OK, now even I have to ask.
President Bush, what the fuck are you smoking?
I’ll grant that there are probably a lot more similarities between Korea and Iraq than anyone cares to admit — like today’s Iraq, South Korea was a complete and utter basketcase between liberation from Japanese colonial rule in 1945 and 1950. Something resembling a viable state eventually emerged, but that was only after the ruinous Korean War, and Koreans would have to wait all the way up till 1987 before they got a democracy in any meaningful sense for the word. I might even point out some of the ironies, too, like one of the “mistakes” we are criticized for in Iraq — removal of collaborators with the ancien regime (i.e., de-Bathification) — we are being criticized by many modern Korean historians for NOT doing in Korea between 1945 and 1948.
Anyway, might Iraq go the same way as Korea? One can only hope.
One thing I think is fairly certain at this point, however, is that the United States won’t be going along for the ride. A 50-year deployment? Put down the crack pipe — unless internal security in Iraq gets tangibly better real soon, this deployment won’t last one year before the White House is forced to announce a timetable for withdrawal, let alone 50. At least in Korea, internal security (i.e., burning villages, torturing leftists, etc.) was firmly left in the competent hands of the South Korean military and police while the US protected Seoul from external threats. Good luck seeing that anytime soon in Iraq. To talk about anything resembling a long-term deployment of US troops to Iraq at a time when you’re coming under intense pressure from your own public to pull out is, simply put, mad.
Heck, I supported the war, but I think we can admit now that things have not developed in the manner we may have wished, and now there is very little for US troops to do except stand around in the middle of an Arab civil war and get shot at. I’m not even saying Iraq is a lost cause — like Korea, it might eventually turn out fine — but clearly, Iraqis have some, ahem, issues to work out amongst themselves, and US troops have no role to play in resolving those issues.
The irony is, you’d hope that if one legacy from the Rumsfeld era that were still alive, it would be the realization that Korea is NOT a model for a long-term deployment, but rather a model of a deployment that has lasted far too long. US troops had a role — an important role — in Korea, but that role was made obsolete by the end of the Cold War if not earlier. The continued deployment of US troops in Korea has earned nothing but the bitter fruits of an unhealthy allied reliance on US military and diplomatic power, scorn and feelings of victimization from the locals, wasted military resources and reduced strategic flexibility (due to US “hostages” in South Korea and Seoul’s potential refusal to allow the US to use bases on its soil to respond to regional emergencies). Yes, Mr. President, Korea is a model for Iraq… just not the model you’re thinking of.
(HT to seoulmilk)
{ 157 comments… read them below or add one }
Actually, if you’d been following Iraq closely, you would have noticed that the Korea model may be quite applicable. US troops are completely welcome in Kurdistan. Al-Anbar Province is pacifying quickly, with the former insurgency now allied to American forces to root out al-Qaeda. Even Baghdad is seeing a return to “normality” in some districts.
The Bush strategy is ensure peace and stability in the parts of the country which want it, deploy US forces to the trouble spots and eventually allow Iraqi forces to retake those parts (Baghdad) which are pacified. This war is already over — Iraq will be peaceful quite soon. Whether or not they want US forces to remain 50 years on is an open question, but if you count Kurdistan as “Iraq” I think even that question’s answer will surprise you.
Our beloved prez been smokin’ the same stash since his gargantuan intellect burst onto the political scene. Welcome to reality. Grab a chair a have a look around.
Brendon, I can only hope you’re right.
For someone that consistently advises people to stay away from drugs while in Korea, I would advise you to follow your own advice.
Funny, funny, funny stuff.
As far as Iraq goes, it depends on whether or not the Democratic majority in US Congress can summon the will to cut off the funding for the war, between now and the election. “September” is the next date for a funding decision, bandied about constantly in the US TV media — I doubt if there will be any drastic change in the situation between now and then, and I think Bush will remain adamant, so it’s up to the Dems to stop by cutting off the funding if they can find the intestinal fortitude.
Besides the effects noted by B. Carr, the strategy followed by Petraeus does seem to definitely be having one other predicted effect — an increase in US casualties. I can’t tell what will happen, though I don’t think the Dems are tough enough to risk blame for a defeat by cutting off the money.
Setting aside my personal opinion and attempting to be objective, from observing things here in CONUS I think it’s extremely unlikely that a Democratic winner of the Presidency in 08 will want to disturb the status quo as far as US ground presence in ROK. No US troops are getting killed there and everyone agrees that North Korea is dangerous, so continuing the status quo in the ROK will be an easy way for a Democratic presidential winner to demonstrate toughness on defense — and that will be true for all of the Dem candidates, no matter who wins the nomination.
Richardson (N Mex governor) might be a wild card in this situation since he knows Korea. An unlikely winner of the nomination but a very possible VP candidate, but who knows if he will be listened to on policy, and of course he might well be all in favor of keeping on US troops indefinitely as well anyway.
A McCain or a Giuliani winning in 08 might be tough-minded enough to move to change US troops status in ROK. Don’t know about Romney; since he’s not a foreign policy guy he might also be tempted to leave things “as is” in the ROK.
So if you’re a reader here who thinks that the can ought to keep being kicked down the road (ie keep the Americans around for disaster insurance, but with the sign on their back that says “kick me”) — the odds are probably in your favor.
A lot depends on who these candidates might pick as Defense Secretary. Potential cabinet choices never get discussed during a US election campaign (too bad, they ought to be IMO; the candidates ought to have their choices all lined up for us to peruse during the election campaing, the way they do in the British parliamentary system).
Iraq is becoming more peaceful because the country’s terrorists are leaving to fight elsewhere:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Iraq_beginning_to_export_fighters_to_0527.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0208/p06s01-wome.html
There are many thing a President cannot reveal to the public. Even decades after his presidency.
I personally do not know why the US troops have stayed in Korea. However, I must admit that I do not have access to informations that were available to past presidents. They all had good reasons to have troops stationed in Korea. I trust their good judgement.
Bush cannot tell the US public the top secret information about Iraq. He must be considering what is happening in Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other countries. After reviewing top-secret information he made a decision. We must follow.
Bush is not a bad man, nor is he working for a particular special interest in the States. Bush is an honest man who puts USA first.
The US public follow their president. It is so stupid to go against him and the US troops when even today an Iraqi leader appeared on TV and threatened the US of another 9/11-like attack.
We are at war! Get it through to your head. Pulling troops out of Iraq will only bring more terrorist attacks to US cities.
Democrats are asking for it?
Bush is not a bad man, nor is he working for a particular special interest in the States. Bush is an honest man who puts USA first…
The US public follow their president.
“You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.” Describing what it’s like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)
– From Paul Begala’s “Is Our Children Learning?”
“I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush joked.
– CNN.com, December 18, 2000
“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it, ” [Bush] said.
I am not singling out you, Robert.
I am just mad at media types spinning the facts and making Bush responsible for the whole war. And, US public eating them up.
The world is not a peaceful place as they think. And, the 9/11 is not a fluke. It was rather something long overdue. Moslems hate our guts and they are willing to come over and kill us for being Americans.
As they have done in the 9/11.
i saw a piece on kurdistan two years ago and it was completley like a normal clean 1st world looking country
it amazed me that the rest of iraq couldnt look at this and say “why not us”
muslims will have to really look at themselves in the mirror and stop blaming outsiders for their shortcomings hmmm sorta like the kurds!
There will never be peace in Iraq or the rest of the Middle East until Moslems begin to police themselves and stop using the Koran as a pretext for violence. No Western government will say this publically since Arabs control the oil, but this is the reality.
Robert,
I mostly agree with you. However, Iraq is nothing even remotely like Korea. To believe so is wishful thinking.
(South) Korea was a nation with a well-developed history and very homogeneous culture and race before the U.S. (and Japan) arrived. National unity and pride are largely what helped lift Korea from a 3rd-world nation to a 1st-world nation.
Iraq, on the other hand, was cobbled together by the British less than 100 years ago and contains 3 major factions who have very little in common other than a sizable percentage of them would prefer the other 2 simply went away. Hence, sectarian violence.
As such, Iraq will not follow the Korean model of stability and prosperity.
I believe the best chance for stability in Iraq is to either:
a) put it back the way it was before the British wrecked it doing an oil grab (this current war is merely round 2, fought in a new century)
b) take the lid off the boiling pot and let the steam off (a.k.a. “pull out”, “draw down”, or “cut and run” – take your pick of politically charged phrases)
Granted, I don’t think either solution will work. Saddam was a bad man, but was likely the lesser of all the horrible choice.
If you’re looking for an historical analogy, I believe the Balkans is as good of a fit as any : history of violence, foreign invaders, different sects at each other’s throats with a history of genocide, constant redrawing of borders, and an intermingling of minorities within other faction’s majority’s territories that makes a clean partitioning nearly impossible.
We should find alternate sources of oil, not in the hands of Moslems and tinpot dictators like Chavez in Venezuela, develop alternate sources of energy, more efficiency, etc. and then just ignore the Moslem world. Let them sort out their own problems, instead of blaming us. They can sell their oil to the Chinese and anyone else who needs it and the Chinese definitely won’t play nice in dealing with terrorism.
Re #11
Rather than the Koran, I believe it is largely oil that is to blame indirectly. Oil in general is more of a curse than a blessing. Just take a look at the major oil-producing nations. There are merely a handful that have a government and culture that is stable and representative.
The others, on the other hand, are either like 13-yr-old kids who inherit the family fortune and drop out of school or are invaded by more powerful nations. The end result in either case is usually instability, violence, and chronic underdevelopment of a real economy, education system, and government.
The oil is not to blame, but it is a major factor.
#13
I couldn’t agree more. With the money we’ve spent on oil, we could have gone a long, long way or even completed a program to use 100% biofuels. This would have 2 huge long-term benefits:
1) simplify politics by removing oil from the equation
2) cut CO2 emissions and thus improve global warming
However, I’m not holding my breath on biofuels. The oil industry is incredibly powerful and well-funded and the red herring called fuel cells has created enough of a distraction that public awareness and discussion of a real solution to petroleum.
Three quick facts:
1) (Liquid) Hydrogen is a carrier, not a fuel; electric batteries are actually far more efficient carriers *sigh*
2) The most efficient way of producing hydrogen is not by splitting water molecules, but by refining *ding* *ding* *ding* – petroleum !
3) The non-subsidized, non-taxed price of biofuels is around $2.50/gallon, making it an economically viable fuel source.
Right. Just look at poor Norway and Britain. And Canada, and the United States. All of these places were just ruined by the oil!
Miguknamja, the roots of the current bloodshed in the Middle East date back long before oil was discovered–the Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other for centuries. All Bush has done is lift the lid on Pabdora’s box without planning for the consequences.
The Koran is seen by a very large number of believers as commanding Moslems to wage war on non-Moslems if they don’t convert. That is why there are bombings and killing in so many countries with an Islamic population. Islam is both a religion and a political entity, and Moslems believe the latter should be established everywhere.
All that oil money does is to fuel (no pun intended) the violence by proxy and more generally to pursue the spread of Islam as with the Wahabbist Saudis.
As for “representitive” governments in the region, forget it if you are not Moslem:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1937124.htm#transcript
Uh, “Pandora’s” box, damn it…
William S. Lind aptly called the surge “Operation Provide Targets.” America should DISENGAGE.
Operation provide targets in Iraq – not in CONUS.
Exactimundo!
MigukNamja, I would love to be free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, but it’s a dream that is a long long way off and it has nothing to do with the evil machinations of powerful oil companies or oil lobbies. The infrastructure is there for oil and why should people have supported alternatives in the past? Would you have been willing to pay $15 a gallon back in 1970, just to encourage development of alternatives? Oil is here to stay, though hopefully we can reduce dependence on it and develop alternatives, including nuclear. But with all the alternates in the world, we will still be stuck with oil as the major source of energy until at least another 30,40,50 years.
Is disengage another word for ‘cut and run’?
“like today’s Iraq, South Korea was a complete and utter basketcase between liberation from Japanese colonial rule in 1945 and 1950. ”
Well, I think they are referring to deployment that followed the Korean War. At that point, South Korea was far worse off than Iraq is right now.
The South Korea model and Iraq do indeed have a lot in common, as many have noted. The method of attaining a long-lasting yet tense “peace,” however, is not likely to be an option; decades of DMZ enabled segregation of the major factions, i.e. communists/non-communist or Sunnni/Shia/Kurd in Iraq’s case. It’s a shame, since the formation of Iraq was artificial in the first place.
Everyone should note that many predicted with utter certainly that Korea would never be a prosperous or democratic nation as it was too backwards. It took decades, but what happened far exceeded even the most optimistic projections. Current pessimists on Iraq likewise focus on the negative and the short-term while overlooking the rest; they’ll be wrong like those who predicted Korea’s continued squalor. They’d be smart to take a lesson from that, but they likely won’t.
I don’t think Iraq will be “calm” anytime soon, but do think it does have the long-term potential to succeed. The military has had some success in the past year using methods refined in the Philippines for countering insurgency, another good sign. Hopefully Iraq will stabilize, grow more prosperous, and become a ME “tiger,” but without the transgendered talents.
USFK is no longer needed for the defense of ROK from DPRK, but is needed as a stabilizing influence for the region, along with USFJ. I’ve covered this before, and have yet to see any convincing counter arguments. And I would hardly call preventing a true regional arms race that likely would go nuclear (capabilities) a waste of resources.
Changing the mission to reflect regional realities likely would alleviate at least some of the anti-Americanism in Korea. The rest of that equation rests on Koreans themselves, and I’ve venture that most here do not have a high degree of confidence in Korea’s collective reasoning ability at the moment when it comes to such issues. The pendulum may be swinging back, but slowly. We’ll see what will happen to that pace after December’s elections.
#16
Brendon, you’re a smart guy. What gives ?
I don’t think I could have been more clear about allowing for the exceptions you mentioned:
“Oil in general is more of a curse than a blessing. Just take a look at the major oil-producing nations. There are merely a handful that have a government and culture that is stable and representative.”
#21
Snow, the oil crunches of the 70′s were far too short to warrant investment into alternative fuels. Besides, the technology was not nearly as advanced as it is today, so it was not really feasible then, either.
However, your “The infrastructure is there for oil and why should people have supported alternatives in the past?” comment is a perfect segue into my next counterpoint:
Re: “But with all the alternates in the world, we will still be stuck with oil as the major source of energy until at least another 30,40,50 years.”
We’re not stuck unless we choose to be stuck. Have you heard of biodiesel ? It’s not a crack-pot fuel used only by a bunch of Birkenstock hippies. It’s mainstream in much of Europe, is available in the U.S. if you know where to look, uses the same infrastructure as oil, and is cheaper than petroleum.
Here’s a link to a short summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
It will only take a few minutes of your time, I promise.
#24
Richardson,
Surely you’re not saying that pessimism is a perfect predictor of future success. By that token, every failed country will be successful, since there are enough pessimists that say they won’t succeed.
As for the Philippines, that’s yet another country that has almost nothing in common with Iraq.
Iraq may succeed, yes, but the probably of it succeeding as well as Korea is very small and the probably of it succeeding in any way remotely like Korea did is exactly 0% – the two are nothing alike.
Ye olde “like today’s Iraq, the (pick country at random) was an utter basketcase after (pick difficult point in its history)” does not make for a convincing proof by similarity.
You’re right, I’m not saying that and nothing in what I wrote can be taken that way without a leap.
Following that standard there would nearly never be lessons learned or use of examples. In reality, that doesn’t cut it, and examples from other countries can indeed be used. Dealing with insurgencies is an area where lessons learned from the PI do indeed transfer to other places – they did in Vietnam (where used), and are beginning to in Iraq.
Korea 1945~? and Iraq 2003~? do indeed have many similarities; highlighting the differences and ignoring contrary information doesn’t make those similarities go away or help in understanding the big picture.
Is disengage another word for ‘cut and run’?
Perhaps, but I like to think of it as the antonym of the “entangling alliances” Jefferson warned us about or the fulfillment of the “American character wholly free of foreign attachments” that Washington spoke of.
But hey, reading those guys is hard. What do Coulter, Malkin, or Hannity have to say?
It is about time for a movie unabashed anti-Muslem to appear.
The movie should start with a chant, “Kill Americans. They are money-grabbing, baby-killing, land-grabbers. Kill ‘em all. Don’t spare any”. The scene should be dark enough to scare any American movie-goers. The next scene: terrorists getting money from the Arab millionaire while swearing to kill Americans and heading to an American nude dancing shop.
Then, the movie should show these evil men getting on the plane with a single purpose of killing Americans. Any and all Americans. They were looking at Americans with hate. They were killers.
The movie, “Flight 92″, avoided becoming too anti-Islam and tried to present the both sides. In doing so, it distorted the reality. This new movie should show Moslems’ raw hatred toward us. We have to face the enemy eye-to-eye.
And, then the movie should show people inside twin tower. How hard they were working, just to make ends meet. Children, office workers, cleaning people. Just average Americans. Good people.
Then, at one moment, three thousands of them were all dead. The movie should show dead bodies. Yes, that is what happened! And, unspeakable horror and immeasurable sorrows the family felt. No movie has been out there with the real picture of the 9/11.
I am not a hate-monger. I just like people to see what really happened and how we can stop the same thing from happening. And, the movie like this must be made to make people see what went down and what kind of horror will happen again if democrates keep riding on this VietNam analogy and hasten defeat in Iraq.
The 9/11 was not the Gulf of Tonkin. It was the Perl Harbor. Moslems came all the way from MiddleEast and surprise-attacked America. They attacked and killed Americans!
The situation now is that we have defeated Nazi Germany(Iraq) but Nazis’ remnants are resisting, ambushing and killing our soldiers. Is this time to quit and bring back our soldiers so that Germany will regress back to being a Nazi nation, an enemy of America?
We still have to acheive victory against Japanese Empire(Iran), which has to be done quickly. Otherwise, these moslems will re-group and mount massive retaliation against us.
The war is only half-done. Are we going to quit now? Just imagine America quitting after VG day and let the Japanese Empire continue. Would America be America today?
Maybe the movie could begin with these words:
“I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush’s claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don’t strike for example – Sweden?”
-Osama Bin Ladin, 2004
Fuck Bin Ladin. He wanted to be the leader of Islam by attacking the Biggest Devil, America, in their view of the world.
Yes, killing three thousand men, women and children was to gain popularity. And, notoriety. Like killing Jessy James. To show to the world, even America is afraid of a Moslem.
It is like a Harlem kid assassinating the president of the United State and going back to his ‘hood and shouting that he is the big dog.
The solution is to go to Harlem and clean up the nastiest neighborhoods and local gangs and make Harlem a decent city.
Bush is doing that for future generations. It is not a time to quit.
“If so, then let him explain to us why we don’t strike for example – Sweden?”
Because it was fun?
http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=7119
He does look like a Harlem kid.
The 9/11 was not the Gulf of Tonkin. It was the Perl Harbor. Moslems came all the way from MiddleEast and surprise-attacked America. They attacked and killed Americans!
Wrong war analogy. Try Vietnam.
99% ofthose fighting us in Iraq are Iraqis pissed that we are there. They have no interest in following us back to the us, after all THEY didn’t attack us on 9/11 – SAUDIS did.
Also, I bet Custer wished he had ‘cut and run.’
Iraq is much less like Korea than Vietnam – if you recall we were there for 15 years and still lost. We have already lost in Iraq, the only question now is whn we will stop deceiving ourselves and cut our loses.
And the Harlem analogy is also false. A better example would be a Harlem kid doing a drive by and Bush leveling Watts as a response. Most of you are pissed about what happened on 9/11 (orchestrated by Saudis) and pleased that Bush attacked folks who had (by this administration’s own admisssion) nothing to do with that. Osama attacks us and we think it is great to kill Saddam and forget about Osama. If you are digging in the wrong place, digging harder don’t help get you there.
“Korea 1945~? and Iraq 2003~? do indeed have many similarities; highlighting the differences and ignoring contrary information doesn’t make those similarities go away or help in understanding the big picture.”
Likewise, highlighting similarities and downplaying differences doesn’t help in understanding the big picture. In Korea, we fought a united enemy. In Iraq, there are many enemies who sometimes fight each other and sometimes fight us. North Korea had only two international supporters, China and the Soviet Union, while factions in Iraq are backed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Al-Qaeda, diverse powers with sometimes overlapping, sometimes competing interests. Besides the sectarianism exacerbated by international players, we also have to face the deep resentment and even hatred that ordinary Iraqis feel towards the US. Saddam didn’t brainwash Iraqis into hating us. It’s a global Muslim/ Arab thing.
To help get himself re-elected in 2004, stuntman Bush landed a plane on an aircraft carrier and boldly declared “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.” Now, he’s talking about long-term troop deployment. No wonder the American people feel misled.
“Actually, if you’d been following Iraq closely, you would have noticed that the Korea model may be quite applicable. US troops are completely welcome in Kurdistan. Al-Anbar Province is pacifying quickly, with the former insurgency now allied to American forces to root out al-Qaeda.”
First of all, the US didn’t have to win over the Kurds. They’ve been our allies for awhile, comprise less than 10% of the population, and have weak ties with Shias and Sunnis. We didn’t win Anbar. Al-Qaeda lost it through its campaign of brutal violence. It’s not only us who wanted Al-Qaeda out of Anbar. Severing ties with Al-Qaeda was a demand by Al-Sadr before he would agree to cooperate with Sunni forces.
from a recent Fox News story about the meeting in Anbar between Iraqi and US officials:
Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, Petraeus warned that the situation in Anbar may not be a realistic blueprint for restoring order in the rest of the country, because the province is heavily Sunni and has been spared much of the sectarian violence roiling other areas.
“The biggest lesson learned in Iraq is that every place is unique,” he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275636,00.html
Go check out the war coverage at Fox News. It’s not exactly upbeat.
I have seen predictions that Al-Sadr and powerful Sunnis will manage to cooperate and form some kind of government that won’t be either democratic or friendly to America or Israel. I think this scenario is more likely than any long-term US military presence, unsustainble without support from the American or the Iraqi peoples.
The ‘differences’ in the Iraq/Korea comparison simply overwhelm the similarities. South Korea was NEVER as socially, religiously, and ethnically as fractured as Iraq. And no South Korean government was ever as powerless and ilegitimate as the current Iraqi government. There is no effective Iraqi government to ‘stand up’ and our presence underscores that government’s incompetence and dependency. And those of you touting the successes in Kurdistan better take a look at today’s papers which report Turkish troops massing along their border ready to invade to get at PPK bases in the north of Iraq.
Here’s another thought……….it is 1945 and the Roosevelt administration is touting a New Way Forward in our ongoing fight for Guadalcanal………
Kunsanpcv,
“They have no interest in following us back to the us”..Bush says different. So, in your mind, Bush is a big liar.
You are listening to the same media people who would have said in the evening prior to the 9/11 “Twin building attack? By Islam terrorists? Why? Nonsense. Terrorists are reasonable people, too. They don’t hate us. Terrorists only attack military targets in the MiddleEast to make political statements. The idea that these people will come and kill Americans en mass is a ridiculous idea. It will never happen. It is a lie made up by warmongers and Arab-haters.”
History is not logical. Nor you can correctly guess the outcome of an action. A government has to prepare for all “consequences” unpredicted or even unimagined. They have to weigh all factors before making a decision.
I, for one, believe the retreat from Iraq will embolden Islam terrorists. America may become their favorite punching bag.
VietCong could not attack the continental US. These terrorists have and will again.
Bush is arrogant, closed-minded, and intellectually lazy……plus he has a DEMONSTRATED track record of playing fast and loose with the truth about what we think we are doing in Iraq. He has deceived not only us, but hiself as well………….he has no idea what the factual truth is, so how can such a man lie?
Others on this board have stated that correlation is not causation, so statements positing that there have been no terror attacks on the US since 9/11 because we invaded Iraq have no logical basis. Since we invaded Iraq the US has not been attacked by men from space and I have not had a date with Halle Berry or J-Lo, but I don’t think that our invasion of Iraq is the cause of any of those events.
And when it comes to ‘media people’ the VAST majority have been faithfully beating the Bush administration’s drums of war in Iraq and elsewhere, not exposing the misrepresentations and false images pushed by the pro-war folks. What is the source of the supposed ‘quote’ that you have in your above post? Reads like a straw man to me.
Embolden is the talking point that the Bushies have been hammering for several months now, using a term over and over does not make it factually correct. Our presence in Iraq remains the most potent recruiting tool for international terrorism and there are plenty of reports that folks trained in Iraq are surfacing in other countries…..eventually they will surface here whether we stay in Iraq or not. You you yourself admit that.
And the Vietcong COULD have attacked the mainland of the US via terror methods had they chosen to, they CHOSE not to for strategic reasons….not because they couldn’t do it.
The NLF (incorrect name-Viet Cong) was a national movement that can not be compared to an international terrorist organization using religion to fuel their fires so to speak.
Here’s more good news about security in the new Iraq:
Baghdad embassy plans turn up online
WASHINGTON – Detailed plans for the new U.S. Embassy under construction in Baghdad appeared online Thursday in a breach of the tight security surrounding the sensitive project.
Computer-generated projections of the soon-to-be completed, heavily fortified compound were posted on the Web site of the Kansas City, Mo.-based architectural firm that was contracted to design the massive facility in the Iraqi capital.
The images were removed by Berger Devine Yaeger Inc. shortly after the company was contacted by the State Department.
Unbelievable!
And here’s the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_go_ot/baghdad_embassy_plans
in support of Bush and criticism of all ye Iraq = Vietnam, let’s-leave-now-let-Iraqis-kill-each-other camp,
isn’t the essence of what you are saying something like, as long as a US person doesn’t die there anymore, everything is cool?
Kind of like a civil war in Africa?
Yeah, that must be it.
I mean whom of you really cared when there was a mass murder civil war in Southeast Asia after Vietnam?
That, was the domino effect of leaving.
You guys are short sighted.
Peace in Iraq is due. Common folk will start rubbing their eyes at how well the Kurds are doing relative to them, and start resisting Iran and Syria backed loonies.
Leave in 2008, expect to see civil war there, where you ooh and aah over the nightly news, but don’t care much about it, since no American is dying.
and, why are Americans so intent on selling out Americans and their safety in Iraq?
Do they want a tremendous tragedy to occur to Americans in Iraq, so that there will be a full retreat?
Furthermore, what’s the rationale for NATO-US forces staying indefinately in Afghanistan vs Iraq?
Both regions need western armies to be there.
Hey, why not withdraw from Afghanistan and see what happens there as well?
My god…there is so much retardation happening in this thread that I really don’t know where to start.
I will only say this: you wanna know why Kurdistan is so “well off” and yet hated by the muslim popualace? It’s because they’ve been the toadies of so many invasion forces. Hi2u Armenian Genocide (carried out by the kurds). Hi2u Gulf wars 1 and 2. The Kurds are stooges.
alright, now I can’t help myself
1. Biodiesel is NOT a solution. It would take vast tracts of agricultural land to even make a dent in the way that americans buy gas.
2. They don’t f’in hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we’ve been dippin’ in their Kool-aid and not knowin’ the flavor since the 20′s
3. On the subject of leaving causing a domino effect…the domino effect was started 50 years ago, when Iran and Iraq were *created* out of thin air. That’s a domino effect. Everything since then has been “blowback”. EVERYTHING. Just like with Vietnam. The domino effect wasn’t communism, it was French Colonialism. Chew on that.
by the way; don’t bring up the Gulf of Tonkin…it was fake (admitted by Robert McNamarra, sec. of defense at the time).
Also, please listen to Kunsanpcv…most of the hijackers were Saudi.
“but that role was made obsolete by the end of the Cold War if not earlier.”
Unfortunately, the Cold War hasn’t ended on the Korean Peninsula. Despite the hoopla, trains crossing the border, and rice going North, nothing much has changed.
“The continued deployment of US troops in Korea has earned nothing but the bitter fruits of an unhealthy allied reliance on US military and diplomatic power”
The South Korean military is slowly weaning itself out of dependence on US military power. Recent purchases of 4 AEW&C aircraft from Boeing, attempted purchase of 4 Global Hawks(currently held up by the MTCR, the US is trying to have it changed so it can export them to SK, Russia, out of all countries is holding up the changes) and the ongoing deployment of the Korean C4I system, the KJCCS(Korea Joint Command and Control System) attest to that effort. Okay some vital purchases like the Patriot missile to defend against NK ballistic missiles and Apache attack helos are being held up by bureacratic inaction, nationalism that makes the Koreans want to make every weapon system here without buying them off-the-shelf overseas, and the tendency to spend what little is left of the defense budget for more glamorous projects. But despite this, the Korean MND is more or less committed to reducing its dependency on the USFK.
As for diplomatic power, well let’s face it, the MOFAT ain’t exactly a competent diplomatic organization. If it hires more competent diplomats, yes you may see S. Korea play a more active diplomatic role. But until then, it will be the same old stuff.
“scorn and feelings of victimization from the locals”
Even if the USFK pulls out of the peninsula, the anti-Americanism will still be there. The reason for the anti-Americanism in Korea, is nationalism and the inferiority complex. Recently, the Korean media anti-US fest has been aimed at the FTA and the US beef industry. The USFK, on the other is out of the spotlight, for now.
Put it simply, the pullout of the USFK won’t reduce anti-Americanism here, because the core factors that feed the anti-Americanism is still there. Koreans with a vested interest in anti-Americanism will find something to make an issue out of.
“wasted military resources and reduced strategic flexibility (due to US “hostages” in South Korea and Seoul’s potential refusal to allow the US to use bases on its soil to respond to regional emergencies).”
Well, the main mission of the USFK is deterring and if it comes to it, defeating an attack from the North. I remember reading an article in the USN&WR a while back and that article stated that USFK commanders prefer not to think about other missions because it detracts them from their main mission.
The force structure of the US 2ID has been changed and it has become more mobile. If it moves to Pyongtaek, yes theoretically it can deploy to other locations because it’s a short hop to Pyongtaek port and Osan AB. But realistically, what regional crisis is there today, that will warrant the 1 BCT as a whole to deploy?
I mean I see maybe some small units training the Philippine Army, or maybe deployment of F-16s to Thailand or such for exercises, but nothing that will warrant deploying an armored brigade.
And even if the US does decide to deply a UoA from the 2ID to somewhere else, I doubt that the ROK government will make much noise out of it.
I mean it didn’t make any noise when the 2 BCT was deployed to Iraq.
S. Korea is also wary of China’s military power, and assuming that China does invade Taiwan and the US decides to deploy the 1 BCT to Taiwan, I don’t see any reason for the ROK to block the deployment.
And, I doubt that the ROK has any say in the dispostion and deployment of USFK units.
“Perhaps, but I like to think of it as the antonym of the “entangling alliances” Jefferson warned us about or the fulfillment of the “American character wholly free of foreign attachments” that Washington spoke of.”
Western Confucion, this applies before we get entangled. We are now entangled. It seems that to cut and run will have serious consequences with no positives in the long run. The time to think about ‘no foreign entanglements’ was before we went in, not after. And spare me the reference to Hannity, Coulter, et al, I don’t live in the US and don’t know what they say about anything. I actually read Lind’s article and others like it on the New America website. Lind’s seemed quite good, he’s an interesting guy, though I disagree with him often, but the other article I read on the same topic was filled with platitudes and generalities about having a positive influence in the region, blah, blah, blah.
MigukNamja, I know about biodiesel and alternatives to some degree and though it holds great promise, there is no way that it can take over from oil, certainly nowhere soon. That’s the mistake that so many who claim if we just did this or that, we could be free from oil in short order. It just isn’t going to happen, no matter how much money and effort we pour into it, unless you force people to use alternatives that still cost far more, or which are far from being workable replacements for oil. Oil is used in a wide range of products and biodiesel isn’t going to replace all of that. The solution is to keep working on as many alternatives as possible, hopefully led by private enterprise and capitalistic ventures (with some government involvement)and eventually, we should be able to reduce our reliance on oil. Or we could ramp up nuclear seriously, but in the short to mid term, oil is here to stay. It’s not as easy as just pumping biodiesel through an oil infrastructure. Biodiesel has many different properties that have to be taken into account. For example, in jet fuels, there is research into using biofuels. The problem is that some of them have a much lower freezing point, thus making them unreliable for jets that fly above 30,000 feet. This is only one example of problems that come up when you change fuels. Another is the availability of raw materials, many of which have skyrocketed in price due to huge increases in demand.
Snow,
You said:
“Western Confucion, this applies before we get entangled. We are now entangled. It seems that to cut and run will have serious consequences with no positives in the long run.”
I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence, and sadly have to acknowledge the truth of the last two.
However, we can’t fix Iraq unless we draft Generation Y and borrow billions, perhaps trillions, more from the Chinese. I don’t see that happening, and even if it did, I doubt it would work.
As Sarko said, “American messianism can be tiresome.”
The consequences of the idiotic decision to invade Iraq, a country that neither had the means nor the intention to attack us, will haunt us for decades, while the Iranians, Chinese, and even Russians laugh. As someone who loves the Old Republic, I’m disgusted by this.
so, then the Kurds are the Croats of the Euphrates. Maybe the west should barge in, declare independence for them, and split the region to Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis? Kurds are at no fault. They’re just playing the game of survival.
By the way, people are willing to look at Yugo as a humanitarian operation to save the region, while going into Iraq as some kind of grave mistake meddling in someone else’s problem. Why’s that?
People weren’t saved from a dictator? We didn’t save Kurds? The same way we saved Bosnians?
Is the only difference the bleeding and the losses from people sponsored and armored and supplied and fed by Iran and Syria?
Nuke’em.
Nuke’em left and right.
Syria’s still pulling the same in Lebanon. Hell, they don’t care. They’re not bleeding. The good old Sunni Doc Dictator of Syria is jihading to the south and the east.
You know what’s interesting?
NOBODY is protesting US providing arms to Lebanon.
Why of course ! It’s their blood that’s being spilled. Not ours.
US should be more like the Chinese, I guess? Yeah, let’s just sell them weapons. Just like China is doing with Sudan. And watch.
Far from the action. Just watch the natives kill each other.
Withdraw from Iraq?
Then, withdraw from Afghanistan, too.
What’s the difference?
End result of both is waving the white flag and leaving the natives to more misery.
Invading Iraq was the right move. By doing so, US narrowed down the baddies to 2. From a previous 3. Furthermore, change in this region is key to changing the region as a whole.
I don’t think Obama or Hiliary will actually have the nerve to withdraw when it comes to it, if they win the seat. Or maybe they will.
Clinton was okay with watching fire burn across the globe for roughly a couple years, right?
So was NATO.
Pres. Reagan’s Assistant Secreatry of the Treasury has a question─How Can Bush Bring Freedom to Iraq When He Brings Tyranny to America?
“President Bush, what the fuck are you smoking?”
Don’t you know that he doesn’t smoke, he snorts?
Dagger:
To President Bush, history is not a complex record of the past, to be studied intensively for lessons. It’s a grab bag of myths and half-truths, to be dredged for political effect—a device that provides rhetorical cover, and allows evasion of responsibility, in the face of gross and obvious failure.
http://www.slate.com/id/2167362
Western Confucion, this guy is a former Reaganite? Sounds like a half-baked conspiracy theorist. Starting off by calling Bush a moron doesn’t exactly help his case and then going on about the oil lobby and the military industrial complex and all the evil machinations of Cheney and his hordes of anti-Christs. Give me a break. Not exactly unbiased.
Also, I can’t abide people who get too much on an anti-Israel track (I’m not sure if this guy did this, as I stopped reading about half-way through his ridiculous diatribe), but it sure seemed that he was hinting in this direction. I’ve heard plenty of similar crap about all the same topics; ie. evil Cheney, neo-con conspiracies, military-industrial complex, fascist oil lobby, executing prisoners on hearsay, the US is becoming a tyranny, blah, blah, blah. This guy ain’t no Reaganite.
“To President Bush, history is not a complex record of the past, to be studied intensively for lessons. It’s a grab bag of myths and half-truths, to be dredged for political effect—a device that provides rhetorical cover, and allows evasion of responsibility..”
And so it seems it is for Mr. Kaplan as well. Not only does he demonstrate an ignorance for USFK’s current structure by quoting the three years out of date figure of 37000 troops in country, he goes on to demonstrate either his ignorance or willingness to ignore the origins of that commitment. The United States did not suddenly appear on the scene in 1950 after the North Korean invasion as it seems Mr. Kaplan believes. Our involvement began five years earlier with the American military occupation of southern Korea. A military occupation which faced a growing and deep seated insurgency. An insurgency that grew in strength for four years before its decisive defeat in 1949. Whether or not the situation is truly analogous to Iraq today is obviously a question no one will be prepared to answer for years to come. We certainly don’t have a reliable and effective domestic ally in Iraq today as we did in Korea from ’45 to ’50. But the situation is clearly much more similar than Mr. Kaplan would like to admit.
snow, I prefer the term Gore Vidal uses, “conspiracy analyst.”
Is there no oil lobby? Is Israel the only major country not to have a lobby in Washington, and does suggesting it has one make one a Jew-hater? Wasn’t it Eisenhower who coined the term “military industrial complex” (originally “military-industrial-congressional” complex, but he was urged to tone down)? Is Ike, too, a “half-baked conspiracy theorist”?
What did Reagan do when 220 marines were killed in Lebanon? Neocons today might say he “cut and run.” I’d say he exercised leadership and restraint, determined that no vital American interests were at stake, and left the centuries-old quagmire.
Dr. Roberts is a patriot. It is Bush who “ain’t no Reaganite.”
@48 Iran was *created* out of thin air fifty years ago? Iran has existed in roughly its present shape since the rise of the Safavids about 500 years ago.
If Iraq doesn’t have a secular leadership and a clear separation between the government and Islam, with no sharia law, there will be no democracy, pure and simple. Not establishing a real democracy in Iraq will have lasting bad consequences that might outweigh the initial invasion of the country.
So the U.S. has its work cut out, and just killing this or that “al Qaeda lieutenant” isn’t going to do squat.
Western Confucion, the way Roberts puts everything sounds like pure conspiracy theory. Sure there’s an oil lobby and of course Israel is very influential, but to then tie it all into some very conspiratorial sounding evil machinations is crap. How can I take anyone who calls Bush a moron seriously? No one who wants to be taken seriously talks this way about the leader of a country.
As for the military-industrial complex, Ike did refer to it and warned about its power, but at the same time, he helped create it and knew that it was an important and necessary part of America’s strength. He just warned that Americans must be careful that its power didn’t get to be too much and he originally wanted to call it ‘the military-industrial-congressional complex’. Ike was not against the military complex, he just warned that it didnt become too powerful.
Why is Bush not a patriot? Who’s interests is he acting in? Though Roberts and others may think he’s serving some kind of evil cabal of oil companies, the military and Zionists, I beleive that Bush is doing what he truly believes is in the best interests of the country. Others may not agree that what he is doing is in the best interests of the country, but why is it so hard for leftists to believe that a Republican could act in what he/she believes is the best interests of the country?
the “tyranny” to America has prevented multiple, other would have been 911′s, in America.
Feds have countered and busted numerous Americans and foreigners who wanted to pull another mass murder of innocent people (1/2 of whom hate Bush) inside America.
People have been shipped off the country, convincted of spying, convincted of plotting, arrested, etc.
Beats having a train bomb kill morning commuters and subway bombs going off.
Bush has done an excellent job protecting USA.
People are truly complaining of minor inconveniences.
#49,
jdog2050,
“alright, now I can’t help myself”
1. Biodiesel is NOT a solution. It would take vast tracts of agricultural land to even make a dent in the way that americans buy gas.”
Yes, I’ll agree you can’t help yourself, so let me try to help you.
Yes, “transitioning fully to biofuels could require immense tracts of land if traditional crops are used.” (emphasis mine). However, “more recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil content have concluded that only 28,000 km² or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes.”
My reference I shamelessly cut-and-pasted from is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
#53
snow,
Why the cheap, straw-man, all-or-nothing tactic to argue against biodiesel or any alternative fuel ?
To put it simply, biodiesel or any other alternative fuel is not a 0% or 100% proposition on two levels : we won’t get to 0% petroleum usage for a long, long time, and biodiesel can be blended into diesel at any %, not just 0% or 100%.
Also, as a long-time user of biodiesel myself, I’m well aware of its shortcomings, and lack of research. I’ve experienced many of them personally.
To my point, the vast majority of the oil imported into the U.S. goes into either the fuel tank of a either a combustion engine or is used for home heating fuel, rather than being carried in the wings of airplanes or cracked to make plastics and other petroleum derivatives. Also, the U.S. is the number #1 supplier of oil in the U.S.. So, I’ll stand by my statement that biofuels can completely eliminate the U.S.’s dependence upon foreign oil.
Here is a good start (same reference):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
If you feel that Wikipedia is in error, please feel free to submit an edit, seriously. That’s how Wikipedia stays relevant.
Again, I’ve backed up my assertions with reputable references rather than conventional wisdom/foolishness and opinions. Where are your references ?
“Why the cheap, straw-man, all-or-nothing tactic to argue against biodiesel or any alternative fuel ?”
MigukNamja, what are you talking about, cheap strawman? I like biodiesel and other alternatives and think it and they hold great promise. Did you even read my previous emails?
Please re-read. What I said was that I don’t believe that it is possible to ramp up the use of biodiesels or other alternatives quickly enough to wean the US off of oil in the near or mid-term future. I am very much for alternative sources of energy! But the reality is that it is going to take time.
Currently, there are millions and billions being poured into alternatives (including alternate sources of oil) in a frantic race to find alternate sources of energy. This is being done by governments and private enterprise, with frenetic activity occuring in the venture capitalist realm especially. The free market is working frantically on this and they will find some great solutions, I’m sure, including biodiesels. But noone I’ve read claims its going to happen anytime soon, no matter what we do (and some of the investor newsletters I read very strongly believe that oil is past its peak).
That’s why I said 30,40,50 years. I think 20 years is unrealistic because that would require major changes in industry and infrastructure, despite the claims of some that it would be easy. Even with all of the activity in ethanol, aren’t they only talking about 20% by 2020? Maybe we could get there faster, and if free enterprise takes the lead, that would be great, but there are plenty of problems in trying to ramp up so quickly. Every time companies start delving into alternatives, they find obstacles, which must be overcome and take time.
“… why is it so hard for leftists to believe that a Republican could act in what he/she believes is the best interests of the country?”
Dr. Roberts is not a leftist, he’s a rightist, what’s called a paleolibertarian, and the magazine he wrote for is one of America’s paleoconservative, along with Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative. See also LewRockwell.com. I recommend these sources as an alternative to the two false choices Americans are given.
That said, while I agree with showing respect to the office of the president, lambasting the man seems to be fine American tradition that goes back almost to the founding of the country.
BTW, I think biodiesels, nuclear, geothermal, wind, wave, solar and others all hold exciting promise. But biodiesels that run on switch grass, algae or other sources are still relatively undeveloped and will require much more study. I wouldn’t put my eggs all in one basket for something that’s still so underdeveloped. That’s why free enterprise should develop all in a race to find the best. But as I’ve said so many times, it is going to take time.
Western Confucion, thanks for the reference to the websites. I’m familiar with them, as I consider myself to be somewhat libertarian. But Buchanan is a bit of an extremist in my opinion. Roberts can smear the pres all he wants, but if he wants people to take him seriously, he’s going to have to cut out the ludicrous personal attacks.
Yes, and I agree that the two choices of Dem and Rep is certainly limited, though I wouldn’t call them false. They are very similar in too many ways, but I think the American public probably prefers that to keep the extremist nuts at bay to some degree. Otherwise you get countries where you can have a coalition government with a wacko commie green party or a far right nazi party holding the balance of power with 2 seats, and then the government falls in 18 months or so anyway. Not exactly a recipe for getting much accomplished. More like perpetual deadlock.
wjk,
You are so right. Many of these informations are classified as “top secret” and cannot be revealed to the public.
The real problem is that many in the US think average Iraqis are like them. We don’t hate Arabs, so they have no reason to hate us. Iraqis only hate us because Bush invaded their country. Wrong!
Well, people in the third-world countries do not think like Americans. First of all, they do not have freedom. I am sure in some neighborhoods in Baghdad if you speak your mind you will be dead in the following morning. In such circumstances, people become very careful about expressing your opinion. It is like semi-totalitarian situation and you are watched by your neighbor constantly.
Additionally, people need to shift their allegiance overnight. If the US is winning, then you must become pro-US. However, if the other side is winning, then you switch quickly. It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong. You have to be on the winning side to survive. If you choose wrong, you die.
Secondly, people in the third-world countries hate Americans. The reason: for them, we are the rich kids and they are the poor kids and most poor kids hate rich kids. If you doubt this, just ask some poor kids in your neighborhood.
In addition, historically Arabs have an axe to grind against westerners. In twentieth century, they were mistreated by Europeans and the British. They equate Americans with Britons, I am sure.
So, the Islam hate our guts. Some hate us so much so that they have come and killed three thousand Americans. Others are just watching our next move. They want to know our committment. If we are going to pull out any time soon, they will all go anti-American to the max. If we tell them that we are in for next hundred years, they may suddenly change their tune.
Bush’s announcement is correct, briliant and timely. It is the correct comment even if we are going to pull out next month. You have to tell them that we are committed, even if that is a lie.
Sonagi said;
The war to take Iraq and the occupation are two different things. One of those was indeed accomplished. I don’t think it’s much of a stunt for a former jet pilot.
Of all the similarities and differences, the key is; what works? Low-level interaction with the public and segregation (walls, etc.) does (ref. the PI and Vietnam examples). I don’t think the differences are downplayed, I think they are less significant but being vastly overplayed. As for the hatred, communist vs. non-communist interaction in mid-20th century Korea wasn’t exactly a walk in the park. Again, predictions of failure after only a few years, like in Korea decades ago, are exceedingly premature. Unless we just surrender.
Kunsanpcv said;
The problem with your space attack/Halle/J-Lo example is this; none of those events had occurred before (I’ll just assume Halle Berry and J-Lo aren’t calling you), while there was an attack on the U.S.
I do agree that invading Iraq likely didn’t stop any terrorist attacks (possible, however, as it has focused personnel and resources there rather than elsewhere), but that there were other good reasons for going into Iraq.
The media bias issue has been discussed here in the recent past. For one speaking of logic, I don’t think you’ve got a foot to stand on here.
The sad truth that most of us may believe but only some of us will acknowledge is that the end to the war in Iraq will play out as such:
US troops will stay in Iraq until January 2009. Thousands more US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians will die, and unrest between essentially three different countries that make up Iraq will only get worse. Bush will continue to say that America will stay the course and win the war. Of course even he won’t know what “winning” the war means anymore since there’s a civil war under way. Cheney will say again that the insurgents are in their “last throes.”
Then when Clinton, Obama, or even Gore (though not likely him) takes the oath of office in 2009, the troops will be brought back home. Then the Republicans can insist that the Democrats “lost” the war. Bush will say that if a Republican had won the election that the US would have eventually “won” in Iraq. But again….does he even know what a victory in Iraq means? Iraq as one country is over as we know it. Three different peoples are about to go to war with each other, as the State Dept. had predicted in 2003. WHAT kind of can of worms did Bush et all open????
Bottom line: US troops will stay in Iraq for as long as Bush is in office. And there will be no “victory.” And once Bush is out of office, the troops will start to be brought back home. But until then, what cost do American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have to pay for the pursuit of this elusive “victory”? Sad.
“The problem with your space attack/Halle/J-Lo example is this; none of those events had occurred before (I’ll just assume Halle Berry and J-Lo aren’t calling you), while there was an attack on the U.S. “
Prior to 9/11, there were only two major terrorist attacks on US soil in recent years: the first WTC bombing in 1992 and the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The later was carried out by two nutjobs acting on their own, and the potential for future acts like that one are unaffected by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The two Al-Qaeda attacks occurred nine years apart, and it’s only been six years since 9/11. Too early to tell whether Al-Qaeda’s ability to strike within the US has been crippled.
“Too early to tell whether Al-Qaeda’s ability to strike within the US has been crippled.”
Highly doubtful they’ve been crippled. Indicators are that terrorist activity is stronger than ever, though I’m not blaming Iraq for this. I expect another attack sooner or later. The Islamofacsists are far from being defeated, the fight is only beginning. I expect it will only get much nastier as the century wears on.
Richardson,
Actually, I think that you admit the correctness of my logic in your next to the last paragraph. There is not the slightest evidence (let alone proof) that Al Qaeda reallocated resources away from the US and toward Iraq. My assertion was in response to earlier claims that Bush was protecting the US from terrorism by fighting in Iraq. You best check your own feet first.
As Al Quada has diverted significant resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, and, as their resources are after all finite like everyone else’s, it is quite possible that they have also diverted what resources they might have directed at the U.S. to Iraq as well. Call me crazy, but I’d say that’s plausible and the cause and effect relationship suggested have some basis in reality, very unlike certain examples containing space attacks and dates with various stars.
It is plausible that Al-Qaeda is redirecting resources towards defeating the US in Iraq. It is also very possible that our invasion of Iraq and our ongoing fight with Al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups has helped Al-Qaeda bring in new recruits and more money to support its jihad against Uncle Satan.
Blowback is being felt not only throughout Arab countries, the Arab diaspora, and the Muslim world, but in other countries like China. We were just recovering from national anger over the downed spy plane incident when the war broke out. The coverage of Abu Graib in the Chinese press was absolutely humiliating. Of course, what goes on in Chinese extrajudicial prisons for political offenders is worse, but even educated English-speaking Chinese are either blissfully ignorant or stridently defensive of allegations of human rights abuses in China. There is palpable global anger and disgust at our war. On a China-related blog that I read regularly, a Chinese businesswoman who travels to South America and Southeast Asia gleefully tells tales about how the people she meets bash America and rave about China. We fight enemies while China makes friends.
…but even educated English-speaking Chinese are either blissfully ignorant or stridently defensive of allegations of human rights abuses in China.
After arguing with a SNU PhD about fan death, almost nothing surprises me anymore.
First para should’a been in blockquote, but I probably forgot to close it or something.
There is no credible evidence that ‘Al Qaeda’ has been diverting significant resources from Afghanistan or anywhere else for the fighting in Iraq and away from targeting the US. All this ‘intelligence’ is guesstimation on the part of the White House, DOD and others with vested interests in spinning the intel. Folks need to stop thinking of ‘Al Qaeda’ as a vast, well-integrated, state-like organization and more like a confederation of street gangs. That’s why killing their various ‘lieutenants’ has such little effect on the violence. You assume a relationship, Bush assumed a cakewalk….yadda yadda yadda…..
Brendan Carr writes, “..if you’d been following Iraq closely, you would have noticed that the Korea model may be quite applicable.” This presumes A)that you haven’t been following Iraq closely, B) that he’s been following more closely than you have, and C) no matter which, the ‘Korea model MAY’ fit the circumstances.
As someone who is dead certain he has been following Iraq more closely that Mr. Carr (unless Carr is utterly derelict in his duties at work) I can confidently assure him, and anyone else who tends to count their opinions about Iraq as fact, that a presumed likeness between Korea’s and that country’s history of war with America is wishful thinking on the part of a criminally incompetent US administration still refusing to acknowledge the obvious about its Iraq debacle.
When following something closely, the accuracy of one’s observations depends entirely on the location of one’s head when the observations are made.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660179/
Google + 20 seconds. I didn’t mention that w/o having an idea. This is not new.
Juan Cole is exactly the right consultant on this and related topics. A legion of commentators, all of whom are authoritative themselves, acknowledge Prof. Cole as the most knowledgeable about the complex sociocultural, historical, political and religious mix that was Iraq before the US invasion and occupation, and the likely outcome of US efforts to hang onto it.
Iraq is a mechanical roadhouse bull, and the longer W continues to imagine he can ride it, the more time will be available to strip his pickup in the parking lot. Unfortunately, America’s name is on the loan.
“Juan Cole is exactly the right consultant on this and related topics.”
I can’t really comment myself, as I don’t know him or his work, but his opinion doesn’t seem to be well-respected on the right. But then again, many on this board think that those on the right are all morons anyway (not saying you’re saying this Rockchuck), as they say Bush is.
Richardson’s quote is interesting. It shows that invading Iraq may have helped us stabilize Afghanistan. In other words, the main battlefield between us and Al-Qaeda simply moved next door. The quote has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda’s presence in the US. Al-Qaeda’s operations in the US are vastly different – sleeper cells, not insurgent fighters. As I pointed out before, it’s not like Al-Qaeda was blowing buildings once a year. Al-Qaeda spent eight years learning from its failed attempt in 1993 to take down the WTC and carefully laying the groundwork for its second attack. Saudis, who funded and supplied most of the hijackers, can still get into the US with ease.
“wishful thinking on the part of a criminally incompetent US administration still refusing to acknowledge the obvious about its Iraq debacle.”
You mean that it’s a lost war? Oh, they most certainly acknowledge it…just not publicly. They are toughing it out, and filling their friends’s pockets while they’re at it, so that Bush can leave the mess he’s created for the next guy.
To understand the reason why there hasn’t been a major terrorist attack on US soil since 2001, read this story:
3 arrested in JFK Airport terror plot
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070602/ap_on_re_us/terrorism_plot
The terrorist plots in this story show that people and organizations are continually aiming at a variety of domestic targets within the United States. These destructive plans never materialized because of excellent undercover work by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, not because of resources being diverted to Iraq.
“These destructive plans never materialized because of excellent undercover work by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, not because of resources being diverted to Iraq.”
Exactly. The actions of law enforcement authorities – domestic and foreign – not military invasions, seem to be what has prevented additional attacks in the US, Britain, Canada, and elsewhere.
Those suspects are not Al Qaeda, they are Jamaat al Muslimeen.
Assuming for the sake of argument they were Al Qaeda, that any plot or cell exists would not negate the plausible suggestion that since they are known to have made significant diversions elsewhere, they likely are also doing the same in regard to the U.S. Remember, diversions of some funds does not mean curtailment of all.
“Remember, diversions of some funds does not mean curtailment of all.”
And remember that we, too, have diverted $430 billion into Iraq since the invasion, money that could have been invested in domestic security to protect us from Al-Qaeda and other groups like Jamaat al Muslimeen.
Sonagi,
Why not do both? The US can maintain presence in Iraq to destroy any Terrorist training camps that Hussein or any future Husseins(political types running on strong Anti-American sentiment) wanted to set up.
Democrates are playing Talibans. Yes, these political opportunists are actually helping MiddleEast terrorists to thrive in MiddleEast.
You want to shore up defense. Then, why not go after them where they live, train and breed? Bush said “we will go where these terrorists live”.
Why not do both? Going into Islam countries are too dangerous, too costly and too time-consuming? Then, you are not willing to defend the country in the right scale. You only want to put a bandage on the situation, instead of working on the correct solution.
Add Al-Qaeda as a contact in MSN Messenger and then block em. Even if they don’t add us we can still block them, wink wink. We can also run two versions simultaneously and then make believe we’re Jordan in the older version and see when they’re online and shit.
Sonagi;
We’ve increased spending in both areas, it’s not like we’ve decreased domestic security spending, very much the opposite. All that includes degrading Al Qaeda financial networks and ability to move funds. We have a good bit more latitude in adjusting budgets than they do.
hardyandtiny;
At my own site it’s policy to always mark Al Qaeda commenters as spam, wink wink.
The story that Richardson quotes in his above post (see his link) starts with the note that the Taliban people “allegedly” met with Osama. There is no proof that such a meeting actually took place – it is hearsay, not fact. We are asked to believe that the informant was so trusted by both Al Qaeda and the Taliban as to be invited, but has no fear of later ratting them out to the media under his own name. Sounds like another story planted by Karl Rove and friends.
Just a note to Baduk. If anything, it is the Republicans who are playing Taliban, religious zealots bent on implementing a ruthless and bloody tyranny on anyone who dissents from their vision of the True Faith. If the Bushies really wanted to get even for 9/11, why have they so half-assed any pursuit of bin Laden and Al Qaeda for the past FIVE years?
Kunsanpcv,
Yes, Karl Rove planted that story, is responsible for high gas prices, global warming, cancer, and old age. We’re not sure how you found out, but please don’t tell anyone. Thanks.
Denying the plausible and offering up a conspiracy theory as justification has more than a bit of a ring of hypocrisy to it, don’t you think?
Richardson,
My assertion is that the story you cited is implausible, wheras Bush adminstration hacks fearmongering on cherry-picked intel is consistant with past behavior and actually more plausible. None are so blind as those who will not see.
I only got about half way through this con-lib snittery crap before I got bored and skipped to the end.My 2 cents on the oil thing.If nascar can go 200 mph and turn left all day on alcohol, why can’t Joe Public do 120 across Montana on it?
Kunsanpcv,
Where is your evidence that it is not plausible that Al Quada is diverting funds from Afghanistan to Iraq? You claimed there was absolutely no evidence for that, but what do you have that contradicts what was presented? Nothing but your uninformed opinion. You need to apply the same standard to your own assertions, hypocrite.
It is widely reported that Iraq is a primary source and stimulant for cash infusions to al Qaeda from within and without the country. Most recently, it was reported that al Zawahiri, the No. 2 guy presumed operating from Afghanistan or nearby, appealed to the Iraq contingent for operating capital.
That kunsanpcv doesn’t provide a URL or other reference to support the claim doesn’t affect the accuracy of the claim one way or the other. Official intelligence reports support the claim. Perhaps those reports are conjecture, but if they are, they are less so than many of the wacky positions staked out in this thread. The reluctance of so many to shed ideological blinders and view events of the new millennium objectively will ultimately do more to advance the cause of al Qaeda than he could possibly accomplish without it. This will be the legacy of the neo-conservative anschluss.
I wasn’t really conned until I was neo-conned.
May….bloodiest month of the war for US troops in Iraq. It’s only gonna get worse. And for what?
That’s no the issue being ‘discussed’ directly above, nor any approximation of earlier comments between myself and kunsanpcv. It’s a) the Rove conspiracy theory w/o any ‘evidence,’ and b) the contention that it’s not plausible that Al Qaeda has diverted funds from Afghanistan, re the Rove conspiracy theory that the story was a plant.
I see we’ve entered the post 100 comment La-La land where unsupported assertions are good.
Kunsanpcv does indeed need to come up with something to support the claims we were discussing. If he want so support those claims and not be a hypocrite, anyway.
It’d be great if you would provide reference to the “official intelligence reports” you speak of. Thanks.
May….bloodiest month of the war for US troops in Iraq – JK
Do you know why? Obama and Hillary are zuming these Iraqi insurgent that victory is near. Talibans!
However, President Bush will be unrelenting. He will stay the course. His effort will be appreciated a generation later. Twenty years later, everyone will be praising Bush and his effort in making MiddleEast modern.
Bush is a great president.
I think rather than trying to dissect the similarities and differences between Korea 1950 and Iraq today, we should be trying to dissect the similarities and differences between USA 1950 and USA today.
In 1950, USA won the Korean war because she had enough men willing to die for ideals. We don’t have enough of those caliber men today. (hey, I’m not at least) Unfortunately, maybe because they passed away.
I find it personally difficult to disagree with McCain. (Even though I vote strictly Democrat) At least he has integrity in saying, “we broke it, let’s fix it.” But a lot of people are saying reducing forces in Iraq is the first step in fixing Iraq at this point.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86309/michael-c-desch/bush-and-the-generals.html
No matter how I look at it, Iraqi people are f&*ked. We only have ourselves to blame. (especially you people out there who waved flags and called me a vulvacrat and voted for W no less than two times) If we stayed out, we could have passed that buck to Saddam. Oh well.
I don’t think we have the power to create Iraq in our image. We are not Gods… The worst part of this is that, I personally believe that there are times when America does need to take unilateral actions in the world. But this just proves otherwise. Maybe we need to just shut up and let the “lefty” allies smack some more sense into us next time. Because at the end of the day, we are a lot dumber than the French.
“Do you know why? Obama and Hillary are zuming these Iraqi insurgent that victory is near. Talibans!”
#104, LOL! You are blaming the bloodiest month of insurgency in Iraq ever on Hillary Clinton and Obama? LOL! I didn’t even know they were in office already.
“Bush is a great president.”
Even today’s Republican Presidential candidates won’t dare say that.
Baduk, you must have been snorting a great line of coke for that one. Lets list the things that make president Bush great -
1. Torture is now OK.
2. People can be thrown into gulags without trial indefinitely, including American citizens (where they will be tortured).
3. He said that there were terrorists and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and was either wrong or lying about both things.
4. Thousands of Americans have died and thousands more will die because the president is so stubborn that he refuses to admit when we was wrong.
5. Americans now have a reputation as torturers, a status formerly limited to countries with other “great presidents” like Saddam Hussein.
There are many, many more points, like presidents Bush’s contempt for the American people and the constitution, like when he said the constitution was “just a goddamned piece of paper”. President Bush is a rogue president, in my opinion.
VW,
I guess you know yourself, but you don’t know jack about today’s military. For starters, 54 percent of those who served in Korea were draftees. How many are today?
- continuing post #107′s points
6. Inherited a sizable surplus & shrinking national debt, and turned it year after year into the greatest deficit and national debt American has ever experienced, in absolute terms or as a percentage of GDP.
Of course, this must make shakuhachi and I demented “Bush-haters”, who through the fog of our groundless hatred for this towering and peerless president refuse to recognize the plentiful evidence of Bushjr achievements such as…uh, er…. well give me a break I’m blinded by “Bush-hatred”. I leave it to the disciples of Coulter to fill in the achievement part.
Iraq. Go over to the Asia Times online (www.atimes.com), there is a piece there on a rumour that Al-Quada may be planning a ‘false-flag’ operation against Iran and America. Basically, that these Sunni nutjobs might launch some truly nasty operation in America, leave a trail of Iranian ‘evidence’ and sit back and enjoy Shiite Iran and the Wrath of Cheney going to war. Ready for the draft, America? Cheney’s tantrums don’t come cheap.
Sadly, Iraq’s best hope is that low-level terror resulting in population transfers will leave the country with 3 roughly homogeneous areas which can then work out some sort of federal agreement of sharing power and oil revenues. If the Sunni’s or the Shiites as a whole decide that they want Victory, not a reasonable peace where they get some but not all of what they want, well then they are doomed to a civil war which no side can win and will probably rage on for 10 years Lebanon-style till they are exhausted.
The US will not play a role in either of these outcomes. Latest polls have 96% of Iraqi’s against a long-term US presence, and a whopping 80 or so percent wanting America gone now. It’s a civil war now.
The best analogy I have read is “Imagine if at the height of the US Civil War, a massive force of Chinese Imperial soldiers occupied America and tried to educate and nudge the Union and Confederate sides to accept and follow the precepts and guidelines of Qing Dynasty government. These Chinese soldiers and leaders would almost to a man not speak English, not understand the history of America, and would periodically commit well-publicized atrocities (by accident or deliberately) and against Americans which they would shrug off as accidents, much to the rage of Americans.”
That is America in Iraq today. The only way to win in Iraq would be for the US army to adopt a level of ferocity and truly mass, deliberate slaughter. That, though, is unacceptable (to their credit) to American elites and public. (I think Cheney is a callous person, but even he would not carpet-bomb Fallujah or build a pyramid of heads outside of Baghdad, the latter is what Genghis Khan found necessary to pacify Baghdad. Yet, indiscriminate killing is the only thing that can pacify Fallujah.) Thus, I say the conflict in Iraq now is
QUAGMIRE. UNWINNABLE. CATASTROPHE.
for America.
Please admend the last sentence of my second paragraph to read “… the reasonable, thoughtful and fairminded disciples of Coulter”.
Bush is a great President.
President Cheney and his sock-puppet Bush have a very good chance of receiving history’s verdict of “Worst/Most disasterous Administration In American History”.
first of all, that’s impossible. Nothing beats the seat of he who governed when the Great Depression started.
All you Democrats can yap all you want, but you do know why there was an analysis by the DNC that Bush can’t be beaten if the economy’s not bad in 2004, right? Hiliary Clinton chose not to run, heavily based on that state alone.
The US is safer than ever for the average American thanks to Bush. It’s cheap to disconnect what FBI, Homeland Security and the CIA does to prevent attacks independent from Bush.
While tying and blaming Bush for Syria and Iran supported bombs and assaults in the middle east.
I’m sorry, where’s the logic in that disconnection?
Clinton ended his term with a recession.
There was trouble in the middle east by the end of Clinton’s term. Clinton also left America in war at Bosnia.(the one no one cares about because there is minimal US physical lives hurt. Hey, only Serbs and Croats and Muslims died, people don’t notice if that’s the case.)
Clinton did nothing about that or about the economy. He just ran a lame duck year.
Bush picks up from there.
By the way for a Pres in his lame duck year phase, Bush is pushing an awful lot of laws and acts. Immigration, aids, tax, etc.
A great President who somehow juggled a new type of war and bringing back the economy so that the average American not involved in war within the states can enjoy jobs, peace, etc.
Actually, the world economy should thank Bush for his moves. A non functional US economy tanks economies across the world. That’s a given and a proven fact.
Hugh, you probably have a job. More money than the year 2000. Your property’s value most likely escalated. The Feds and the states probably mailed you checks somewhere between the hundreds or even into a couple thousands. And you’re calling him the worst President ever.
Bono was on TV this evening(ABC nightwatch) and he believed nations could do more for Africa. Not only in monetary help but also in educating African natives. He thanked Bush for pledging $1.5 billion in that direction. America is doing something right.
America freed Iraqis from Hussein dictatorship and the country is heading toward democracy. In ten years, Iraqis will be best educated people in the region and other middle eastern countries will follow in modernization process.
We are doing something right in the world. Bush is a great president with strong conscience.
It would all be so much easier if the us were a dictatorship.
We stubborn asses should just vote our conscience and shut the hell up when we get what we deserve.All this ‘looky,I found a link to support my assertion so you’re a dumbass’ bickering doesn’t accomplish shit.This isn’t debate.No one here has any intention of allowing their opinion to change.I’ll bet the political pendulum will swing from jesusfreakland to molesterhuggerland with no hint of slowing down in the middle.Gotta go supper’s ready.Enjoy the pointless shitslinging y’all.
In regard to GDP, you are incorrect. Do your homework.
I’m sure you completely fail to see the irony of your defeatist message – especially given the subject of this post – in the context of similar predications about South Korea’s future a few decades ago.
And you forgot to mention that Bush killed Kenny.
The very fact that South Korea is being touted as a “model” for Iraq reveals that even in 2007, the American political-military complex is stuck in Cold War mode. They’re trying to adapt the Democracy versus Communism framework for Democracy versus Islamic Fundamentalism. If you look at the resumes of many of the big CIA and NSA chiefs, including Condie Rice, they have “Russian studies” as their fields of expertise. If they truly knew their Russian studies, and British Empire studies at that, America would have thought twice about getting involved in the Mid-East.
The US political-military mind is incapable of wrapping itself around the new kind of threat, which is not a nation with a conventional army, but an asymmetric enemy that operates according to radically different rules. That is one of the reasons why the Bush Administration needed to invade Iraq (among other things), to try to force Al-Qaeda to be a nation-like enemy that the US military is more accustomed to fighting and that is why the Bush Administration was and is always so desperate to prove the Al Qaeda – Iraq connection. So we got Saddam Hussein, great, where’s Osama?
Netizen Kim, well said! Yeah, if anything things are worse for the US and the world since the invasion of Iraq…..and it’s likely to continue to get worse. The world is not that of the 1940s and 1950s. Vietnam proved that. Iraq is confirming that as well.
the middle east came to the US, with 911. Get that straight.
And according to your logic of making Iraq an enemy with a face,
well, then, that was fulfilled by Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda is in Iraq ! Hello? 2 things. Most came in after Hussein fell, thru Iran, and sponsored by Iran. Some were there before Hussein fell.
Just one of many, but who do you think kidnapped and killed US soldiers 2 weeks ago?
considering the fact that Osama has failed to come up with a new video in months, I speculate that he is running out of resources, such as human contact, batteries for his camcorder and what not. And hopefully medicine.
the net is getting tighter and one day he’ll wake up in a bullet storm.
did you really think it would be super productive to sieve thru terrain like Afghanistan looking for one person, when the Soviets couldn’t do that for a decade?
Afghanistan is rolling along as productive as it could be.
Weren’t your kind the kind who said no power could even topple Afghanistan’s govt to begin with, citing the Soviet failure in the 80′s?
Compared to that, it’s a phenomenal success in Afghanistan. And in warp speed, relatively.
Don’t try so hard to ignore the chain of tragedies in Indo China after the US pull out from Vietnam.
For you, the world was peaceful in the 90′s right?
I guess that’s because no one in your immediate acquaintance chain was Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, African, from East Timor, etc.
Netizen Kim and JK,
What do you want the US government and military to do? After 9/11,
1) Iraqi pilots start flying into “No-Fly” zone set up after Gulf War. Doing missile-locking on the US planes.
2) Hussein kicked out UN nuclear inspectors and chemical weapon inspectors telling them not to come back.
3) Hussein promised that he would do attack on the US much worse that the 9/11.
Do you want the US military to just suck it in? Do you like America to be reduced to just pack of whimpering fools who sit and wait for the next big slaughter to come?
Or, do you want America to go where these characters live and clean them up?
The choice is yours. Your children have to live with consequences of your decision.
Hey Richardson,
My general rebuke of George W, seems to have made you misinterpret my post. If you reread it, you’ll see that I am by no means disparaging today’s servicemen in comparison to the servicemen in 1950. I am saying there are not enough Americans today as compared to 1950 who are willing to put on that uniform. (My self included.) And I am giving that as the chief reason why we are losing Iraq. (Yes, I am a defeatist.)
But as long as I started off being facetious, I’ll continue to do so. I honestly did not know that the majority of Korean war veterans were draftees. In the spirit of being facetious, I looked up the wiki number of US servicemen in Korea during “peak” as being somewhere in the neighborhood of 450,000. If I were to muliply by that figure by the ratio you given me and compare that figure to the current US trooop strength in Iraq and i would be being really facetious. And if I were to compare the ratio of US soldiers to that of the total population of US in the two eras… well, you get the picture.
But going back to the issue of conscription, that is the point I was trying to make in the first place. In 1950, America was willing to make that kind of sacrifice. In 2007, America is not. In fact, we require the services of Halliburton to make up the difference. And in 1950, Americans were willing to accept the astronomical rate of death. In 2007, we are not. Well, at least I’m not, as proven by my vulvacrat voting records.
I sincerely wish I am wrong. that in 20 years time, you on this website will dig up this very post and ridicule me about my “doom and gloom” over Iraq. And I’ll say, “ha ha, yes, I am a dingleberry on a donkey scrotum. Your steadfastness has spread prosperity in the Middle East and made America safe. I wallow in shame in dust and ashes.” But the sheer cost of that happy outcome is a monumental gamble of more lives of American servicemen. United States taxpayers cannot even allow for higher taxes, I sincerely wonder if they’ll allow more deaths.
Many people are beginning to say that at this point, more soldiers will not make the situation better. Like you said, I know diddly squat about today’s military, so I will have to base my opinions on that of US commanders in Iraq who aren’t asking for a “surge”.
Believe it or not, I’m not really against the neo-con idealism. What I am against is the spectacularly ridiculous fashion they go on about trying to implement it.
I don’t think that if US servicemen occupy Iraq for the next 50 years this mess will be over. I think that logic is a parallel fantasy of occupying Israel and finding Israelis and Palestians loving one another. Or accupying Somalia and finding the muslims loving the blacks. etc. I really recommend you peruse the Foreign Affairs article i linked for your amusement.
I think Bush possibly had a real chance of proving me wrong and forcing me to call myself a dingleberry on a donkey scrotum. But he blew it when he decided that the advice of civillian intellectuals were better than that of four star generals. That’s our commander in chief folks. You voted for him. I have to live with him. Iraqis have to pay for it.
Anyway the moral of my story is don’t vote republicans.
“What do you want the US government and military to do? After 9/11,”
Uh….go after the perpetrators of 9/11….NOT go after those NOT behind 9/11 so that Bush can say he finished something his daddy didn’t (and wisely so at that).
“1) Iraqi pilots start flying into ‘No-Fly’ zone set up after Gulf War. Doing missile-locking on the US planes.”
Missile-locking, eh? Do you really think the Iraqis would have been so suicidal to fly into a no-fly zonze and “missile-lock US planes? What’s your source?
“2) Hussein kicked out UN nuclear inspectors and chemical weapon inspectors telling them not to come back.”
Uh, Bush told the inspectors to get out….because an invasion was about to be launched. He didn’t let the inspectors complete their job. And furthermore…..THERE WAS NO WMD!
“3) Hussein promised that he would do attack on the US much worse that the 9/11.”
He did? What was the quote? Don’t quote of context. Tell me what he said exactly where he said anything close to this. Now THIS I have to hear.
“Do you want the US military to just suck it in?”
Going into Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan doesn’t sound like “sucking it in” to me on the part of the US. Invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 was just plain out wrong, based on the premise for going to war.
“Do you like America to be reduced to just pack of whimpering fools who sit and wait for the next big slaughter to come?”
I don’t see how NOT invading a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 makes Americans “whimpering fools.” Please explain why you think NOT invading Iraq would have made Americans just that?
“Or, do you want America to go where these characters live and clean them up? ”
By all means, go after the terrorists. But why invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and thus inadvertently cause the biggest recruitment of terrorists ever, resulting in a good portion of them to join in the attack on US troops in Iraq? Explain that to me.
“The choice is yours. Your children have to live with consequences of your decision.”
Going into Iraq was mistake. Iraq was not Al-Qaeda. In fact, Hussein and bin Laden did not like each other. Staying in Iraq is wrong.
But as long as Bush is in office, the troops will stay there….and indeed my children and yours will have to live with the consequences of YOUR decision. So sad.
jk, your counters to 1,2,3 of Baduk are not effective, because 1,2,3 are actual facts. You can search or look those up on your own time and arrive at that conclusion. Baduk speaks the truth and his opinion is very well stated.
1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones
2)http://www.nci.org/v-w-x/wp112998.htm
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/17/iraq.pm/
3)http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/09/Worldandnation/Hussein_may_strike_US.shtml
The letter also said “the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida is evolving” and that there is “credible reporting” indicating that the bin Laden network’s leaders have sought help from Iraq.
And it concluded that Iraq’s “increasing support to extremist Palestinians” and its growing relationship with al-Qaida “suggest Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.”
http://www.house.gov/pitts/press/commentary/020509c-saddamhussein.htm
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.pdf
A former Iraqi military officer, Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, said he was in charge of
training an elite special forces team, “designed to plan and conduct operations against US
and British interests around the world,” at Salman Pak.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/oct2002/a101802a.html
The Attacks of September 11
“The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world.”
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001
“The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings.”
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
“[September 11 was] God’s punishment.”
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
“If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?”
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
“The simple truth [about September 11] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world.”
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)
“[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything…”
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)
“The United States must get a taste of its own poison…”
Babil, October 8, 2001
I personally saw Hussein on TV before the war. He always looked defiant and threatening. After the 9/11, the TV showed Iraqis celebrating and Hussein saying “the US got what it deserved”.
Do you think the US deserved 3,000 innocent civilian death?
For me, WMD was not the major concern.
If a handful of terrorists can come and kill three thousand Americans, what about terrorists training camps in Afganistan and Iraq? How many more American citizens would these terrorists kill?
Bush said “we will go where those terrorists live and deal with them there (so that none can reach the US soil)”.
That was pre-emptive. That was pro-active.
Maybe he should have waited for another attack by Islam terrorists. But for me, four airplanes, three building and three thousand lives are good enough justification to go after these MiddleEastern terrorists. And, Hussein who bred these vermins.
1) Jimmy Carter was the worst president of recent years.
2) Look at how civilly our Gyopo friends fight amongst themselves. Study their good manners!
Baduk, regarding #124:
1. So, your link does not support that Iraqi planes “missile-locked” US planes. If anything, it said that Iraqi planes were no threat to US planes. Show me where Iraqi planes “missile-locked” anyone.
2. Your source to rebut my claim that Bush did not give the inspectors time enough to do their jobs in Iraq IN 2003 was from a report dated 1998. Kind of out of date source to refute my claim that the inspectors did not have time to finish their jobs in 2003.
3. http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/09/Worldandnation/Hussein_may_strike_ US.shtml Your link doesn’t work. Oh well.
4. YOU CALL A SOURCE CALLED http://www.husseinandterror.com/ a credible source?????Furthermore, an opinion written by Congressman Joe Pitts (in 2002 – I’ll bet he’s changed his views now on the war) is NOT a credible source anymore than an opinion written by Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, or Rudy Guiliani (all of whom have differing opinions about Iraq, btw). Try again, Baduk. Give me credible SOURCES and not links with opinions by partisan politicians that match your own.
5. So Hussein MAY have made some asinine remarks about why Sept. 11 occurred. I know AMERICANS who said as much. Heck, should we invade France to get to actor Johnny Depp because he may have implied that the US had had it coming?
Do I think the US deserved 3,000 innocent civilian deaths? By all means, no. But what does this have to do with being in Iraq???? Quit throwing red herrings at me and answer that. We were going after the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan and in parts of Pakistan before invading Iraq. But WHAT does the invasion of Iraq have to do with 9/11???? Even that insane Vice-President of ours (I call him “Dick”) has backed away from that claim.
wjk, regarding #123. You may agree with baduk while I disagree with him….but how do you say that what baduk said was true and what I said was not true? Please read his sources….and look at the source behind his sources. THEN you can make your claim (which isn’t true) that what Baduk says is accurate.
Actually, we had Christian evangelists say that 9/11 was retribution for the various “sins” in America. I guess we should invade their house, too, since they, like Hussein, may have implied that America brought 9/11 upon itself?
Weird logic you have.
#129, God took out Falwell. I’m sure Roberts is listening for “death’s wing-ed chariot,” too.
Baduk wrote:
“Maybe he should have waited for another attack by Islam terrorists. But for me, four airplanes, three building and three thousand lives are good enough justification to go after these MiddleEastern terrorists. And, Hussein who bred these vermins.”
Uh, Hussein did not breed those vermin. They were bred in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan…..two countries the US chose not to invade (because they are supposed allies). Iraq and Saddam Hussein on the other hand had nothing to do with 9/11. Wrong country. Wrong evil figure to blame. The US took its revenge….but on the WRONG COUNTRY.
And how many US soldiers and Iraqi citizens have to pay the price for Bush going after THE WRONG COUNTRY???
It’s like when the movie “War of the Worlds” by Steven Spielberg came out. One movie critic wrote something like, “So this movie is supposed to be an analogy of 9/11? Does that mean that if Mars attacks us, we invade Venus?”
Well put.
Iraq is the perfect country to invade.
1. Saddam had to go, a modern day Hitler.
2. Centrally located with good access to attack places like Syria or better yet, Iran.
3. Nice cache of oil for the drilling. (I would have taken every drop until the bill is paid).
4. One less source of funding for the Taliban.
5. And lastly it’s about time we help the Jews kill some Muslims who only want to rain terror down on our shores.
“Iraq is the perfect country to invade.
1. Saddam had to go, a modern day Hitler.”
Okay. But at what price? The price is still being paid…in American and Iraqi blood. Was it worth it to start a war that can’t be winnable?
“2. Centrally located with good access to attack places like Syria or better yet, Iran.”
Okay…..but at what cost? Isn’t the cost too high? And if the US failed in Iraq, there is NO way the US will EVER attack Syria and Iran (which is larger and even harder to take over) and even you have to know this.
“3. Nice cache of oil for the drilling. (I would have taken every drop until the bill is paid).”
Well, why isn’t it being taken? Enough American and Iraqi blood is being shed as we speak. And I’m sure you’re gonna say it’s worth it even though there is NO end in sight to the war…until Bush is out of office.
“4. One less source of funding for the Taliban.”
This is where you show your ignorance. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden were as much friends as Saddam Hussein and George Bush. Hussein may have given money to families of people who died committing terrorist acts in Palestine (not America), but that is COMPLETELY different from saying he supported Taliban activities. Go learn something. No connection to 9/11. And Hussein wasn’t the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. THe world would be easier to understand for you, if it was so black-and-white, but that’s not the way it works.
“5. And lastly it’s about time we help the Jews kill some Muslims who only want to rain terror down on our shores.”
WHICH Muslims? The US went after the WRONG Muslims. Go after the Taliban. Find Al-Qaeda. But why invade a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11??
As for helping the Jews to kill some Muslims….we’ve been doing that in Palestine.
JK, you are not unique. Half of Americans wanted nothing to do with WWII until Japan attacked. I am well aware which Muslims are in Iraq. I am also aware that the Americans are partially to blame for enabling Saddam. Don’t worry about the war. We will do the heavy lifting for you. You can get your manhood from railing against global warming. Let the serious people worry about terrorism and war. You are asking me to argue against negatives, I’m not going to attempt that. What you can do is let us know how many licks it takes to get to the center of Jimmy Carter’s asshole. Enjoy casting your vote for Hillary or Obamma.
Who’s this “we”?
Obviously not “you”
Right, not me.
Now tell us, what “heavy lifting” you are doing.
Who is this “us”?
I suspect the only “heavy lifting” you are contemplating is of Rush Limbaugh’s Oxycontin stash.
“1. Saddam had to go, a modern day Hitler.”
A real bastard indeed, but unlike Hitler, didn’t have the means to take over his particular neck of the woods, let alone the world. He tried and failed against the Iranians, Kuwait was a disaster – leaving him with a comparatively weaker military and largely crippled infrastructure – and I suspect he had largely given up on fantasies of regional conquest in favor of holding on to power. (Which is what other tyrants like KJI, Mugabe, Castro, and others focus on first and foremost.)
“2. Centrally located with good access to attack places like Syria or better yet, Iran.”
True on the location, but I don’t think attacking either country from Iraq would be a great idea, especially considering that the United States is losing/has lost the war that put them there in the first place. Want some more of that action next door? If this was a serious consideration in the invasion of Iraq, there are more than a few people in the Pentagon and/or White House who truly require psychological help.
“4. One less source of funding for the Taliban.”
Saddam and the Taliban were enemies. He may have been prepared to give them limited support here and there if it was in his interest – as a certain country was willing to train and arm the forerunners to the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets? – but fundamentalists of the nature represented a threat to his despotic – yet secular – regime.
“5. And lastly it’s about time we help the Jews kill some Muslims who only want to rain terror down on our shores.”
You are helping them. (Who supplies them with F-15s, F-16s, M-16s, Apache helicopters, and UN Security Council vetoes?) Fortunately, they are aware that that a larger regional war is not likely a great thing for them, long or short term. (Not great for the United States either, but a little easier to live with living across the pond, don’t you think?)
I’m not convinced that most Muslims would like to rain down terror on the United States, even if they could. I’m afraid that going into Iraq has probably made more than a few more of them inclined to think that way. Staying there isn’t going to help.
139# Dogshit, I lift my checkbook. You beat your dick like it owes you money.
Re: #141, all working Americans do as well. That’s not the same thing as having friends and family fighting an unwinnable war in Iraq because Bush is too stubborn to admit he was wrong about going to war. Got it, railway?
Your level of dialogue gives you away as a core Bush supporter.
Do you mean you’re one of the people buying body armor and ammunition for the troops because Halliburton didn’t get paid enough to provide it?
In that case, I salute you.
#142, #143,
Guys,
No one likes to see our people harmed, especially me. I have a loved one in Balad who tells stories of how the insurgents sneak up at night to the fence-line with mortars and rounds frozen in ice, ice melts, you can figure out the rest. Yes, I support Bush. I don’t always agree with him, but he is far better than what we could have been stuck with. It is amazing to me that when Bubba Clinton was out kicking ass around the world nobody seemed to care.
The war is over for all intents and purposes. What you have now is messy mitigating. And yes, I am one of the suckers who donated monies to various active and veteran’s organizations. I think some major mistakes have prevented us from not being able to exit sooner (Sending the standing army home being just one) but I do not believe we can cut and run at this point, stubborn President or not.
RC, You’ve got the troika of JK, dogbertt, and Netizen Kim against you. Seems like you’re a coalition builder.
Dogbertt, Halliburton (specificially, their KBR subsidiary) won’t be contracted/expected to provide personal body armor, arms and/or ammunition for anyone in US military service in the war zones.
I don’t know if KBR provides any private security personnel for their own operations, or for other private contractors; if they do, these folks might then be armed with privately purchased weapons, ammo, & body armor, (depending upon the terms of the local contract or subcontract).
For US military and direct hire US military employees (DoD civilians) — weapons, ammo and body armor are provided by the military unit to which they are assigned. These units in turn get these items issued through their respective services, after purchase (with extremely elaborate procedures) by official DoD supply agencies, subject to very specific guidance as legislated by the Congress in the various appropriation legislation.
When you see military generals/admirals getting quizzed by Congressmen/Senators up on the Hill about such things as body armor (ie the current controversy about “Dragonskin”), it’s because those generals are working senior level oversight jobs in military procurment and are responsbile to the executive/legislative branches of our govt for getting it right. Halliburton has nothing to do with this.
Food service for all sorts of military and non-military personnel is one example of what KBR will be contracted to do; I’m going to guess it comprises the major proportion of KBR personnel hires for the war zones. These folks won’t be armed in the routine performance of their duties (ie third country nationals acting as cooks & servers in a US military base camp or installation will be dependent for perimeter/ military defense upon coalition/Iraqi forces co-located with them).
If you think the Iraq and/or Afghan wars are mistakes and need to be stopped immediately, I urge you to write to your congressman/Senators and request they vote to stop the war funding, similar to what happened at the very end of the Vietnam war.
That’s the honest way to do it, rather than deriding other Americans for being “core Bush supporters”. I don’t understand why Americans hate Bush so badly that they want us to lose this war in Iraq/Afghanistan (we may lose it anyway, particularly since perception is so entangled with reality in the alien world of the human monsters we are fighting).
pa,”troika” Well done!
LOL.
We’ve already lost it.
At this point, it’s not even so much about the war, as about how much credibility and integrity Bush has cost the nation.
But I like your idea – let me put it another way: “I don’t see why some Germans hate Hitler so badly they want Germany to lose this war in Europe.”
After all, the Bolsheviks were terrorists too.
What really burns me about that is that simplistic line of thinking is just what Bush wants.
He starts a war so that he can tell Americans who are stupid enough to think that way that “you’re either with me or your for the enemy”. Hoo-ah!
Well, I’m one American who hates Bush and who hates Muslim terrorists as well. It’s not a mutually exclusive hatred.
What ended the Vietnam War was when that sack of shit Walter Cronkite stood in front of the camera and lied to the American TV audience. He stated that we were loosing. It was right after The Tet Offensive and we left the place looking like a fucking train wreck. We had the enemy on the ropes. Much like what the Rosie O’Dickenvy crowd wants us to believe today. Rave-on thy holy fools.
Bush=Hitler? Right about now the giant Kool-Aide character breaks through the screen “OH YEAH!!!!!!”
Well, dogbertt, unfortunately for you I get one vote the same as you, in spite of my “simplistic stupidity.”
“I’m one American who hates Bush and who hates Muslim terrorists as well.”
Which one do you hate more? And against which one are you more likely to take some sort of political action?
I won’t “hate” you for doing your best to use your rights as a US citizen to stop the Iraq war; my suggestion for you to write your congressman to urge this is not meant to be ironic.
If the Democrats could find the courage to vote only enough funds to begin an immediate US troop withdrawl, frankly I’d feel a certain sense of shamed relief that the end was in sight, even though it’s obvious to me that Iraq would descend quickly into total chaos and a total war of all against all, into which we would probably be drawn back again.
What ought to be frightening to any Koreans reading here is to observe this level of internal political discord between Americans. Last August the Marmot posted a thread about how an ROK Army general expected the US to come up with hundreds of thousands of troops to defend the country, if needed; I don’t know what dream world that general thinks he is currently living in.
If the US can’t summon the collective will to fight the war in Iraq to a reasonably successful conclusion, I don’t see how we could summon the will to risk several thousand dead (ie, a similar level to the current totals of dead in Iraq/Afghanistan) in order to defend the ROK (to include a possible atomic exchange).
Especially given that a large proportion of ROK citizenry don’t want us there anymore and might even take sides against us.
That’s why I’m in favor of beginning a process of US troop withdrawl from the ROK; it’s better to leave now while the situation is stable. With the Americans gone, both sides will have to face the reality of their situation vs a vs each other, and begin to get on with whatever the next step is in their ultimate political destiny.
Bush never lied.
Who lied?
Hussein. He lied.
Iran lied.
Syria lied.
Bin Laden lied.
Bush was misinformed.
The French and the Russians didn’t want in on the deal, because they had oil deals with Hussein.
Gasp ! It wasn’t because the French love freedom?
The Russians don’t love freedom?
No.
By the way, the latest poll shows Hiliary will win the Democrat ticket.
The single reason why voters will help her out is the War in Iraq.
The War that less than 5% of America is actually involved in in terms of serving in the military and what not.
The poll also reveals that voters dont think either healthcare, economy, or civil rights is a huge negative for them.
Based on the fact that much of the public view on Iraq is painted up by tv news and this-is-Vietnam-anti-war activists,
I think the Democrats are the ones who are riding on a narrow margin towards the white house.
Read the pdf. The only case the Democrats have for taking the throne is the Iraq War.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/11/top3dem.pdf
Maybe Hiliary Clinton would prefer to deal with Iraq the way China is dealing with the civil war in Africa. Just sell arms.
Watch the fire.
Paul H.,
Iraq….South Korea….let’s just bring the men and women of the US Armed Forces home! Or have some small symbolic troop presence in SK, like now, and bring the troops in Iraq home.
The point is….the war in Iraq is lost…because we don’t even know what victory means anymore.
I agree with JK.
And I do this notwithstanding the fact that, when Bush started the Iraq war in 2003, I was staunchly convinced that he was doing the right thing, to an extent that I felt repulsed by the German government’s opposition to this move. But I had to learn better…
Dogbertt: “Well, I’m one American who hates Bush and who hates Muslim terrorists as well. It’s not a mutually exclusive hatred.”
I hate Muslim terrorists, too, and generally dislike Muslim Fundamentalists and Extremists, even those who do not resort to open terrorism.
As for my opinion about President Bush, it is not yet settled. I do by no means hate the man, I found him great when he started his first term in office – but there is no doubt that he blundered.
I am sincerely sorry about the turn things have taken in Irag and, to some extent, even in Afghanistan…
Shit, not only Bush blundered – I myself blundered, as well:
“Irag” should, of course, have been “Iraq”.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 3 trackbacks }