctions.

Iran -
Another place that if we were to overthrow the government it would help curb terrorism greatly but only if we could prop up some kind of friendly government otherwise it would be the same as Iraq is now but with a much higher concentration of islamo-fascists and their islami-kazi drones.

Now consider the geography. Syria - Iraq - Iran

You want to make an impact on the region?
Well, Saddam is the biggest bully on the map over there.
He, unlike any other target in the region is politically in season. Being in defiance of U.N. resolutions and cease fire agreements make him fair game.

So here's the plan, take Iraq, the people there quickly rebound from the invasion and welcome the opportunity to live under something like a representative government.
You then are right between the two biggest terrorist nations and have just kicked the butt of the biggest baddest bully in the region and have just previously kicked bin Laddins butt out of Afghanistan. You took him from being the evil mastermind about to knife us in the back again to evil mastermind hiding under a rock with no means to attack us.

I guarantee from that position if you then tell Iran or Syria to cut out some activity that you both know is terrorist related they will be really hard pressed to defy you because no one can stop the United States and the United Kingdom along with Australia and a few others lined up behind them! No one!!

Well strike that....someone can stop them and they did because G.W. Bush stole the democrats election in 2000 and for that he must pay! In fact to hell with this WOT It's all G.W. Bush's plan if he succeeds he will be a damn hero and then not only will he get 8 years in the White House but the next 8 years after that will most likely be under a republican president as well! America likes decisive victorious leaders and being the party that kicked the terrorists ass back under their rocks, built a big military presence in the middle of the middle east to keep them in line and harvested all sorts of new treaties cooperation and agreements from those middle east leaders that we scared would go a long way toward ensuring that legacy for the republicans.

If the democrats had all stayed with the program the Iranians and the Syrians wouldn't have been nearly so bold as to openly fund and fuel the resistance in Iraq and we would have ended up in the situation I outlined above.

Now you can tell me we had no right to take that advantage and you may be able to win that argument in a classroom debate based on what is "fair" and what would Jesus do and what would Ghandi do and what would the Dali Llamma do...
But I would counter with what would Churchill or Eisenhower do and what would stunt the spread of islamo-facsism and ensure greater cooperation from middle eastern leaders to keep those whacko's under their rocks and I would win that debate in the eyes of Joe Sixpack and his wife Mary the mother of 2.3 kids in the heartland every damn time!!

Bush's greatest failure in this was to underestimate the power of partisan politics. He grew up on John Wayne and WWII mentality where 'America' was every mans priority regardless of how he voted or prayed! He didn't know his enemy well enough to win this fight... so it was the insurgents who won after all, only they aren't in Iraq....

Mobius wrote:Yeah, like that pesky ol' "Geneva Convention" and those really annoying and outdated "Laws of War."

Laws of war??? WTF is that? When you are at war you try to win! I've never under stood 'Laws of War'.

Will Robinson wrote:So here's the plan, take Iraq, the people there quickly rebound from the invasion and welcome the opportunity to live under something like a representative government.

And it's a BAD plan. Note that, with the exception of invading Afghanistan, every time we stick our fingers into the middle east, we make things worse.
We created the Taliban, bad idea.
We supported the Shah, oh yeah, that worked out well.
We propped up Saddam and provided aid and support to him, he was so grateful for that.

Will Robinson wrote:Bush's greatest failure in this was to underestimate the power of partisan politics.

Ok, it's true that this WAS a failure. Anyone who thinks the modern American people have the heart to sit through an unnecessary war for more than 6 years is a fool. But it wasn't his greatest failure. I can think of two off the top of my head that are much greater than that

1: Attempting to win the war on terrorism by invading and conquering territory.
Bush has had six years to win this stupid war by force. Six years with very few political problems standing in his way. And yet he is nowhere close to winning it and I think it's quite possible that another six years wouldn't help. I hope there is some way he can pull out a victory, but I really doubt if its possible. As Palzon has been trying to point out, the war on terrorism isn't one that can be won by simply invading and conquering territory with large armies. By attacking Iraq we not only didn't weaken Al-Queda, we strengthened them. They aren't a nation, they are a terrorist force. Invading Iraq to defeat Al-Queda was exactly the wrong thing to do. It FED them more, and now better trained, forces.

2: Bush failed to learn from history that we do NOT understand the people of the middle east.
Assuming that the people of Iraq would welcome us as their rescuers and embrace democracy with enthusiasm was something that could only be believed by ignoring every other attempt we've made to dabble in the politics of that region. It was foolish in the extreme.

So yes, Invading Iraq was WRONG for many moral reasons, but it was also STUPID, and counter-productive. Invading Iraq to aid in the war on terrorism was like sending black helicopters to capture David Koresh. There were easier, much easier approaches, and this one not only didn't help, it made things much worse by feeding directly into what the enemy expected and wanted.

The whole premise of your last post hangs on the falsehood that the WOT hinges on Iraq!
Iraq was a very small venture in the WOT and there are many many other ventures completed, underway or soon to be started ALL of them are also small parts of the WOT!
So quit trying to simplify the efforts of Bush down to this one small part so you can say he's a failure! It smells of dishonest political rhetoric!

Is Iraq a failure right now? Yes.
Is it the only effort we have made in the WOT? Absolutely not!
So it is stupid to judge Bush's ability, or Americas success in the WOT solely on the current situation in Iraq!
If tomorrow, and for all time to follow, Bush's efforts payoff in Iraq, the surge of troops causes the Iraqi government to step up and the resistance happens to thin out etc. etc. and Iraq becomes peaceful and prosperous can Bush then claim victory in the WOT?
Of course not!
There is so much to be done and Iraq is just a small part of the journey regardless of the outcome there.

It is a dishonest bunch of bullcrap to define the WOT vis-à-vis Iraq. It's a tactic to redefine the debate to fit one sides rhetoric!
I have to put up with the political left and their accomplices in pop culture, mass media et al using that tactic but I would hope here we could have a little more depth and honesty to the discussion!

Will Robinson wrote:The whole premise of your last post hangs on the falsehood that the WOT hinges on Iraq!

But it very likely DOES now. Before we invaded, Iraq was quite unimportant to the WOT, but now we've given the terrorist a battle cry, a great recruitment tool, an incredible training ground, and a hiding place. If things go the way I am afraid they are, we will run and Iraq will become THE terrorist center of operations.

There is nothing dishonest about that stance. I feel that Bush has done a few things correctly in the WOT, but he has also made many mistakes. And Iraq is the biggest by far. Iraq may very well go down in history as snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm not a pacifist, I approved of the war in Afghanistan. And if we had concentrated on THAT victory, we would be in MUCH better shape right now.

to put it in perspective, what if, right after D day, The U.S. had suddenly decided to invade Mexico. Yes, I know this is a silly idea, but its not that crazy, look up the Zimmermann Telegraph from WWI. BUT, for hypothetical reasons, assume we were angry with Mexico and invaded (or pick any other nation you prefer that was only involved in WWII in a minor way). Our enemies would have used it as a propaganda tool to strengthen their side and weaken the support of our allies. And the diversion of troops and effort could have easily cost us the war. THEN, while obviously the invasion of Mexico would have been only a "small part" of the war against the axis, as small part that actually had nothing to do with the war against the axis in the beginning, it could have EASILY been the turning point that lost us the REAL war.

THAT is why Bush's stupidity with Iraq is so important. Not just the enormous number of deaths on both sides, but that it STRENGTHENED the enemy.

Kilarin your assertion that Iraq was unimportant to the WOT is a assumption in reality. Ansar al-Islam is a AQ funded organisation that was based in northern Iraq prior to the war:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr ... sp?ID=5571

If Iraq was not taken care of just where do you think Osama and a certain blind mullah would have set up shop? For AQ to be really functional they need a govt. protected base of operations as they had with the Taliban. So one has to be careful of thinking from the mainstream news think box and dig a little deeper into the complexity of how the WOT has to be fought. Somalia is another front as exhibited with the latest airstrike there.

woodchip wrote:Ansar al-Islam is a AQ funded organisation that was based in northern Iraq prior to the war:

Northern Iraq. You mean the Kurdish controlled territories that Saddam no longer had any influence in. The part of Iraq that was our ally? They claim this group was working with Saddam. Kurds? Working WITH Saddam? I'm a bit skeptical.

woodchip wrote:If Iraq was not taken care of just where do you think Osama and a certain blind mullah would have set up shop? For AQ to be really functional they need a govt. protected base of operations as they had with the Taliban. So one has to be careful of thinking from the mainstream news think box and dig a little deeper into the complexity of how the WOT has to be fought.

Yes, one should be careful, no matter which side is feeding the pablum to you.
Saddam ran a largely SECULAR state. He did not enforce Sharia law, and had no intention of doing so. Increasing the power of the religion in Iraq would have DECREASED the power of Saddam. Saddam and AQ could have never lived together because they had diametrically opposed long term goals. They agreed that they hated the US, but Saddam would have never let Al-Queda get real power in Iraq because of his own self interest.

woodchip wrote:Somalia is another front as exhibited with the latest airstrike there.

Yes, Somalia is certainly a place where Islamic Fascism has a strong hold. Contrast that with Iraq under Saddam. He was a tyrant, an evil dictator, and a monster. BUT, he kept the Sunnis and Shiites under tight control because he did not want their religious squabbling to weaken his power. We removed the iron fisted man, and NOW Iraq is a hotbed of Islamic Fascism.

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The whole premise of your last post hangs on the falsehood that the WOT hinges on Iraq!

But it very likely DOES now. Before we invaded, Iraq was quite unimportant to the WOT, but now we've given the terrorist a battle cry, a great recruitment tool, an incredible training ground, and a hiding place.

First of all, nothing says we must now stop pursuing the numerous diplomatic, covert, law enforcement and economic efforts that are underway or are planned simply because Iraq has become a different problem now! So that part of your assertion is moot.

Now, as to the: "battle cry, a great recruitment tool, an incredible training ground, and a hiding place"
They already have the battle cry without Iraq or even Afghanistan, the attacks on Sept. 11 2001 and the numerous other attacks on us are proof that they were already mobilized and motivated to attack us so if you weigh the damage we caused them since Sept. 11 2001 compared to the damage we were doing them before we gave them this so called new motivation you will see that clearly we have a net gain as a result of our efforts!
Where was al Queda before we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and where are they now?!? where was their financial sheet, leadership roster and list of countries they could count on to shield them before and where does that list stand now?!?

We have achieved a very large swing from the losses to gains columns from our efforts. Oh sure, they have a fresh face on the recruitment poster but they are having trouble financing the printing of the poster or finding willing countries to post them in! Meanwhile we have killed very many of them, their distress signals have been seen more than once, their list of allies is dwindling and the quality and experience of their leadership pool is getting weak. they have suffered losses that don't seem to make the front page like a Bush blunder will....

More to the "training grounds and hiding places":
Only if we leave do they get that! Right now their training ground and hiding place is our killing field! So *if* we pull out please direct your dissatisfaction at whoever pulls us out!

I'll grant you that if we are going to pull out prematurely that we should never have gone in and your worst fears are warranted. But you should sincerely and objectively consider where we would be right now if the democrats/liberals had recognized the importance of a united front early on, sacrificed any political losses and sent a clear message to the U.N., to Iran and Syria, to all the people in Iraq and all the people everywhere who were constantly trying to weigh the pro's and con's of picking a side in the fight and to all potential coalition members that 'America, undivided and resolutely will pursue the destruction of terrorists, terrorist states and any one who aids them with all her might for as long as it takes!!'
We would be in a much better situation right now! We would have none of this talk of wasted good will of other nations, we would have none of this talk of Iran taking over Iraq!

If things go the way I am afraid they are, we will run and Iraq will become THE terrorist center of operations.

There is nothing dishonest about that stance.

No, nothing dishonest about thinking things will go that way but apparently you're not really willing to look at exactly how we will have arrived there! And who could have helped us avoid that outcome!

Even more importantly who can still change course to keep us from going there!! Bush is fighting to prevail, he already holds the position that will keep Iran at bay. Ask yourself, honestly, who else is there that can change course at this point to help achieve that goal? That is the most important question we face right now!
It is also a very important point that unfortunately won't be chronicled until many years later when the politicians it indicts are long gone from power.

The national discourse encompassing this situation is being guided away from the fact that this can still be avoided, that we can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat even now! But it would require some of that non-partisan, working together stuff that politicians only lie about and never engage in.

It's like Bush was the fire chief who lit a number of backfires to control a forest fire that was approaching a big city. One of the back fires is spreading too fast and is about to go out of control, so now the deputy chiefs all gather around and instead of dispatching their respective engine companies to help control it, they are standing around talking to the press about how inept the chief is so they can take over!
I'm telling you, we are the people in that big city that the fire is creeping ever faster toward and you want me to empathize with the deputy chiefs!?!

I want to see them put out the fire first. Or does that not really matter to them? Right now it looks like they see the impending disaster as nothing but a political windfall for their party!

Kilarin, do try and read what I have linked before you voice your skepticism, theres a good lad:

Snip
\"In August 2001 (article written Jan 2003), leaders of several Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan with the goal of creating an alternate base for the organization in northern Iraq.\"

Snip
\"Today, Ansar operates in fortified mountain positions along the Iran-Iraq border known as \"Little Tora Bora\" (after the Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan). There, the group's Kurdish, Iraqi, Lebanese, Jordanian, Moroccan, Syrian, Palestinian, and Afghan members train in a wide array of guerrilla tactics. Approximately 30 al-Qaeda members reportedly joined Ansar upon the group's inception in 2001; that number is now as high as 120. Armed with heavy machine guns, mortars, and antiaircraft weaponry, the group fulfills al-Qaeda lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri's vision of a global jihad. Ansar's goal is to disrupt civil society and create a Taliban-like regime in northern Iraq.\"

Snip
\"Ansar first made headlines in September 2001 when it ambushed and killed forty-two Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) fighters. In February 2002, the group assassinated Franso Hariri, a Kurdish Christian politician. That spring, Ansar attempted to murder Barham Salih, a PUK leader; five bodyguards and two attackers were killed in the ensuing gunfight. In June, the group bombed a Kurdish restaurant, injuring scores and killing a child. In July, the group killed nine PUK fighters, and destroyed several Sufi shrines -- a move reminiscent of the Taliban.\"

It would appear that Ansar was attempting a take over of Northern Iraq. Whether Saddam was turning a blind eye with his hate for the Kurds allowing Ansar to do so I am not sure. But the question is still there, \"Where would Ansar al Islam be today if we did not go into Iraq?\"

Will Robinson wrote:if you weigh the damage we caused them since Sept. 11 2001 compared to the damage we were doing them before we gave them this so called new motivation you will see that clearly we have a net gain as a result of our efforts!

The CIA disagrees. They say that the risk from terrorists have gone up. If AQ was a government/military organization, we would have damaged them. But they aren't, they are a terrorist group. And it doesn't matter how many of them you capture or kill, if they are recruiting MORE people now than before. It doesn't matter if you crush AQ in particular, if a dozen new organizations with the same agenda rise up out of its ashes. As Palzon said, this is NOT a conventional war.

And besides that, they weren't operating out of Iraq until we opened it up for them. So how could attacking Iraq weaken AQ?

Will Robinson wrote:Right now their training ground and hiding place is our killing field!

Are you familiar with what happens when you use a lot of anti-biotics but don't actually kill the entire infection? The bacteria becomes stronger and develops resistance. Soon you are fighting a disease that is MUCH worse than what you started with.

The terrorist can AFFORD to lose people, and they are becoming better equipped and trained through this process. For example:
progression of sophistication in road side bombs.

• Counterinsurgency experts are alarmed by how fast the other side's tactics can evolve. A particularly worrisome case is the ongoing arms race over improvised explosive devices. The first IEDs were triggered by wires and batteries; insurgents waited on the roadside and detonated the primitive devices when Americans drove past. After a while, U.S. troops got good at spotting and killing the triggermen when bombs went off. That led the insurgents to replace their wires with radio signals. The Pentagon, at frantic speed and high cost, equipped its forces with jammers to block those signals, accomplishing the task this spring. The insurgents adapted swiftly by sending a continuous radio signal to the IED; when the signal stops or is jammed, the bomb explodes. The solution? Track the signal and make sure it continues. Problem: the signal is encrypted. Now the Americans are grappling with the task of cracking the encryption on the fly and mimicking it—so far, without success. Still, IED casualties have dropped, since U.S. troops can break the signal and trigger the device before a convoy passes. That's the good news. The bad news is what the new triggering system says about the insurgents' technical abilities.
  
  The CIA is worried that Iraq is becoming a far more effective breeding ground for terrorists than Afghanistan ever was, because they get real-world experience with urban terrorist-style combat.

We are TRAINING them in how to fight our troops!

Woodchip wrote:Kilarin, do try and read what I have linked before you voice your skepticism

I DID look at it. They DO claim that Saddam was working with an organization that was KURDISH, and RADICAL ISLAMIC FASCIST. No, I don't buy it. It doesn't make any sense that he would do something so suicidal.

Woodchip wrote:But the question is still there, "Where would Ansar al Islam be today if we did not go into Iraq?"

Where would they be? Where ARE they now? Probably operating with a lot of freedom in the chaos of Southern Iraq. With a lot more freedom than they would have had under Saddam, since Saddam didn't follow ANY rules of war.

What about all of the Islamic Fascists terrorists organizations operating in the Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc? Islamic Fascists terrorist organizations are a dime a dozen, and if there was only one operating out of Iraq, then Iraq was much less of a threat than any other Islamic nation in the middle east.

Bottom line:
Attacking Iraq, from the very beginning, did NOTHING to reduce the threat of terrorists. It increased it. And has continued to do so.

I'd like to bring the David Koresh example back up. David Koresh ran a crazy cult called the "Branch Dividians". David taught his people that one day, the government was going to come for them with big black helicopters and government troops with big guns, and that would be the sign of the end of the world when his people would find victory.

So, the ATF gets rumors that David has been building up a big weapons cash for this final apocalyptic conflict. Time to arrest David. Now David goes jogging, alone, through town, every day. That would have been an excellent time to simply pick him up off the street. Then they could have sent some people up to the cult compound to knock nicely on the door and present their search warrant.

But did the ATF do that? no. They called the press and told them to come out with their cameras because they were going to make a big raid. Then they sent in, yep, black helicopters and government troops armed with big guns and attacked the place. (a building full of children, by the way)

Who actually shot first is up for debate, but there can be no doubt that the IDIOTIC tactic of sending EXACTLY the kind of attack that David Koresh had been foretelling was responsible for David and all his people believing that prophecy was being fulfilled and they must buckle down and fight as hard as they could.

George Bush is the same kind of idiot. By attacking Iraq, he did EXACTLY what Osama and the other Islamic Fascist had been predicting he would. And their response was predictable. Islamic Fascists are far from discouraged, they believe even more strongly in their cause than before, and they are recruiting in increasing numbers. And Islamic Fascists are confined to one small compound, so we can't just wait for it to burn down. While we are attacking Iraq, they are recruiting across the entire Islamic world.

This is NOT a conventional war. No, I'm not saying "please stop the violence", there will have to be violence to have any chance of winning this thing. But its not a war for territory, and it's not a war that can be won by sending troops against Iraq.

Kilarin wrote:The CIA disagrees. They say that the risk from terrorists have gone up.

I'd like to see in which ways they measure the "increased risk" I need to see the context in which that claim was made because they also tell us that we have severly weakened al Queda's infrastructure, finances and killed or captured a lot of their commanders.
I think the increase they are probably talking about is more likely the chatter they pick up that tells them there is more going on now than before but they couldn't tell you who they are or if they will really ever carry out an attack. I know with our aggressive policy we will see an increase in that sense but the net gains I mentioned are not estimates or chatter reduction they are real bodies counted, real dollars frozen etc.
I think the net result of our overall effort in a WOT is a positive. You can't announce the new economic numbers and say "Well, we have a growing economy but people are talking about a possible crash so we'll adjust the numbers down instead of up for this quarters report."
It's easy to say terrorist attacks are up compared to before the war if you count all the related attacks to the war! But we won't always be at war in Iraq.

As to fighting terrorists in Iraq that weren't there before. It's a temporary situation. If we popped up in Somalia tommorrow the same would be true. We would be fighting people who weren't fighting us the day before we showed up and after we left there many of them would go back to herding goats or selling slaves to their neighbors the next day instead of joining a secret cell in the Bronx with plans to gas our subway system.

A lot of the people we are fighting in Iraq are shia's who want control of Iraq. If we leave those "new terrorists" we created will go back to being who they were only instead of being in fear of Saddam they will be in control and they will be the ones doing the torture of the Sunni's...
Not much of a threat to New Yorkers.

We are TRAINING them in how to fight our troops!

That isn't the same as creating more terrorists like the ones that attacked us and caused us to go after them. If they are learning urban warfare that's good because they aren't taking flying lessons or learning how to spray anthrax etc. and if they are going to use their urban warfare talents against us they need an urban enviroment to operate in. You aren't suggesting they will show up in Times Square with their weapons and use this urban warfare training we provided them are you?

I'd much prefer they focus their attacks on armed, armored and trained soldiers who get to pick the time and place of battlefield exposure with full expectation of conflict, than have them attack innocent civilians sitting in their cubicle's on the 30th floor of an office building or on board a flight to anywhere...
I'm not happy with having our troops in the line of fire if there isn't also an objective which seems to be what happened in Iraq post capture of Saddam. We should either take it to the insurgents, balls to the wall, as well as the Iranian and Syrian border areas, or get out.

Bottom line is, yes, we are stirring up ★■◆●. Before we stirred it up we were already under attack but doing them little to no harm.
Now we are doing them harm.
Will they adapt? Sure!

But so will we!
The net result is, and will be, they suffer losses that they weren't suffering and states that once harbored and openly or semi-openly financed them will shut down.

The score up until Sept. 12 2001 was:
Terrorist - 1
Western Civilization - 0

The score after we started stirring up ★■◆● is:
Terrorists - 1
Western Civilization - 1

Your assertions depict us as being the same static soft target we were before yet you ascribe all sorts of ability on their part to adapt and become even more dangerous than they were on Sept. 11 2001.
I don't accept that incomplete view of the conflict as being accurate.
I think we have the upper hand in the ability and adaption department and I fully expect us to out score them in the second, third and fourth quarters!!

Do I think we will stamp out terrorism? Of course not. Someone can always hit us.
I do fully expect we can change the face of world politics to cause terrorists to become the fringe element that hides from everyone instead of being a known branch of the Iranian and Syrian governments and operating openly in numerous countries as they do today!
I think we can run them out of these hot spots and take away their almost legitimate status that the U.N. and liberals everywhere want to afford them. Example: Hammas and Hezbollah.

Bottom line:
Attacking Iraq, from the very beginning, did NOTHING to reduce the threat of terrorists. It increased it. And has continued to do so.

The attack on Iraq wasn't supposed to rid us of terrorists and never was claimed to have that goal. It was designed to end the possibility that Saddam could develop WMD's and to end the possibility that he could let terrorists get those weapons.

Those objectives have been achieved as planned.

Staying in Iraq to fight the rising militant islamic resistance and the insurgents and anyone else who decides to rise up and throw rocks at tanks etc. so that we can maintain a military presence in the region is proving to be foolish, primarily because we aren't taking the fight to the enemy.
If we aren't going to deal directly with Iranian and Syrian support for the enemy then we shouldn't have stayed beyond removing Saddam. I think I'm seeing signs that we are now going to deal with them. Is it too little too late? Maybe.

But as I pointed out, Iraq was just a small battle in the "war". The WOT will be measured by the failure or success of many, many, small battles fought in many many different ways.

I'm much more concerned with the net result of the overall war effort than I am with the results one small battle in Iraq.

So to address your Koresh analogy I'd say don't judge the whole United States Justice Department or Bill Clinton/Janet Reno based solely on their blunder in Waco.
And don't judge the whole WOT effort based on the status of Iraq today.

Will Robinson wrote:You aren't suggesting they will show up in Times Square with their weapons and use this urban warfare training we provided them are you?

yes, thats exactly what I'm suggesting.

I'll give George Bush credit for making part of the Iraq plan work that I never thought would. So far, the IDIOT terrorists have fallen completely for his idea of "lets fight them over there instead of over here". It's a stupid thing for them to do, but thank goodness they are stupid. Sooner or later though, they are going to turn their efforts back on to us. And when they do, they will now be using more sophisticated techniques and better skilled personnel. This time the attack will come from someone who spent years in Iraq learning how to get through roadblocks, how to sneak things past American searchers, how to build explosives that actually go boom, how to hide those explosives etc. We've created a deadlier enemy by killing off the most stupid of them and training those with more brains. And some day we are going to pay for that.

Will Robinson wrote:The score up until Sept. 12 2001 was: Terrorist - 1 Western Civilization - 0
The score after we started stirring up ***** is:Terrorists - 1 Western Civilization - 1

The terrorist hit us more times than Sept 11. None of their other atrocities should be forgotten.

AND, the score went to West Civ 1 when we took out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Taking out Iraq didn't affect the score at all. At least not in our favor.

Kilarin wrote:I'll give George Bush credit for making part of the Iraq plan work that I never thought would. So far, the IDIOT terrorists have fallen completely for his idea of "lets fight them over there instead of over here". It's a stupid thing for them to do...

You are guilty of thinking of all of them as one force, of one mind, of having one goal.
That is wrong. Most of the people our troops face over there have no desire to come over here and fight us or do anything else.
We "created" these new "terrorists" the minute we entered their lands and they will retire the minute we leave their lands. The type who would come over here and sacrifice their lives to kill some of our citizens are probably more motivated by our interfering with the Taliban than our destruction of Saddams empire! Saddam was a non-believer who crushed the Shia's! the Taliban were the devout followers of the bin Laddin brand of islam!

The number of potential hard core terrorists that will try to strike us over here has not risen at the same rate the number of 'newly created terrorists' has risen in Iraq! You are buying into some bull★■◆● rhetoric if you think that! They are not at all of one mind!

Anytime any army invades another peoples homeland you stir a lot of people to action to rise up against the invaders. When the invaders are gone the bulk of the insurgency returns to their former lives.

Study up a bit on what happened when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and you will find that bin Laddin was mad at his mentor and leader Abdullah Azzam, (who was the true founder of the arab jihad movement and militant islam) because Azzam, and most of the arab jihadi's he had recruited, disagreed with bin Laddin who wanted to bring the jihad back to Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern contries to overthrow the leaders there who were not pure enough for bin Laddins brand of islam.
bin Laddin and his small band of extremists are suspected to be the ones who murdered Azzam and his sons with a remote controlled bomb as they drove away from Peshawar, the headquarters he had set up to fight the jihad in Afghanastan. Most of the 'newly created terrorists' the Soviets had created wanted to stay and create a happy fundamental islamic homeland in Afghanistan. they did not want to take their jihadi show on the road!
This is not some strange phenomena, it's human nature at work!

The hard core radical islami-kazi types were already motivated and mobilized against us long before Afghanistan or Iraq fell to our military. Sure you might find a few Iraqi's who joined the radicals ranks because of our recent involvement but they were probably already that special breed of person that follows that path and would have found there way to the ranks of islami-kazi anyway but even if we hadn't gone into Iraq you would find new recruits that will join them for all sorts of reasons.

Study up on Muhammed Atta, one of the 9/11 pilots and ringleader of that attack. He was from a wealthy family, an engineering student from Egypt who went to germany to further his studies and instead of getting a degree he got transformed, willingly, into an islami-kazi in a very short period of time. Just by being of the right mindset and being exposed to a few radical clerics in the al Quds mosque in Hamburg. That mindset had nothing to do with current events or american policy, it was growing up in a strict houshold, having a father who was a scholar of Sharia law who has high expectations, the pressure of having all your siblings excelling in their schools and upon travelling to Germany to find yourself a minority in a strange land, you don't speak the language very well...school is hard...you find sanctuary in a familiar kind of place...a mosque where the clerics understand you and preach to you about infidels and jihad. Suddenly you have a purpose and a vocation that you can excel at... you become Muhammed Atta the religious nutjob!!

Taking out Iraq didn't affect the score at all. At least not in our favor.

From Iraq we have killed a lot of the al Queda and/or like minded radicals. Iraq, as you conceded has become a focus for them, and in Iraq we are better prepared to deal with them since the only Americans there are armed and ready. They will not find a single civilian passenger plane to crash into a single office building full of unsuspecting citizens in Iraq. As they move along with their newly honed uber-urban warfare skills they are going up against a force that dwarfs them with capability and resources. And they will soon be fighting Iraqi troops which will thin their ranks substantially because without the infidel in the gunsights many of these insurgents will find they don't like shooting at targets that look like themselves.

Our biggest problem over there isn't the fight. It's deciding which group to leave it to! We captured and killed the one man who kept the Shia whacko's from taking over. We need to cut off Iran and Syria before we leave or else we shouldn't have gone in there to begin with!!
Regardless of who's to blame for that mistake the country needs to come together fast with the resolve to accomplish the smack down of Iranian and Syrian support for the overthrow of what ever Iraq's government is morphing into.

Any politician who opens his comments on the Iraq situation with criticism of Bush or calls for retreat instead of offering a solution is in fact calling for the worst possible case scenario coming to be!! and make no mistake there are a lot of short sighted political advisers who want nothing more than complete failure in Iraq strictly for 2008 campaign reasons!!

Watch and see who, if anyone, will put party below national security and step up to help turn the tide in this fight because it is now true when that analogy is spoken.
Before it was rhetoric, when Saddam was there it wasn't national security. At best it was strategic and a tactical advantage...it was justice and it was long over due to remove him but the aftermath of the poorly executed mission has created a situation where radical islam, not warm fuzzy islamic people as you hope and pray they are, but the radical islamic bastages that we don't dare give that much power to are about to own the place!

You want to know where bin Laddin would love to reappear victorious and replenished?!? How about as the religious and military leader of the new Iraq?!? Iran takes over and he takes the helm of an oil rich, fundamentalist regiem on the border of Saudi Arabia!?!?!
Holy hell Batman!
And even if it isn't him in person the end result will be practically the same. Complete powederkeg and if not the begining of WWIII then the begining of a new world order that isn't pretty. Pick your poison!

Imagine the world divided by the most powerful forces in 75 years: America (and her outpost) Great Britian ---- China --- Islamo-facsistland(which will include most of Europe)

Who will rush in to rescue what is left of Russia from the muslim hordes? Is it worth it?
Will we be able to help Japan when China threatens?
Who will launch the first salvo of ICBM's?
Who will survive the final salvo....
Oh to hell with all that, we just need to focus on making the republicans look bad enough to make Hillary look good!

One thing we are forgetting is Saddams 40,000 man Fedyeen berserkers. If memory serves these were the real enforcers of Saddams cruelty and were never part of the formal army infastructure. Thus they were never rounded up at the end of active hostilities. So the question now is how much of the violence caused in Iraq by AQ or Saddams henchmen? While the focus seems to be how many of our boys are being killed the real problem is Iraqi's killing Iraqi's far surpasses our losses.

Will Robinson wrote:The number of potential hard core terrorists that will try to strike us over here has not risen at the same rate the number of 'newly created terrorists' has risen in Iraq! You are buying into some ***** rhetoric if you think that! They are not at all of one mind!

Not in a 1 for 1 ratio, but a certain percentage of those soldiers WILL be willing to come over here eventually. Especially if we withdraw. (Well, after one side or the other wins the civil war)

Will Robinson wrote:Most of the 'newly created terrorists' the Soviets had created wanted to stay and create a happy fundamental islamic homeland in Afghanistan. they did not want to take their jihadi show on the road!

I agree, but I think the important point here is that SOME of the "newly created terrorists" became AlQueda and took out the world trade center among other horrible acts.

If there had been no war in Iraq, AlQueda MIGHT have still come into existence, I would even settle for probably, but without nearly the strength or training that they recieved fighting in Afghanistan.

Will Robinson wrote:Any politician who opens his comments on the Iraq situation with criticism of Bush or calls for retreat instead of offering a solution is in fact calling for the worst possible case scenario coming to be!!

Criticism of Bush and calling for retreat are NOT identical. I strongly approve of the first but not the second. I think its time for my favorite Teddy Roosevelt quote:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
-Teddy Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

Will Robinson wrote:We need to cut off Iran and Syria before we leave or else we shouldn't have gone in there to begin with!! ... You want to know where bin Laddin would love to reappear victorious and replenished?!? How about as the religious and military leader of the new Iraq?!?

Here we are in complete agreement. I share your nightmare. It doesn't matter whether we should have gone in, nothing we can do about that now. The worse possible thing that could happen NOW would be to withdraw.

Woodchip wrote:While the focus seems to be how many of our boys are being killed the real problem is Iraqi's killing Iraqi's far surpasses our losses.

True, it's a nightmare over there for those people. MOST of the terrorism is aimed at fellow muslims. It's a shameful blot on Islam. (Just like "the troubles" in Ireland were a shameful blot on Christianity)

I'm sorry guys but I really think this one is lost. It is time to organize the helicopter lift off the embassy roof. The U.S. will never subjugate the Iraqi people no matter what the ROE are. And spreading out the troops to cover Syria and Iran as well! Get real. Do you think the roses and water parades are set to go in Tehran and Damascus?

Hold your nose, pick a side and give them half of the $400 billion you are wasting on hummers and smart bombs. You will end up with another brutal dictator in charge but that has never stopped you before and he might be your brutal dictator instead of one chosen by the people whose kin your soldiers have been killing for the last six years.

Kurds come out the winners? Don't make me laugh. If they even get close to looking like winners Turkey and Iran will be in there with all guns blazing. Yeah you can ★■◆● about Iran oppressing them but what about Turkey? The only secular democracy left in the mid-east and candidate for EU membership. You going to bomb them into the stone age too? At the end of this stinking mess you have made of the mid-east I guarantee the Kurds will get screwed again.

Here's my plan:

We hire the best assassins we can get our hands on and send them to hunt down the terrorist leaders and kill them. Terrorists start crawling out of the woodwork, and they die as well.

Chaos Death Saurer wrote:Here's my plan:

We hire the best assassins we can get our hands on and send them to hunt down the terrorist leaders and kill them. Terrorists start crawling out of the woodwork, and they die as well.

That won't work. See Fidel Castro For more information.