Did I justify it, or did I add factual evidence to the debate? This is the territory of my friend GTech, where if you post anything true, but negative or contradictory then you're justifying terror, or shielding terrorists, or facilitating some other nefarious anti-Americanism. This as you have implied, dumbs down the debate. Surely you want to be as informed as possible, I know I do. How else can I in good conscience take a position if I know I have overlooked any facts? I'm surprised no one has picked up on the Gulf of Tonkin. Isn't it a bit of a farce that 60,000 Americans died over a false report of a second attack, and a first attack that yielded one bullet hole on an American ship? And that's not even counting the dead Vietnamese civilians (est. 4 million). Why is it that there is an issue posting facts or circumstances which can be corraborated? Are people not interested in the truth? If anything, we should be (IMO) a lot more cautious before going to war based on the circumstances of our previous involvements. There were NINETEEN hijackers on 9/11. NINETEEN. They killed 3,000 people. How many deaths have occurred in the follow up in Afghanistan and Iraq? How does this math make any sense? Freer to strike out. And who decides when to strike, and how much proof or justification is needed? Who decides if we need a declaration with clearly defined objectives and goals so the war can end at some point? The government had a mandate (that Ron Paul voted for) to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan. A few years later, Bush is saying that he doesn't think about Bin Laden anymore. But still the Iraq war continues. I'm not espousing neo-colonialism, where the US is the daddy to the world, and has the moral and economic right to change regimes, alter governments, and use taxpayer money as aid in foreign nations. That's immoral, and under international law, it is illegal. I agree with the rest of your post, but past is present, and moving back to the center is not the national debate. Balance is not in the debates. Paul is the lone voice in the wilderness, speaking "radically" (your word) about change. And that facilitates debate, because the center is not interested in speaking about it at all. Do I think Paul will get elected? The odds are tremendously against him and it is unlikely. I think a lot of people, just don't care. They don't care about habeus corpus (or even understand it), I don't think they remember what year 9/11 was, I don't think they know how many Americans died in Vietnam, and I don't think they can name the last 3 Vice-Presidents. They just don't care. But I do. I give a crap when thousands of people die. Do I care a little more about Americans dying? Yeah, I probably do. But I value life, and wouldn't willfully participate in killing one innocent person, so how can I possibly justify the collateral loss of thousands to maintain geo-political agendas and mercantile interests? And the question I posed earlier, although perhaps not too clearly is, how can you? When you say freer to strike out, do you mean pre-emptively, and if so, how many civilian deaths are acceptable? Do you believe torture is acceptable? Do you believe Rendition is acceptable? Please define this "freer to strike out" policy. I'll respect it if you don't have a policy, but in that case, I don't think it is wholly inappropriate to ask you to consider it, before introducing it as an ideal for the next election.
I agree with Will. If it's between my life and the life of other people who want me dead, it's better off if they die.
Did you actually think we were gonna leave... Now that we have a foot hold in that part of the world, we are gonna stay and keep the peace. We've done that pretty much everywhere, save for Vietnam... One day that entire region will be done with tyranny, oppression and radical Islam forever! That is after all the point of the war on terror... Stop thinking this is about 9/11 and start focusing on what it is really about. It's about ending terror and killing terrorist, their leaders, and those that support them. The world is a much safer place since GWB...
Guerilla has two missions. Tear America down, as others are starting to see, and pump a nut job (ron paul) who does the same. It gets old. Agreed. As I pointed out earlier, he is upset with the good news about Iraq, so he's worked ceaselessly to alter the direction of the thread by blaming America for anything he can come up with. It's the ceaseless attacks on America, my country, that are so disturbing to me. Asking questions in the form of canards, as if they are true, ignoring anything positive (unless his nutty candidate moves up 1% in the polls, then suddenly there is a miraculous call for Optimism...WTF?). When guerilla showed up. Any thread that even remotely mentions something positive about America, will be derailed by him. Yet, somehow, he believes he is a "patriot." Perhaps he is, but for America?
I agree with the statement to an extent, I do not agree with it however as I 'believe' Will has used it within the terms of 'fighting them in Iraq so we don't fight them here' in that case I do not agree with it as Iraq had nothing to do with us being attacked.
No, but they are part of the axis of evil, or were in what was described in Bush's State of the Union after 9/11. I remember vividly Bush said something to the effect that WE WILL GO AFTER THE TERRORISTS WHEREVER THEY ARE, AND THOSE THAT HARBOR THEM It is no secret that Iraq harbored terrorists, and was a nation that supported terrorism.. Again, I'm not talking about 9/11, and neither was Bush then or now. There was a mandate made by both Bush and Congress after 9/11 that we would have a policy of pursuing terrorists and those nations that harbor them, hunting them down and killing them all. That is exactly what we are doing. That is why we are in Iraq. That is why we are in Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. That is why we continue to pursue countries like North Korea and Iran as well... As a result, we've seen several nations, including Libya of all places voluntarily agree to let weapons inspectors from the UN into their countries. Voluntarily agree to destroy and WMD's, and move towards peace and diplomacy. The war in Iraq is not, and never was about 9/11. No one in the Bush administration, including Bush ever said it was. The media made that up to fire up those who just don't give a darn about facts, in order to further their own agenda. Look at the broader picture. The war in Iraq is part of the War on Terror... I hesitate to call it the War in Iraq because it is so much more than just that. It's only the beginning of a much larger conflict that will eventually involve the entire world in complete cooperation with our efforts to rid the world of terrorists. It's a step in right direction, whether people like it or not. We tried every other direction, and nothing seemed to work. Now that it is working, people seem to be more upset than when it was not. I just don't get that.
That would make sense if Iraq was actually harboring Al Qaeda, it was not. Every country in some form or another is harboring some 'terrorist' even the US last I looked. We were not sold on going in there for 'terrorists', several have tried to make an Al Qaeda and 9/11 link. To say 9/11 was not used to get us into Iraq is simply unrealistic. The fear from 9/11 was a huge factor in getting the american public on the war side. BTW Cheney never linked 9/11 with Iraq? Really now... http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/ I guess leaving it open for people to believe there is one does not count. The administration had a huge portion of the US believing they were linked via their methods. ---edit I'm sorry but I find the 'media' being to blame laughable, it was the administration and their supporters themselves who trumped 9/11. I watched the build up very, very carefully. The media in many cases questioned the links, it was the supporters of the admin and the admin themselves who continued to rant about 9/11 and Iraq, they used them together, not the media.
The point is, no one ever said they were. Wait, the media did.. And people picked up on that and ran with it... Grim, the fact is 9/11 was not the reason for entering Iraq.... I'm not talking about history we read somewhere, I am talking about history we all lived. No one in the Bush administration ever linked 9/11 or Saddam, or Iraq to 9/11 or visa versa.. No one.. This is the biggest misnomer on the planet with regards to those opposed to the war. We asked Iraq nicely over a period of some 14 or so years, along with the UN to submit to the terms and conditions he was subject to after the Gulf War. He refused... Instead of continually drawing a new line in the sand to cross the US decided to uphold the UN resolution and remove Saddam from power. It's just that simple.. No one was selling anyone anything with regard to 9/11. With or without 9/11 we would be in Iraq at some point in time... What kind of tactics did the previous Bush admin have to use to get us into the Gulf War? I believe the same chain of events and level of diplomacy starting with the UN was used as well. All that article seems to indicate is that there is some doubt.. Doubt in what Cheney may or may not think. Doubt in whether or not the intelligence is what it is or is not. Doubt in doubt itself.. I still see nothing conclusive that supports this illusion that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That is just what it is though ... doubt.. An open ended "doubt", nothing more nothing less.. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, is it? It's not out of the realm of possibility that the earth is 6000 years old, not 4.5 billion. So long as there is doubt, there will be doubters and visa versa... No one is blaming the media... I'm just telling you that the media tends to use artistic license and more often than not embellish things for the sake of making them news worthy... No one in the admin made links between 9/11 and Iraq... No one.. That is a complete media fabrication. I know you think that this was said.. I mean, again, like I always say, just cause you say it, does not make it so... If you hear a fact mis-stated enough, eventually it becomes a fact on its own. That does not mean it is a factual fact though.. If I said Hillary is the hottest chic on the planet enough, eventually people would start to believe it, given enough time and exposure. 9/11 and Iraq connections are the things that urban legends are made of... BTW, I'm eating pop rocks and drinking soda as we speak...
1. The essence of the agreement between Bush and al-Maliki setting up a long term presense of the US in Iraq smells of about 5-7 years of PNAC members writings and thinking that suggested the US needed to overthrow Iraq and establish a presense there that would change "in their view" the status of the middle east. 2. It strikes me as having the same impact on the US that the Isreali long term occupancy of Lebanon. It will drain, hurt, and demoralize Americans as it did Isreali's and not be the underpinning for dealing with fundamental Islamic terrorism. 3. Grim: I agree with your comment above. fighting in defense (does not mean) fighting in Iraq. 4. Guerilla: My comments don't have the "attack nature or intent of attacking" as do that of others. Having read your statements on Japan and Iraq vis a vis Kuwait they appear to me to be of the ilk that puts the onus of all wrongs on the US and none on other nations. When you reference Gulf of Tonkin it strikes me as being similarly incendiary in establishing a war tone to the build up to the war in Iraq. I would have to go back and research the news during that period to see how the President's efforts and public relations to the nation and Congress were effected. In both cases retrospect provides a clearer picture. Acting on the issues that confront the public and congress at a time of "build up to a war" or immediately after an attack or threat have clearly been "twisted" by this administration. It might well have been the case during the Gulf of Tonkin period. I haven't researched it. Of interest on a side/but associated note with regard to the Middle East the "peace talks" are commencing in Annapolis right now. Most middle eastern nations and representatives of many groups are attending. Not attending are Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and at least one other group. The majority of the public within the Arab/muslim world would probably like to see some negotiated peace. An armed and dangerous fundamentalist minority is strongly against it. At some point and with some concerted multifaceted effort of diplomacy, education, many facets including military-- the weight of an interest in peace rather than fundamentalist hatred will hopefully gain strength. We will see. Back to the OP. Yes there has been a significant drop in violence in Iraq over the last few months. I would attribute that in part to efforts of the surge. It would appear there is much more at work there as evidenced by the reduction in violence in the South of Iraq where the American military surge was not only non-existant, but the British were removing and repositioning their forces-> essentially the exact opposite of the "surge" which including increasing forces and engaging Iraqi militia, Al-Queda in Iraq, etc. The same results with completely opposite efforts. That remains a startling phenomena.
They were not removing forces, as I understand. Repositioning. Part of a strategy. We've also seen that many local tribes and leaders put aside differences and came together to fight the *real* enemy, and drive them out. What we can all hope for, with this success (however dismayed we may or not be by it, by the degree with which we seek to bring up objections), is that Iraqis are standing up on their own, realizing who the enemy is, and is fighting back together for a common cause. I don't care about the partisanship of it. Even though the democrats have prayed for and proclaimed defeat, prematurely in Iraq, they can even have the credit for it. After all, General Patraeus is responsible for the strategies (not Bush) and they overwhelmingly nominated him in. This, despite liberals like Moveon.org calling him a betrayer and some, even right here, bad mouthing him for his report a few months ago, which has pretty much been confirmed now. Bottom line: Surge in Iraq is working. It has been, and it's getting harder and harder for the doomsayers to twist it otherwise.
Seriously GTech, going from 8500 troops to 4500 troops would have been like taking American force levels from 130,000 to 69,000 rather than boosting troop levels to 160,000. But then I don't currently deny that the surge is working on the military front with regard to reducing overall violence levels.
I have no source to confirm that, earl. The source you provided early on, suggested a "relocation" from one part of the city, outside of the city.
Ah, but you guys didn't answer the question in context. How many civilian deaths are ok when you're practicing pre-emptive self-defense? If for every terrorist who dies, or every American who is protected 10 civilians are killed, is that acceptable? If it is not, is there an acceptable number of civilians to die as collateral damage?
And for that, I apologize for my overzealousness. The war has become a very emotional issue with me for personal reasons. On the contrary. I have zero support for Saddam or Imperial Japan. But wouldn't you agree that an oil embargo on the US during wartime might prompt a military response? Or that Cuba oil drilling in American waters a sovereignty issue? This is my point. We're taught to believe that Saddam, in all his immense evilness (which he indeed was one of the most evil men ever) just woke up one day and said, "I will be dining in Kuwait tomorrow." Or that the Japanese, already consumed on their Eastern front and the subjugation of Asia, decided it was a good idea to come across the Pacific, and provoke one of the most powerful countries in the world so they could fight on two fronts? The point I made by bringing these things up, is that the situation is rarely as simple as, "They attacked us because we are free." or "They attacked us because they are evil." Follow the money. It's the motivating factor for the decision makers, and fear or insecurity is usually the motivating drive pushed to the people. It's worth looking up. Past is present. I'm not convicting the people who acted under duress or bad intelligence. I'm not blaming the American people for believing their leaders pre-Iraq or pre-Vietnam. But I do blame any of those leaders who may have intentionally misled Congress or the people. That's impeachable. I only see two paths to peace. Genocide, or regional negotiation without western economic interests influencing the picture. As long as the US, Britain, the Oil companies et al have a stake in the Middle East, the people of the region will never have an opportunity to create peace on their own terms. Remember, the first world war saw the fall of the Ottoman empire, which divided up the Middle East, and has seen so many factions and borders created artificially by the victors. And this has led to the tensions. I posted this thread some time back, with an interesting article on US influence in the Middle East peace process. If you want more background, look up Flynt Leverett on YouTube. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=4901262
I sourced more for you. You simply choose to ignore it. Which is par for the course. Easier to attack me personally, and to attack my patriotism than to respond to facts. Which was my point to Earl. Everyone has an opinion, but why are all of the pro-war opinions from people who haven't done any research? Is the truth that big of a threat to their ideology? I've played the sourcing game since Day 1. I will continue to source to back up my positions. If only my detractors were willing to also back up their criticism of me with the same. But today, just like in Nazi Germany before the rise of Hitler, anyone who dissents is shouted down, and implied a traitor. And then these same people have the gall (which isn't surprising considering their intellectual dishonesty) to accuse me of cavorting with neo-nazis. Oh the irony. It's a sad state when nationalistic fanaticism overcomes common sense.
Then you should have no problem pointing it out, if you actually did. I responded with facts. They describe exactly what you do. I don't question your patriotism. I'm sure you are patriotic, just not to the USA. We have done our research. For example, when loonies say WMD were not found, and facts clearly show otherwise. Is the truth a threat to your ideology? If only that were true. I recall some discussions last week, where I repeatedly asked for sources, only to be ignored. That usually follows wild accusations about YOUR country, that are otherwise left opened. A sign, that the truth isn't important, but rather tearing one's country down is. You are aligned with a presidential campaign who has made racist statements and is drawing out neo-nazis and white supremacists. If that bothers your conscience, consider switching to a candidate who doesn't appeal to the shallow cesspools that make up about the same percentage, as RP has in national polls. It's sad when someone ceaselessly tears down their country and purposefully attempts to switch the direction of a post meant to do otherwise, then try to claim "patriotism" for which one does not deserve. If only you had the same discontent and disturbing things to say about a country that repeatedly threatens the US AND Israel, and has American blood on their hands. Nope...just kind words and "defense, love and devotion" for them.
Agreed. There are a number of reports that confirm this, though it does upset some who want to believe it isn't true. This particular report: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html This terrorist, responsible for America blood, was captured in Iraq where he had been harbored and given safe haven. I've covered this numerous times here, with source. I can't say why some continue to suggest the opposite, in plain view of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It either suggests "they" are trying to defend saddam, or trying to blame America first. Either way, is about par.
Right, well since you harbour the MKO (the terrorist organization that opposes Iran), Am I right in thinking that the rest of the world shall "go after" America? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml