Bin Laden and Chomsky

[kapkomet]

I simply said that the Iraq war was illegal and has resulted in a lot of bloodshed. Having a genocide would be a concerted, concentrated effort. It is giving the US too much credit and is also inaccurate to call it a genocide (and I don't believe I used the g word). Right now the US war policy couldn't find a clue with two hands and a detailed road map.

 

And the corporate media cheerled the war effort throughout the buildup in 2003 -- when it was important to have the investigative arm of the media out there. Nary a dissident voice could be heard on the mainstream media during that critical time.

 

And I agree about most Democrats. Watching John Edwards get his $400 haircuts -- that is 4 trips of groceries for me. Most of the Dems have whored for and cheerled the bloody war effort and have just as much blood on their hands as Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney, et al. I don't have blinders on for all Democrats. I do however, side with those Dems who have been opposed to the war and continue to do their job to GTFO of Iraq. Our armed forces are not meant to be an ongoing occupation force in a foreign land to an undetermined amount of time for the goal of nationbuilding (which the Bush administration was against before it was for it) As I said before, my vote goes on a candidate by candidate basis depending on their platforms, stances, etc. The last election I ended up voting Libertarian, Green, Democrat and Republican on the same ballot for different races simply based on the candidates that were offered.

This is a good post and I agree with it 100%.

 

[mr_genius]

I simply said that the Iraq war was illegal and has resulted in a lot of bloodshed.

 

"satisfied their bloodlust to go kill Muslims" is actually what you said. you were implying that this was a some sort of ethnic thing and we just went to iraq to just kill muslims.

 

And the corporate media cheerled the war effort throughout the buildup in 2003 -- when it was important to have the investigative arm of the media out there. Nary a dissident voice could be heard on the mainstream media during that critical time.

 

The Democrats still supported the war back then. The MSM, even if not intentionally, is so overpopulated by Democrats they constantly tow the line for that party. I was as frustrated as anyone over the lack of information put out by the media for reasons NOT to invade iraq. Now that we're there I would hope we wouldn't leave too early and make things worse. Of course we need to leave at some point (and hopefully fairly soon). Also, GW Bush did pretty much feed us a line of bs when he said "i'm against nation building", but we kind of owe it to the country of Iraq to at least make an attempt to clean things up a bit. Just my opinion of course.

Edited September 10, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

You said that AQ likes the idea of a Christian conservative admin in the White House. So the Dems would meet atleast 50% of those requirements. A main tool for there recruiting is also the "lack of morals" and the "satanic way of life" in the United States. So basically, a Christian, pro-gay, pro-liberal ideals would be much more "satan like" than a conservative one. I would also imagine the Democrats would continue much of the policy towards Israel, therefore the recruting would be fine for these groups.

 

I didn't think you were implying that this was a Christian crusade.

ooooohhhhhhhh, now I see what you were getting at.

 

I think I'm not getting my point across well. I don't think AQ cares one whiff about which party is in power, except for how it effects them directly. They are selfish, if you will. What policies they pursue about gay marriage or what not are ultimately small beans to them. What really effects their world, and what allows them to flourish, is the Iraq War, and to an extent the rest of the U.S. "war on terror" and Middle East policy. In that area, there is a clear difference between the parties, and I think its pretty clear that the GOP stand on staying the course is much more beneficial to AQ's cause than the U.S. pulling out.

 

[Texsox]

ooooohhhhhhhh, now I see what you were getting at.

 

I think I'm not getting my point across well. I don't think AQ cares one whiff about which party is in power, except for how it effects them directly. They are selfish, if you will. What policies they pursue about gay marriage or what not are ultimately small beans to them. What really effects their world, and what allows them to flourish, is the Iraq War, and to an extent the rest of the U.S. "war on terror" and Middle East policy. In that area, there is a clear difference between the parties, and I think its pretty clear that the GOP stand on staying the course is much more beneficial to AQ's cause than the U.S. pulling out.

 

Exactly. And I'd add, they survive on hate. It is easy to hate someone who just bombed your city and killed your father. Look at the American Civil War. It pitted brother against brother, but it also added soldiers to the same side when, for example, a father was killed. Even if your sympathies were torn, sometimes seeing one side kill a loved one would have you change sides in a hurry.

 

I know that wasn't clear, I hope y'all see the intent.

[mr_genius]

GOP stand on staying the course is much more beneficial to AQ's cause than the U.S. pulling out.

 

I don't think so. If the US pulls out early AQ could claim victory and show that US will abandon you, so do not dare oppose AQ or any terrorist group.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think so. If the US pulls out early AQ could claim victory and show that US will abandon you, so do not dare oppose AQ or any terrorist group.

That's a good point, as I am sure they would spin things either way to look good. But ultimately, blood on the streets is better for them than a victory, in my view.

 

[Texsox]

While it is interesting to think about what is best for them, I believe we should think about what is best for the US. All of this which party does it helps pulls our attention away from that.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Then put your money where your mouth is.

 

If you like the invasion of another country so much, then go join the surge.

 

But you likely won't, because whining and b****ing about "liberals" is a lot easier than putting your ass on the line in a marketplace in urban Iraq.

 

 

AHEM..........

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Here's my take on the Iraq war, noting that I've been here in the middle of it for nearly 2 years now in total. It was the right thing to do.....at the right time......done the wrong way.

 

We all saw how easily Afghanistan fell after dropping in a few SF guys. The Taliban, a low rent group of thugs, fell like a house of cards with a few horseback charges and smart bombs.

 

Fast forward to 2003. We thought we could go into Iraq "on the cheap" ( as I like to say it). Bush and Rumsfeld didn't listen to Gen Shinseki when he called for an overwhelming number of troops, laughed at him and sacked him at that. So now, they go in and conduct a brilliantly executed operation to destroy the Iraqi Army and topple the government. What was left after that, though, was a vacuum. We had far too few troops to police the place ourselves and we made, in my estimation, a colossal mistake in disbanding the Iraqi Army and police. Not only did we deprive ourselves of a huge pool of manpower but turned them into the militias of today by tossing them out of their jobs and letting them keep their weapons. The vast majority of Iraqi soldiers were not raging baathists but were horribly mistreated by Saddam and would have proven serviceable allies in keeping a lid on things. So now we had the twin tasks of building an army and police force from scratch along with policing a lawless land with no government. A tall task by any measure.

 

Now, in 2007, we have "the surge". Which was a really great idea back in 2003-2004 and long overdue in 2007. It's starting to show real progress, in my opinion. Baghdad is much less violent than it was when I first got on the ground this go around. Back in March and April I was getting into gunfights and dodging IED's every single day. Now, attacks against US forces and locals in my sector, which covers a wide swath of South Baghdad, are down to one a week or so.

 

The real failure, and I think this will bite us in the ass when we're trying to get out of here, is the fact that we don't let the National Police do much of anything aside from manning checkpoints these days. U.S. forces in the entire district where I am do EVERYTHING when it comes to patrolling the neighborhoods. This means that the police have little or no relationship with the population and, in fact, the police are literally afraid ( or too lazy depending on who you talk to ) to patrol their own city.

 

What I feel we should do now that violence is way down is to get the Iraqi Security forces involved in everything. Make these bastards do their damn job. I say give them till spring to get their act together and then, ready or not, let them go on their own. At this point, we should reduce the number of U.S. forces drastically ( down to 100k) and change their role from beat cop to sealing off the Iranian and Syrian borders, counterterrorism ops against Al Queda, and protecting critical U.S. assets.

 

When it comes to politics, both sides are right about some things and somewhere in the middle is the real right answer to getting this done.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

One more thing before I go to bed is that it just blows me away how much the defeatist wing of the Democratic party ( that one that wants us all out of Iraq this very minute ) just plays into the hands of our enemy. The ideal scenario for Bin Laden and his ilk is for the Green Zone to become another Saigon circa 1975. That's exactly what would happen if the U.S. were to withdraw all combat forces as the looney left is proposing. The fact that they aid the enemies of this country with their defeatist rhetoric is downright shameful. ( Gotta love how moveon.org slimed Petreaus in the NYT the other day ) If we do it right, we can still win this thing and within a reasonable amount of time.

[Texsox]

Defeat Nuke?

 

No WMD

No Evil Dictator

 

Mission Accomplished! Victory is ours!

[StrangeSox]

One more thing before I go to bed is that it just blows me away how much the defeatist wing of the Democratic party ( that one that wants us all out of Iraq this very minute ) just plays into the hands of our enemy. The ideal scenario for Bin Laden and his ilk is for the Green Zone to become another Saigon circa 1975. That's exactly what would happen if the U.S. were to withdraw all combat forces as the looney left is proposing. The fact that they aid the enemies of this country with their defeatist rhetoric is downright shameful. ( Gotta love how moveon.org slimed Petreaus in the NYT the other day ) If we do it right, we can still win this thing and within a reasonable amount of time.

 

What defines "win?"

What is a reasonable amount of time?

Why should we continue to trust the same people that screwed up this situation so much in the first place?

 

The post of yours above this one sounds like a very solid view of the current and prior situation in Iraq. A full, rapid removal of all US troops would be terrible for everyone involved.

Edited September 11, 2007 by StrangeSox

[Rex Kickass]

What I feel we should do now that violence is way down is to get the Iraqi Security forces involved in everything. Make these bastards do their damn job. I say give them till spring to get their act together and then, ready or not, let them go on their own. At this point, we should reduce the number of U.S. forces drastically ( down to 100k) and change their role from beat cop to sealing off the Iranian and Syrian borders, counterterrorism ops against Al Queda, and protecting critical U.S. assets.

 

When it comes to politics, both sides are right about some things and somewhere in the middle is the real right answer to getting this done.

 

This kind of plan is out there Nuke, and there are a lot of Democrats supporting it. Republicans too. Sometimes I wonder if the call to just bring everyone home is because our mission doesn't seem to be evolving, just getting more and more confusing.

 

If the Bush administration made this proposal and said we'll start this process on January 1. It would meet approval with most people in the US.

 

But the problem is that there's no definition of victory from the administration - only definition of defeat. I think its hard to get behind people without a real plan, especially when it means putting American lives on the line.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

This kind of plan is out there Nuke, and there are a lot of Democrats supporting it. Republicans too. Sometimes I wonder if the call to just bring everyone home is because our mission doesn't seem to be evolving, just getting more and more confusing.

 

If the Bush administration made this proposal and said we'll start this process on January 1. It would meet approval with most people in the US.

 

But the problem is that there's no definition of victory from the administration - only definition of defeat. I think its hard to get behind people without a real plan, especially when it means putting American lives on the line.

 

 

That's where I gleaned most of the points from. When it comes to Iraq, Democrats, at least the moderate ones, make some really good points that I agree with. The Bush Administration has defined victory.....when the Iraqi's can stand on their own.......the problem is that we're not providing them any incentive at all to do so. Right now they're getting a free ride and being allowed to dither about while we do EVERYTHING. I think most people would support the current "surge" policy if it were coupled with a more realistic exit strategy and some real pressure on the Iraqi's to step up and take charge.

 

Another thing that's worthy of note is that the U.S. military is finally learning how to do counterinsurgency. It wasn't the surge that quelled the violence in Anbar province but the fact that we showed that we were genuinely there to help them.

[Texsox]

"Stand on their own" is a really tough standard. Defining that is next to impossible. It could be debated that in some neighborhoods in any major city, the police are not standing on their own. I don't want to just cut and run, but I believe we are defining standing on their own as when the government of "our choosing" is firmly in control. We really do not want a freely elected government, we want our guys in charge. And I would not necessarily disagree after the loses we suffered.

 

So when we say "stand on their own" we should all understand that means "our people". Making that even tougher.

[Rex Kickass]

That's where I gleaned most of the points from. When it comes to Iraq, Democrats, at least the moderate ones, make some really good points that I agree with. The Bush Administration has defined victory.....when the Iraqi's can stand on their own.......the problem is that we're not providing them any incentive at all to do so. Right now they're getting a free ride and being allowed to dither about while we do EVERYTHING. I think most people would support the current "surge" policy if it were coupled with a more realistic exit strategy and some real pressure on the Iraqi's to step up and take charge.

 

Another thing that's worthy of note is that the U.S. military is finally learning how to do counterinsurgency. It wasn't the surge that quelled the violence in Anbar province but the fact that we showed that we were genuinely there to help them.

 

To his credit Petraeus did that in Mosul too. Then we kinda backed away and the situation has deteriorated there.