re: continuation from "Cheers for our troops"

re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

HUH, WHAT?

quick explanation: this thread is an offshoot from the thread "cheers ..." -- if anyone should wish to consider in a civil discussion of the Ir*q topic, let's continue it here ...

PLEASE read the original thread here before you chime in on this--I would hope that you'd also contibute to that thread

I have mostly been impressed with the conviction and courtesy of fellow CPFers and hope that will continue in this thread--remember, democracy is about discussion and that is why we're over there, right?

this is what I wrote at the tailend of my post on the "cheers for our troops" thread:

PS Having said that and staring at my keyboard for 3 minutes trying to figure out how to gently say this (because if I don't, I'm not being true to anyone, least of all myself) ... we should NOT have gone over there. And now that we're there, for our current administration to insist that everything is under control and we're on schedule to pull out on June 30th is the stupidest thing I've heard from the White House yet. If we do, the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards and then, where did the sacrifices of our soldiers have gotten us or the people we are "liberating"??

hideo

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Hideo... I agree with the part about the deadline. It should not be carved in stone. If they want to shoot for a goal, fine. But to set a hard deadline like that is ludicrous. One hopes that there is more to this than we are being told... one hopes.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
hideo said:
Please do not read the following unless you can do it with an open mind!!

PS Having said that and staring at my keyboard for 3 minutes trying to figure out how to gently say this (because if I don't, I'm not being true to anyone, least of all myself) ... we should NOT have gone over there. And now that we're there, for our current administration to insist that everything is under control and we're on schedule to pull out on June 30th is the stupidest thing I've heard from the White House yet. If we do, the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards and then, where did the sacrifices of our soldiers have gotten us or the people we are "liberating"??

NOT DISSING OUR TROOPS!! Just the guy in office /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe if we hadn't "gone over there" they would come here. Remember 9/11/2001? You can not hide in the bedroom under the covers and expect everyone will leave you alone. Eventually someone will find you, realize you have more then they do and take it from you.

Many people have fought and died so we can write our feelings in these very forums. They did so by GOING TO the enemy, not by waiting for the enemy to come to us. Would you rather have our troops fighting the enemy in their territory or ours?

Also, just to correct you about June 30th. We are not pulling out, nor did anyone say we are. That is a symbolic date to turn over sovereignty to Iraq. We will not be pulling out any time soon.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

hideo,

Your link doesn't work, its just http:///. However, this one should.

Dan

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
hideo:
... we should NOT have gone over there.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many who agree with you. I disagree with many aspects of Bush's prosecution of the war -- but mostly they revolve around the rhetoric which they have chosen to couch the war in. I believe that the time is right for what we're doing there.

I watched as the States were attacked throughout the 90s. The administration said they were criminal acts and after each one the President looked into the camera and vowed that those responsible would pay a heavy price. They never did. They have not yet. If al Qaeda had payed a heavy price for any of their attacks on the States the attacks would have stopped. Pacifism is provocative in any part of the world but particularly in the Middle-East. You may think that giving your lunch money to a bully day after day is expedient but when fall arrives one day he will demand your lunch money and your coat. He will do this because by your lack of resistance you will eventually teach him that he can do whatever he wants with you with impuity.

This is the lesson that the States has been teaching every half-baked dictator and wanna-be terrorist in the world since 1991 when we had the chance to snuff the Republican Guard and didn't. Since then we have been very consistant. Our actions (or lack thereof) have taught them all very well. Those that would destroy us were very confident that they could take our lunch money forever. They took our coat on 9/11.

In the 90s it was obvious to many that we would have to break some heads to undo the impression we were giving the world year after year.

When Khobar Towers was blown up we did nothing in my eyes and even less in the eyes of the world. Like all of the other attacks of the 90s, it was a great recruiting tool for al Qaeda -- they didn't get caught, and as far as they were concerned they killed a bunch of dumb Americans who won't even fight back. We didn't.

What followed were attack after attack on American soil. The two embassy attacks in Africa were attacks on American soil. These (along with the attack on Khobar Towers) show how our pacifism was causing our adversaries to become even bolder than the first WTC attack, which we essentially ignored. The first WTC attack was a garden variety assualt on civilians, while the other three attacked the government directly.

By the time the COLE was attacked they had gone way beyond just going after civilians (WTC), government offices (the embassies), and sleeping soldiers (Khobar Towers). By the time al Qaeda hit the COLE they were so confident that they attacked an American warship directly. (another attack technically on American soil) They learned very quickly that America would shrink from any conflict at any cost. That the American government would do nothing to defend its citizens or even it's own military.

And yet the administration still did nothing. Nothing but talk. The 90s was a great time for al Qaeda. Since they were on a roll and no one was even trying to slow them down getting new members was a breeze. And since no one had learned anything from all these very serious attacks and the going was good, they decided to go for the headquarters of our military, the Pentagon, the WTC again, and some other targets that they missed.

This all happened because throughout the 90s we taught them that we would never fight back. In other words, we taught them over and over that we were too stupid to live. And that we were easy. And we were.

As far as the war in Iraq goes I think that the emphisis on WMD was a blunder. I also believe that Iraq is the lynchpin of the middle-east. Iraq has connections, both financial and logistic with nearly every terrorist group in the world. Way too numerous to list at 4 am. The denial in the media is unbelievable, literaly. My favorite is the 737 jet body in the terrorist training camp found in Iraq. Are we to believe that Saddam was training hijackers only for missions within Iraq?

For many reasons Iraq is the key to the war on terror. Iraq used to be part of what was known as Greater Syria. It holds a huge place in the collective mind of everyone in the region. Things change slowly there. It took a full year for those dictators they call leaders to really grasp the implications of the fall of Baghdad -- that's why the Arab summit collapsed last week. Around the world the would-be proliferators and facilitators of terror are having very serious second thoughts -- and it's all because of Iraq.

That nut case with a bad haircut in North Korea has gone underground for six weeks at a stretch TWICE in the last year. He is normally on TV every day. This is a man regarded as a god in his country. He has been much less agressive this last year. Care to guess why? Iraq.

I can hear Bashir Assad's knees knocking on a quiet night. Quadaffy's taking a tack that is more amenable to the West than at any time in his 30 year dictatorship. I heard Lybia's going to change it's name to Luv-Ya.

You've got to look at the big picture here. Everyone keeps calling al Qaeda terrorists and I think they're wrong. They are much worse. Unlike terrorists, al Qaeda has no demands. Think about that. They only want to destroy our way of life. Don't let them tell you that Iraq is a distraction to the War on Terror. Look at the big picture.

I should also mention that this is all plot driven. Al Qaeda declared war on us in 1998. They mean it. If you think we can avoid confrontation you are fooling yourself. If we stop before the job is done we will be judged (correctly) as weak, stupid and a waste of skin.

Turning Iraq over to the UN would be the worst thing that we could do. The real reason that the UN has become so popular with politicians is simple. It provides them with cover. It makes it easier for them to avoid making the hard decisions that they were elected to make. When it all goes horribly wrong (as it will whenever the UN runs things) the leader only has to say that it wasn't HIS decision -- it was the UNs fault. We need to get the US out of the UN, and then get the UN out of the US.

If it looks like I'm all over the road here, it's because I am. One of the problems with this subject is that it cannot be covered in a series of four second sound bites.

What we are seeing with the 911 commision is exactly what always happens at the outbreak of a major war, finger poiinting, posturing and denial. Some people in this country are so deep in denial that they won't see the threat until some skinny guy with a funny beard smashes in their door in with an axe and starts destroying their TV and VCR while they're watching Leno.

And for those who must tearfully wring their hands and warn us that this may all go very badly for us all -- they may be right.

Life is risky. And it's messy. And nobody gets out of it alive.

Cheers for our troops

EDIT: spellin

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Wow, both succint and complete. Very well said Sub.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Very well said Sub. Thanks for the elaboration. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

whoa, Sub...nice.

"Iraq has connections, both financial and logistic with nearly every terrorist group in the world."

i agree with your overall assessment: you hunt them (terrorists), track them, take away their money, and kill them. you topple or threaten the governments that support them. Iraq is only the beginning.
it isnt easy for them to mount serious attacks or recruit when they are being hunted 24/7.

i agree that making a deadline to pull out would be a mistake.
the decision to withdraw should be based upon our military's assessment of the right time--when things have cooled down.

Bob

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Nitro:

my apologies for changing the direction of your thread--one of the reasons I (and probably others) have been hesitant to post is because you tied our actions in Iraq to to a battle for our freedoms ...

sorry, I can't buy that and after the initial flush of public support that always follow declaring "war", neither can an increasing number of Americans

my sincere belief is that our freedoms have seldom been more dodgy than they are under our current administration and attorney general (who pulled a bunch of shenanigans disqualifying voters because of their skin color in my previous home, St. Louis) and tried to push the Patriot Act 2 thru which would have probably put me, a red-blooded US citizen in Guantanomo just for writing this stuff

I believe if we hadn't "gone over there" they would come here. Remember 9/11/2001? You can not hide in the bedroom under the covers and expect everyone will leave you alone. Eventually someone will find you, realize you have more then they do and take it from you.

I'm more aware than I'd like to be about 9/11 ... as an ex-Republican, and still pretty moderate person, last year I found myself protesting the invasion of Iraq, holding signs with a bunch of youngsters--I was the guy with the short hair /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif this was a weird moment for me

a couple of thoughts:

... many still question why we invaded Iraq when 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, home of longtime Bush and son buddies (and Carlyle group biz-associates) the Saudi royal family and the "good" bin Ladens, our "allies" ... that country harbors some of the most conservative Muslims and fringe fanatic groups in the MidEast, not to mention alot of money (punch in "Omar Al Bayoumi" to your search engine for some provocative links) . What about that plane full of Saudi Nationals that Richard Clarke testified was allowed to leave the country right after 9/11, when every other non-military plane in the US was grounded? I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I'd like to hear some straightforward answers ... right now, I'm listening to Dr. Rice trying to dodge the bullet on national media ...

I'm not defending Saddam who is one of many first-tier a**holes worldwide--but ... as Andy pointed out, Bush's feeble attempts find an excuse to dethrone him has not gained us any respect in the world community and now that the administration is whimpering for the UN to come in and help (after basically telling them to not interfere with the Coalition last year) ... and to paraphrase another unsuccessful regime-change attempt, we're "destroying Iraq in order to save it"

there are also a large number of disturbing questions about 9/11 ... those planes literally ran the gauntlet of military bases before they hit the towers--I've read that NORAD routinely scrambles 100 times a year when planes veer off course and the average response time is a few minutes ... in this instance, not only one, but both planes made their targets ... and members of the commmission and prominent military people are saying that we had months of advance warning that Al-Qaeda had something planned with planes ...

ask yourself, honestly ... how many countries have the firepower to come over and take what we have? ... we can EASILY defend against anything conventional warfare-wise that any four nations could mount ... Terrorism is always a threat, but IMHO opinion, the aging Russian defense system/loose nukes/poverty poses a greater threat ... when we create instability, we do not make ourselves more secure

when we kill (and thereby martyr) that young headcase cleric, which WE will, things are going to get really frantic, ' cuz then religion rears it's head. If someone invaded our country and started pulling us out of our homes at night, flying helicopter gunships over us and "accidentally" killing our kids, do you think you and I would be standing around arguing about the appropriateness of tax cuts? I don't think so. We'd be united against a common enemy. And sadly, the rougher things get, the more likely normally moderate Iraqis will latch onto ANYONE that they see as a force for change

Many people have fought and died so we can write our feelings in these very forums. They did so by GOING TO the enemy, not by waiting for the enemy to come to us. Would you rather have our troops fighting the enemy in their territory or ours?

agree with you on the first sentence--this is why I make myself unpopular with my conservative friends who hate my questions about the Bush admin's "mishandling" of the terrorism threat AND my liberal friends when I tell them we HAVE to finish the job in Iraq or we'll lose even more respect than we already have /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

finishing the job dosen't mean leaving the country in the hands of whoever has the bigggest cojones and best armamments on June 30th, because it obviously won't be the Coalition-trained Iraqis--they've been caving in to every militia attack thus far or fleeing in advance, which is hardly surprising given their weapons inferiority and the fact that they are marked as minions of an invading army ...

second part of what you said sounds like pre-emptive war for me--think about that ... we're going to need to start making a TON more money and get a Star Trek force field for the entire US if we're going there ...

Also, just to correct you about June 30th. We are not pulling out, nor did anyone say we are. That is a symbolic date to turn over sovereignty to Iraq. We will not be pulling out any time soon.

semantics--GWB has already said several times that June 30th is the "firm" date for the handover--handover means that whoever is or (isn't really) in power at that time is the defacto government--that is completely irresponsible--I don't think four months is really going to be enough time for George to distance himself from this clusterfrig ... why is he saying this if it's not true ... HUH, guess I just answered my own question /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

... and alot of Republicans are looking at it the same way ... why do you think Clarke and O'Neill and Wilson (ambassador) and ex-arms inspector David Kay are all criticizing his complete infatuation with Iraq ... and 8 of the 12 people in Bush's counter-terrorism office have quit in the last year many citing the same thing... and Lugar, the Republican head of Senate Foreign Relations and many other prominent conservatives and military are saying that June 30th is coming up way too fast

... and this last weekend, right after administrator Bremer announced that everything was business as usual and that we were " still on schedule for the handover", he cancelled his scheduled meeting to brief the Foreign Relations committe like he was supposed to ... and then the sh*t hit the fan.



hideo

PS if you've been listening to the commission's proceedings with Dr. Rice, you've probably figured out that she is going to be one of the sacrificial lambs for our current admin ... along with blaming the intelligence agencies, the Clinton administraion and everyone else within reach as opposed to taking even a tiny bit of blame themselves ... this probably angers me as much as anything else

continually edited to try to make this rambling rant readable

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Sub Umbra

interesting analysis--I can tell we'd have fun playing mumbletypeg and solving all the world's problems together /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

as you know, all this armchair quarterbacking for no pay takes alot of time ...

I'll work up some responses later--got some work to do while I listen to Condy Rice try to pass the buck /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

hideo

ps percadan, thanks--fixed the link

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

from what I've read, there is NO intelligence that indicates Iraq supported any terrorist groups financially or sponsored training, was involved in 9/11, or had any weapons of mass destruction. Even Powell admitted a couple of days ago that they had been duped. From what I've read, there is no intelligence to be duped from. The administration claims forged documents, chicanery of all sorts and I started out backing the invasion of Iraq based upon supposed, for sure evidence. There apparently wasn't any, isn't any and claiming they were given false intelligence when apparently all of the intelligence they got from the CIA, FBI and the counter terrorism dept said simply, the attack and threats came from Afghanistan and NOT Iraq. Saying after the fact, that Hussein should have been taken out anyway is ludicrous.
I am 58 years old and have become more and more conservative over the years but not at the expense of what I believe to be the truth. I realize that this forum is more conservative than not, and I, like many people, chose to back our Commander and Chief when it was appropriate to do so, because that's what Americans do in times of crisis.The fact that a document existed in January 2000 entitled ,I believe,"post war Iraq, distribution of assets" indicdates to me that there was from the beginning a desire to go to war, the only thing absent was a reason.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

With all do respect "hideo" give me a major break. I could go point by point of your whole post to rebut it, but why should I bother? You know as well as I do, your mind will not change and neither will mine.

But let me ask you this. What exactly would you do different about the war on terror? Would you rather have Saddam still in power?

Ya know all this finger pointing about 9/11 is nothing but BS, and frankly, is BAD for our country. It's only making us weaker.

Maybe if the Democrats would stop fighting our President, our President could better fight our enemies.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Nitro, maybe if the Repuplicans didn't waste hundreds of millions of our money fruitlessly persuing Slick Willy for eight years, Clinton may have had more time to devote to national security. The Clintons were maligned by the Republicans from the start and nothing was found to be illegal.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Jayflash, I agree with you. However the only difference now is 9/11 and we are actually at war.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
Sub_Umbra:

Iraq has connections, both financial and logistic with nearly every terrorist group in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have said had. Sorry.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
jayflash said:
Nitro, maybe if the Repuplicans didn't waste hundreds of millions of our money fruitlessly persuing Slick Willy for eight years, Clinton may have had more time to devote to national security. The Clintons were maligned by the Republicans from the start and nothing was found to be illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are correct--but he did lie under oath and lie to Americans--straight to our face.

i dont judge the man, but i do judge his behavior, which was immoral.

he broke his pledge to his wife, betraying her and his daughter. he then lied to us, dishonoring the White House and the presidency. he did not come clean until Lewinsky trotted out his DNA upon her dress.

shame, shame, shame.

how can anyone say it is OK to cheat and lie--and to break your oath and promise? im sure some believe that his behavior has no bearing upon the presidency. i disagree.
is it honorable for your wife/husband to cheat?
how would you react if a man cheated on your daughter?

in the past, it was mostly dishonor and the possibility of pregnancy. now, there is HIV, herpes, genital worts etc etc. nice of Mr Clinton to expose his wife to these very real risks.

to my eyes, he was, and still is, a disgrace.
though conservative leaning, i was neutral on Clinton until i found out his dishonorable nature.

honor holds a lot of weight with me.

back to your regularly scheduled trainwreck!

Bob

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Lying about a private consensual affair pales in its effect upon our nation compared to the continuous flow of lies we've endured since G.W. was appointed to the presidency.

Don't paint me as a blind Democrat because I've plenty of criticism for them too, and since 1984 voted for a major party president only once.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Ya know all this finger pointing about 9/11 is nothing but BS, and frankly, is BAD for our country. It's only making us weaker. Maybe if the Democrats would stop fighting our President, our President could better fight our enemies.


I have heard this from a number of people I know and it shocks me ... I appreciate your loyalty to your country, but never confuse it with blind loyalty to the guy in office--when we march lockstep, without questioning what our politicians say, well, that's supposedly what we're trying to fix in Iraq

we have three branches of government for a reason--they're supposed to keep tabs on the others ... I think both major parties have been slacking /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

don't know who said it, but "Democracy is not a spectator sport"

and (think it was Patrick Henry) "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

the other chestnut I get hit with from time to time is "if you don't like it here, why don't you move to Irag?" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif

I like it here ... alot ... that's why I write this stuff, even though it's time-consuming and depressing ... but what would really depress me would be if Iraq winds up with a democracy and we lose ours /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

hideo

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
hideo said:
Ya know all this finger pointing about 9/11 is nothing but BS, and frankly, is BAD for our country. It's only making us weaker. Maybe if the Democrats would stop fighting our President, our President could better fight our enemies.


I have heard this from a number of people I know and it terrifies me (few things do BTW) ... I appreciate your loyalty to your country, but never confuse it with blind loyalty to the guy in office--when we march lockstep, without questioning what our politicians say, well, that's supposedly what we're trying to fix in Iraq


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. We can debate about whether it was a good idea to go into Iraq all day long, however we are already there. I think we should at least give the "guy in office" the benefit of the doubt, before we "attack" him. Why don't we wait and see what happens in Iraq before we decide whether it was a good or bad idea? Then, we can always use our power to vote him in or out of office.

[ QUOTE ]

we have three branches of government for a reason--they're supposed to keep tabs on the others ... I think both major parties have been slacking /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

don't know who said it, but "Democracy is not a spectator sport"

and (think it was Patrick Henry) "I may not agree with what you sy, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

the other chestnut I get from time to time is "if you don't like it here, why don't you move to Irag?" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif

I like it here ... alot ... that's why I write this stuff, even though it's time-consuming and depressing ... but what would really depress me would be if Iraq winds up with a democracy and we lose ours /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The more democracy there is in the world, the LESS chance we will lose ours.

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Gentlemen:

I would never post a thread like this to any other newsgroup but CPF ... I figure this group is one of few mature enough to handle it ... I really mean that!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif

please maintain the civil tone, keep to the "Ir*q" topic (which is why I moved it here in the first place) and put your two cents in

As I PMed Nitro, it's not the people who disagree with me that I'm concerned about--it's the people who won't discuss the topic with an open mind or just don't care that I find disappointing. Many, many people have died and alot of ink has been spewed throughout our history so that we have the RIGHT to have this thread!

Someone noted in the original thread that over a hundred people had viewed it and only a handful had commented (Sasha is probably thanking her lucky stars, otherwise keeping the server up would be a full-time job). "Cheers for our troops" seems like a no-brainer to me. But stirring the pot is always a pain and I know alot of folks are non-confrontational (which for a forum like this where people trot their EDCs out at a moment's notice, is pretty /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif)

Our founding fathers stirred the pot ... and if it's done carefully, it keeps those in office on their toes since when you stir, the scum rises to the top. IMHO, we have have needed more stirring for a long time /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin07.gif


hideo


shutting up for awhile so others can take the soapbox and I can earn some $$ to pay taxes to keep the war going /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twakfl.gif

last edit, I swear!-- Read the latest spin on the Rice testimony which is starting to trickle in here
lots of options, so pick whichever version of the truth you like the best /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif

Missed the hearings: complete audio available free here (you'll need a fast connection)