AND he was a TRUE conservative, who would choke on what's going on today.moses said:
HUGO BLACK for Secretary of State! (Oops, didn't he die? OK, run him for VP)
President Bush's Speech
- Thread starter mark the shoeshine boy
- Start date
HUGO BLACK for Secretary of State! (Oops, didn't he die? OK, run him for VP)
All I have to say: we just saw what "liberating" Iraq meant...now that nation is seething with free-roaming organizations like Al-Qaeda. Now, what makes you think "liberating" Iran or any other nation will do any better?
What's to keep them from becoming even worse? Would we then re-invade? How long will this last and at what cost to us?
To me, this entire war on terror was just a ploy to gain public approval. Where have we "liberated" that is actually better off than when we entered, from an actual point of view, such as safety/happiness/health?
What's to keep them from becoming even worse? Would we then re-invade? How long will this last and at what cost to us?
To me, this entire war on terror was just a ploy to gain public approval. Where have we "liberated" that is actually better off than when we entered, from an actual point of view, such as safety/happiness/health?
Well, 60 years later, Japan seems alright. But other than that.... (not that what happened there was really "liberating" so much as just conquering in order to end a war).
the presidents talk was his usuall forgetfull stuff.
However, Keith Olbermann's speech was something that provoked thought and emmotion from me.
For those of you who have not heard Keith Olbermann's talk, you should and then post your thougths...both good or bad.
However, Keith Olbermann's speech was something that provoked thought and emmotion from me.
For those of you who have not heard Keith Olbermann's talk, you should and then post your thougths...both good or bad.
I think if we did more conquering, and less "liberating"-at least in practice- wars would be over a lot faster with a lot less hard feelings in the long run. In WWII we flattened opposition without hesitation, if possible (all sides did)and there was resistance (more so than in Iraq, btw). I understand we sent hunter killer squads after the resistance organizers and troublemakers like former SS (in Germany at least) to kill them well after the war was officially over. Distasteful perhaps, but it worked. If the enemy still wishes to fight he must be killed. Nowadays we go easy on them and instead of destroying their will to fight, we give the enemy hope. So they keep fighting. Their sponsors keep whispering to them to wait us out, that we don't have the patience to hunt them down. In WWII, Fallujah would have been flattened to the ground, after dropping leaflets. Mosques and churches included. Nowadays, if you are a bad guy, and think the Marines are about to get you, just drop your gun, go hide in a mosque, and if anything happens find a US journalist and tell him you are innocent...and America will instead court martial and perhaps execute the Marines for you.moses said:
Makes no sense at all to me.
John P.
I dunno. I have no stomach for bombing holy ground. To say nothing of what it does to create more anger. But I sure do see your point. There doesn't seem to be a good answer. Makes you want to be an isolationist. Not that I'm suggesting that is a good answer either.
He also had quite a response when Rummy made his appeasement speech.Shermdog said:
Whether you agree with him or not, we need reporters like this, with guts and conviction. Remeber how Edward R. Murrow stood up to McCarthy and eventually succeeded, when everyone else shrank away? Agressive reporters protect our democracy. It's especially important when Congress isn't providing oversight.
Moses, I agree with you on the holy ground part, to a point. Extremely distasteful (MonteCasino comes to mind, as do some cathedrals bombed in Germany, France, England, etc) still, it bothers me when a religious building is used for a military purpose, yet because of it's former purpose we spare it. IMHO it is a barracks in the shape of a church, because by housing troops inside it and sending out patrols from its doors, whatever holiness the building may have had is now gone while such actions are taking place. I feel the choices for the enemy should be surrender, learn to behave, and live...or fight and die. There should be no "sanctuary" if we ever want to end this thing and show certain groups we mean business.
I wish I felt the administration meant business, but it seems to me they are trying to make everyone happy and just "go through the motions" of fighting terror, instead of playing to win.
John P.
I wish I felt the administration meant business, but it seems to me they are trying to make everyone happy and just "go through the motions" of fighting terror, instead of playing to win.
John P.
JohnP, what you're observing is the difference between a real war and a fake one. Any definition of war that I've ever seen relates to two countries (or similar large organizations) fighting, and it usually involves organizations that own territory.
By a traditional definition of war, this war was over a long time ago, when Iraq and Afghanistan were defeated. What we have now is an occupation that followed and an insurrection or guerilla movement against our occupation. If you look back in history, armies don't defeat guerilla movements. We even defeated the British, against all odds.
What you are proposing is a massacre. Sure, you'd get your guerillas, but you'd kill a huge number of innocent civilians in the process. That's the problem with fighting guerillas. They hide among the civilians and terrorize them, so they won't help you. That's what happened with the Viet Cong in Vietnam. We could go into villages and clean them out, but when we left, the villagers would have to answer to the Viet Cong. You wouldn't be likely toget cooperation from the civilians if they loved you. Now, imagine how they feel about us after we've moved in and can't give them the basics of life, and in some cases have destroyed their homes and killed their relatives. I'm not talking about terrorists, but just every day civilians.
This is not a war. We took the responsibility for running the country and were totally unprepared to do it. Colon Powell warned us about it. If we were invaded and that kind of thing happened to our lives, wouldn't you be an insurrectionist? I would. We have a great army that won the war in a flash, but then we needed a police force and government, and that's not something soldiers do well, unless you have a huge number of them.
We could end the situation by being brutal. We could reduce Mecca to dust, we could nuke every Moslem city, we could wipe out entire cities, and we could bring them to their knees. This would do orders of magnitude more damage than any terrorists ever did to us, and it would be of the same type (why isn't that terrorism?).
At some point you have to be able to look at yourself in the mirror.
By a traditional definition of war, this war was over a long time ago, when Iraq and Afghanistan were defeated. What we have now is an occupation that followed and an insurrection or guerilla movement against our occupation. If you look back in history, armies don't defeat guerilla movements. We even defeated the British, against all odds.
What you are proposing is a massacre. Sure, you'd get your guerillas, but you'd kill a huge number of innocent civilians in the process. That's the problem with fighting guerillas. They hide among the civilians and terrorize them, so they won't help you. That's what happened with the Viet Cong in Vietnam. We could go into villages and clean them out, but when we left, the villagers would have to answer to the Viet Cong. You wouldn't be likely toget cooperation from the civilians if they loved you. Now, imagine how they feel about us after we've moved in and can't give them the basics of life, and in some cases have destroyed their homes and killed their relatives. I'm not talking about terrorists, but just every day civilians.
This is not a war. We took the responsibility for running the country and were totally unprepared to do it. Colon Powell warned us about it. If we were invaded and that kind of thing happened to our lives, wouldn't you be an insurrectionist? I would. We have a great army that won the war in a flash, but then we needed a police force and government, and that's not something soldiers do well, unless you have a huge number of them.
We could end the situation by being brutal. We could reduce Mecca to dust, we could nuke every Moslem city, we could wipe out entire cities, and we could bring them to their knees. This would do orders of magnitude more damage than any terrorists ever did to us, and it would be of the same type (why isn't that terrorism?).
At some point you have to be able to look at yourself in the mirror.
You have to think about this some more. It's easy to be angry and lash out.JohnP said:
If the nazis took over a country and started fighting us from churches, or if the country's forces themselves did it, it makes the churches a fair target. But that's not what happened with, say, Hezbollah. They terrorize the population and they use churches and civilian targets for cover. The churches are not being used by a legitimate authority for a military purpose, which would make them a reasonable target. For example in Afghanistan, when the Taliban fought from one of their mosques, that became a military target.
Except in unusual circumstances, you can't destroy a civilian target when it is being used only because of the civilians being brutalized. Unfortunately with terorists that's usually the case.
Joe,
you bring up some interesting points, and it is quite a quandary we are in no matter which point of view you have. On the one hand, the enemy does not wear uniforms, and kills from cover, and yes, often uses mosques and other such places as rallying points and even munitions storage. On the other hand, the argument that these should be treated differently than troops is one I disagree with. If we are intended to apply Geneva conventions to these people when captured and questioned, or even a jury trial as if they were U.S. citizens, then for the Geneva conventions to apply, we need to define them as soldiers in uniform. The Geneva conventions quite clearly prescribe death for combatants out of uniform....so which do we consider these? Either they are civilians and should be arrested as murder suspects (Even U.S. citizens here cannot hide from the SWAT team in churches, either...and suspects brandishing weapons at law enforcement are usually shot...) or execute them as combatants not wearing uniform, prohibited by the Geneva conventions, or we consider them combatants and their standard garb combined with their weapons in effect their uniform...in service of (whoever their authority is). So, since we are treating them as soldiers in uniform (e.g. not executing them when captured) this is absolutely NO different, from Wehrmacht troops hiding in Montecasino. The Mahdi army, and the various other paramilitary organizations killing civilians (and us) following it, ARE armies, then. Otherwise they are afforded no protection under Geneva conventions.
I am not suggesting we flatten cathedrals during mass, or mosques during religious services; But treating enemies with kid gloves just because they do not wear a uniform is not smart, nor is it required by any definition of combat, whether police or military. Killing those one is engaged in combat with is not the same thing as a massacre.
Your point about nuking Mecca, etc. is not really applicable, as it hasn't been suggested, and to be honest, armed individuals are not hiding in mosques in Mecca with weapons still smoking from their last bombing or massacre of Iraqi police recruits.
As far as quality of life, in large portions of Iraq life is as far as I can tell, better than before we got there. Many seem to think otherwise but my understanding is that the only areas it is worse are those controlled by the enemy-elsewhere We've built waste treatment facilities, hospitals, schools, and brought electricity to places there was none before. This of course is not bloody enough to get covered in the news. If such things are worse in an area and not better, it is because the new facilities have been destroyed or its workers murdered by the foreign insurgents. Sure, perhaps the people are intimidated by the insurgents-if this is the case, then if they do not have the power to run them off themselves, we as the occupying power need to clear out these individuals for them.
Unlike the jungles of Vietnam, either run the innocents out of the city and flatten it along with the combatants still there, or run the combatants out of the city and kill them in the open desert. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that some innocents will die, whether we free them or they do it themselves. Blood is a high price for anything, but if they are truly living in fear, then it is worth it.
Either way,
its a big mess, and we can kid-glove it and be there for decades, or play to win, and leave in a year. Unfortunately I think it is obvious the path that is being taken. It IS a fake war...as you said. It wasn't over earlier when it was declared over....now the administration is paying the price for their over optimism.
yet another novel from
John P.
you bring up some interesting points, and it is quite a quandary we are in no matter which point of view you have. On the one hand, the enemy does not wear uniforms, and kills from cover, and yes, often uses mosques and other such places as rallying points and even munitions storage. On the other hand, the argument that these should be treated differently than troops is one I disagree with. If we are intended to apply Geneva conventions to these people when captured and questioned, or even a jury trial as if they were U.S. citizens, then for the Geneva conventions to apply, we need to define them as soldiers in uniform. The Geneva conventions quite clearly prescribe death for combatants out of uniform....so which do we consider these? Either they are civilians and should be arrested as murder suspects (Even U.S. citizens here cannot hide from the SWAT team in churches, either...and suspects brandishing weapons at law enforcement are usually shot...) or execute them as combatants not wearing uniform, prohibited by the Geneva conventions, or we consider them combatants and their standard garb combined with their weapons in effect their uniform...in service of (whoever their authority is). So, since we are treating them as soldiers in uniform (e.g. not executing them when captured) this is absolutely NO different, from Wehrmacht troops hiding in Montecasino. The Mahdi army, and the various other paramilitary organizations killing civilians (and us) following it, ARE armies, then. Otherwise they are afforded no protection under Geneva conventions.
I am not suggesting we flatten cathedrals during mass, or mosques during religious services; But treating enemies with kid gloves just because they do not wear a uniform is not smart, nor is it required by any definition of combat, whether police or military. Killing those one is engaged in combat with is not the same thing as a massacre.
Your point about nuking Mecca, etc. is not really applicable, as it hasn't been suggested, and to be honest, armed individuals are not hiding in mosques in Mecca with weapons still smoking from their last bombing or massacre of Iraqi police recruits.
As far as quality of life, in large portions of Iraq life is as far as I can tell, better than before we got there. Many seem to think otherwise but my understanding is that the only areas it is worse are those controlled by the enemy-elsewhere We've built waste treatment facilities, hospitals, schools, and brought electricity to places there was none before. This of course is not bloody enough to get covered in the news. If such things are worse in an area and not better, it is because the new facilities have been destroyed or its workers murdered by the foreign insurgents. Sure, perhaps the people are intimidated by the insurgents-if this is the case, then if they do not have the power to run them off themselves, we as the occupying power need to clear out these individuals for them.
Unlike the jungles of Vietnam, either run the innocents out of the city and flatten it along with the combatants still there, or run the combatants out of the city and kill them in the open desert. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that some innocents will die, whether we free them or they do it themselves. Blood is a high price for anything, but if they are truly living in fear, then it is worth it.
Either way,
its a big mess, and we can kid-glove it and be there for decades, or play to win, and leave in a year. Unfortunately I think it is obvious the path that is being taken. It IS a fake war...as you said. It wasn't over earlier when it was declared over....now the administration is paying the price for their over optimism.
yet another novel from
John P.
moses said:
They are doing just fine...thing was we just pounded the crap out of them, and they went on. We never swapped out their government for another though, and that's where the problem starts. Actions like that can destroy centuries of progress, through incompetent leaders and the civil strife that usually follows.
Only thing that bothers me so much about this entire situation is we had historical evidence to back up how bad of an idea it is to pull a government swap, but it was done anyways.
I just hope whoever is in power when this thing is all said and done is a leader capable of making Iraq a peaceful nation, and not the over-religious nutjobs that seem to find their way into those positions.
A
AVB19Peace
JohnP said:
This administration doesn't want to win. 9/11 was the best thing that could've happened to this administration. It falls right in line with the Project For the New American Century think tank. Their neo-con agenda is plainly laid out in their report Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century.
Dick Cheney was a founding member and here are other PNAC members who became part of the Bush Administration in 2000.
Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
Elliott Abrams - Member of the National Security Council
John Bolton - Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security
Richard Perle - Chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board
Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State
John Bolton - Undersecretary of State for Disarmament
Zalmay Khalilzad - White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition
What we have now is not a war. We have militia, but they're fighting each other. And if they don't break into a full civil war but turn on us instead, it still won't be a war. It'll be an insurrection against us and the elected government.JohnP said:
Our army could handle that, but why? If they could get together like that they could be part of the Iraqi army and wouldn't need us. No, these militia are fighting an old war, and if we're not taking a side we have to pull away (to the Kurd region) and let it happen. That takes us out of the middle and puts us in a safe place where we protect against outside involvement.
And there's no relationship to terrorism here except to the extent that our involvement is recruiting more to Al Qaeda's cause every day. And we may actually have an Al Qaeda state fromong in Anbar province. Until then terrorism won't be an entity. Al Qaeda is a Moslem cause for which we have become the greatest recruiter.
We have no war on terror. That was sidetracked in Iraq. Besides, you can't fight terror with an army, so to the extent we're spending all this money on the military, we're not fighting terror. Note that the Bris did it with their intelligence agency and good police work. If we spent all the war money on eliminating terrorism, it would be gone as a threat. Instead, it's thriving, and we're doing nothing about it.
What I'm saying is Iraq was a diversion from fighting terror, and if hadn't attacked, but instead continued what we started in Afghanistan, that country would be stable now and the threat of terror would be gone. But the, Afghanistan doesn't have oil.
R
rimfire
If Anybody Out There Has Any Sense, And Realize That Saddam, And All Of The Other Murdering Terrorists, Are Out To Kill Each And Everyone Of Us, Including All Of Our Generations To Come, You Better Start To Wake Up. And Support This Good Man And Great President. And When They Get The Big Bomb! Will It Be The???? Well You Figure It Out.
Actually...just a small point, but I'm almost positive we DID stand up a government in Japan...the existing government was replaced with an occupation "provisional" government. The fact that we let them keep their royal family does not mean the emperor controls Japan like before the war. Once this government was running like a well oiled clock, we turned it over.catatonic said:
As for Iraq being an "Al Qaeda recruiting ground" only partly. The glamorization program being used by Arab (and unfortunately U.S.) networks depicting the enemy as "the noble underdog" or "resistance" or the "freedom fighter mujahideen" and noble warriors of the Jihad...defenders of Islam, etc. is recruiting people more, I think. Their media and Imams and even schools tell them Americans (and British and especially Jews) eat the children of good Muslims, that we are going to ban Islam, and might as well be the devil himself. Add to this the glamorization on Al Jazeera or yes, CNN of the "insurgents", and you have a recipe for trouble. Want to end the insurgency fast? Jam Al Jazeera AND CNN.....(
) biased and dishonest journalism is more dangerous than any kid with an AK or a shovel and an IED. Just as the old hyperpatriotic propaganda of WWII got 13 and 14 year old boys lying about their age to join the Marines, only to find a different harsh reality at Iwo Jima....13 and 14 year old boys (and older) are being spoon fed video of "heroes" in the middle east, and suddenly, an easy way to prove oneself to his family is to become one of these "heroes". If you do not believe this, ask a recruiter some day how many kids try to join the Marine corps just because of the cool uniform and because of the glamor of heroism associated with the corps....(I KNOW no one joins the NAVY for the uniforms) they want their Dads to approve, for girls back home to swoon, all that BS.The "Al Qaeda" in Iraq is a publicity stunt to draw just this type of people to Iraq. Zarqawi knew by naming it what he did that OUR OWN CAMERAS would put the word out for him. They did. Young arabs from all over the middle east (where, incidentally 2 towers toys were sold, and Osama T-shirts were popular right after 9/11) assumed they could join Osama by coming to Zarqawi's group. The war did not recruit these people, CNN did. A group of thugs wanted to control post-war Iraq (as does Iran) and knew they could attract attention and membership by calling it "Al Qaeda". It is name recognition. After all the beheadings got them publicity, THEN Osama "sanctioned" them. He is a celebrity there. Why wouldn't he.
Intelligence-I think there's no secret why ours is ineffective. We won't let them do their jobs. We want them to tell us everything they are doing, but keep it a secret (somehow) from the enemy, while it runs on CBS, CNN, ABC, etc...and then we want them to do so without offending or inconveniencing the enemy or any of his operatives in our custody, and oh yeah, if we want to spy on anyone a senator and a judge needs to give written permission for each instance....only to have the senate intelligence committee tell everyone that whatever you found out was wrong. I suggest we send the senate intelligence committe to these seedy places carrying a weapon, if they are so obviously better than our professionals...
were we ABLE, we would use our intelligence agencies as did the British...unfortunately here in the states our intelligence services are not allowed to question prisoners in a harsh manner (guess how the British found out about that last plot-PAKISTANI intelligence with no such qualms questioned a known terror suspect after capture, and he sang like a canary and gave the bad guys up. The Brits watched them for awhile, then hauled them in)
Pakistan could give two craps what you or I think is torture. If OUR intelligence services had used such information Sen. Kennedy and friends would be SCREAMING (again) that America condones information gained by (gasp) TORTURE (apparently defined as listening to "Californication" over and over again...) and the hearings would begin. We were doing better before, but we cannot have an intelligence operation without some traitor leaking it to the media and having it on the 6 o'clock news. A team of OGA, SEAL or Armyor Air Force SF guys tune some eqipment to pick up cell phone calls made by a certain known terrorist in Afghanistan. OOPS-he called an American phone number-we gotta turn the stuff off, NOW! Now, call the US, fax over a WRITTEN request (word of mouth never will CYA....) have it signed by a judge allowing you to listen to said conversation....then turn it back on. Too bad the phone call is over and the orders to fly into a building (or whatever) have already been given.
This is exactly what is happening. THEIR phone is being listened to, and unfortunately sometimes they call a number here....Yet to watch the news, one would believe, that, (gasp) sneaky government types were tapping your house phone, or mine, and, Oh My, they're EAVESDROPPING on AMERICANS!!!!!
And of course Sen. Kennedy and friends start haranguing about freedoms lost. I think some have been, for sure, but this isn't one of those cases. If we cannot use our intelligence services to find out about about the threat, sometimes by distasteful methods, then we have to be prepared to fight wars and do even WORSE distasteful things to pay for it.
John P.
Just something I was thinking about, but it always kills me when I write a short novel trying to get all my thoughts onto the page...and then no doubt someone inevitably comes after me with a single sentence that says the same thing. My hat's off to these people, and to the poor souls patient enough to read my small novels....
John P.
John P.
Keep up the fear mongering and your prediciton will come true. So far, we are the only ones who could win an atomic war, and we are the only ones who have ever used atomic weapons on someone else.rimfire said:
Your good man is finally getting some criticism from the Republicans. Better late than never. With all of these experienced military guys coming out on this one, what do you suppose it's all about? The Geneva Convention has been around a long time and never needed interpretation before, neither with respect to terrorist or the likes of the Viet Cong. Your good amn is trying to cover his tracks for violations that have already occurred and will come to light soon when the Red Cross interviews prisoners.
Nothing our government can do will rectify those acts, but Bush is trying to get the entire government behind what was already done, so the entier country will be responsible, not just him, his cronies and agents. The people opposing him want no part of it because they don't want themselves and the country tainted with the same brush. If they don't sell out, this will be an act of true patriotism and support for what our creed is all about.
Enough fear and war mongering! Are we safer from terrorism now that we've made Al Qaeda a worldwide cause, now that we've paved the way for Iran and its extremism to dominate the Middle East, now that Iraq has become an extension for Iran, with a homeland for Al Qaeda in Anbar Province?
An army is the wrong weapon against terrorism. Al Queada is not controlling the new wave of terrorists that carry its banner. They're springing up all over the world (and probably in our backyard), and because they're so dispersed we really have little ability to track them. This is a job for our spies and law enforcement. Because of Iraq and its financial burden, we're not giving the support needed in that direction to fight terrorists. THe British terrorists were not defeated by an army.
