Face it, the other side wins (War on Terror)

[jdsmith]

@Jaboney

[quote=“jdsmith”]But for the life of me, I don’t understand how you can be so confident that they will win.[/quote] I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m pretty sure that whatever happens, the US will lose, and that’s not good. I posted my reasons on page one.

Uh, where? The Sun Tzu: The Art of War quote?

I happen to think the main problem with “winning” the war these days is that too many damn people are watching. Fighting wars is a mean and nasty, horrifying business; nowadays, the US in particular is supposed to fight by some IMHO ludicrous “morally viable” war…bomb, but don’t bomb civillian areas; invade, but to set up legitimate governments run by the people you just decimiated…etc…no fucking wonder it doesn’t work very well.

I would think/hope that if the Great War the Islamic Fundementalists seem to want, the final war (ha!) ever arrives, the West and the US will damn the press, damn the polls and fight like it was fighting for its very survival…because if it does come to that kind of war, it will be a fight for survival…

However, we are not even close to that yet IMHO. 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, a few bombings in major western cities…horrible as they are…are simply not enough to justify putting western democratic society/civilization into the pot. I don’t think we’re even close to that kind of gambling yet.

And I don’t think anything has been that close on a worldwide scale since oh, about this time of year in Japan, about 60 years ago.

[Tigerman]

[quote=“Jaboney”]My main concerns are these.

1: Resourses: this stinking war’s expensive. Think of all the good that could have been done at home with those funds. And it’s not over. Nor is it paid for.[/quote]

WW2 was expensive.

[quote=“Jaboney”]2. “Other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
of your extremity.” North Korean, Iran, both pushing the limits because they know that the US is tied down elsewhere. Who else? Who next? Who’s going to use the US’s own justifications to launch their own wars? Nobody, I hope.[/quote]

NK and Iran were pushing the limits before the US got “tied down” in Iraq. Anyway, I’m not convinced that the US is “tied down” in Iraq. If we are tied down in any way, it is merely in terms of public approval… that is, we are restricted in what we do mostly be our present concerns re how our acts will be perceived by others.

@Jaboney

3. “There is no instance of a country benefiting from prolonged warfare.” And ending it in a millisecond would simultaneously usher in the end of American global leadership. Either way, America loses.

Define “prolonged”. Luckily, we are not limited only to the two possibilities you cite.

@Jaboney

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fight that needs to be fighting. But not this way. I criticize, and attack, and ridicule those responsible for this mess because I think that America deserves better. And the rest of us need a better America.

What would be better?

[MaPoSquid]

@Tigerman

[quote=“Jaboney”]Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fight that needs to be fighting. But not this way. I criticize, and attack, and ridicule those responsible for this mess because I think that America deserves better. And the rest of us need a better America.

What would be better?[/quote]
Indeed. Go nuclear on their asses? Buy them off? To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question. Hey, let’s hear your plan, eh?

[Bodo]

@MaPoSquid

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Jaboney”]Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fight that needs to be fighting. But not this way. I criticize, and attack, and ridicule those responsible for this mess because I think that America deserves better. And the rest of us need a better America.

What would be better?[/quote]
Indeed. Go nuclear on their asses? Buy them off? To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question. Hey, let’s hear your plan, eh?[/quote]

I think many in this IP forum have posted their “plans” or alternatives on other threads countless times. The caveat is that those who disagree with the Iraq quagmire didn’t advocate for going to Iraq in the first place. You seem to be asking for a plan or alternative to the present situation - well the present situation is FUBAR - I personally don’t have an answer to the current FUBAR situation. It gives me a migraine just thinking about it.

[Tigerman]

@Bodo

I think many in this IP forum have posted their “plans” or alternatives on other threads countless times (will try to find some links). The caveat is that those who disagree with the Iraq quagmire didn’t advocate for going to Iraq in the first place. You seem to be asking for a plan or alternative to the present situation - well the present situation is FUBAR - I personally don’t have an answer to the current FUBAR situation. It gives me a migraine just thinking about it.

I’m always amazed by the critics. They lament how terrible the sitation is now. They seem to completely lack perspective, or a memory.

If things are so horrible now… how bad were they in Iraq prior to the invasion?

Yes, there has been terrible loss of life since the invasion and occupation began. But, was there no loss of life or less loss of life prior to the invasion of Iraq?

Do you all honestly measure success of the type sought in Iraq by the immediacy thereof? Is that a realistic standard?

How exactly is the current situation FUBAR? Has there not been any progress since Saddam was ousted? Since the Iraqis took control of their government? Since the Iraqis voted? Can none of you see the slow, and yes often painful, advances taking place in Iraq?

Or do you simply refuse to see this progress?

[Jaboney]

Concerns expanded, questions answered & apologies for the length

Concern 1.

[quote=“Jaboney”]1: Resourses: this stinking war’s expensive. Think of all the good that could have been done at home with those funds. And it’s not over. Nor is it paid for. [quote=“Tigerman”]WW2 was expensive.[/quote][/quote] Yes, WWII was expensive, and from the moment German tanks crossed into Poland there wasn’t much choice left as to how to fight it. The same cannot be said here. The “War on Terror” needn’t have been a war, any more than the war on drugs, or war on poverty, ect. It’s a politically useful metaphor, but it gets in the way. Other options were there, and they were bipassed in favour of an all out war featuring no exit strategy, no planning for the day after–save for securing the oil ministry and a ticker-tape parade through Baghdad, and bad intelligence from guys who may or may not have been close to the Iranians.

What’s it cost so far, $180 billion or so? Where’s that money coming from? Not from Iraq’s own oil fields, as had been hoped–at least, not yet. Where’s it going? Not to the soldiers, that’s for damn sure.

I’ve never believed that Iraq II was about terrorism, or oil. The administration was talking about taking on Saddam ten days after the first inauguration… long before 9/11. Oil? Useful to control, but the US has other sources; still, a strategic chip in the grand game. What’s playing out was being planned while Clinton was still in office, though not by him. And no, it’s not a conspiracy, just a very well-crafted political program.

In September 2000, the good folks at The Project for a New American Century–including Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz–issued a report titled: Rebuilding America’s Defenses. In the preface to that report, the following excerpt from the PNAC’s Statement of Principles appears: [quote=“Project for a New American Century”] As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world

[Jaboney]

What would be better?
In the PNAC’s own terms, American ideals and maintaining good relations with long standing allies would be an excellent start.
[color=green]Edit- afterthought, should have concluded: “…in a battle for hearts and minds, ideals are powerful weapons.”[/color]

I appreciate that the desire to maintain America’s pre-eminent place in the world is quite natural. I believe that in many ways it could be quite healthy, for America and the world. Advanced arms are obviously a part of that, but a part only, not the whole. Allies, leadership, respect, trust, these all matter.

George W. Bush took office promising to be a uniter, not a divider, and yet America is more divided than it has been since Vietnam. America is also more mistrusted in the international realm. The vision that Bush offers to unite everyone is a desperately impoverished one: we love freedom, they hate our freedoms; you’re either with us, or against us. It just doesn’t cut it. I’ll happily line up alongside Americans–except when we’re playing hockey against each other or they’re screwing us over when another trade ruling doesn’t go their way. I will not line up to support Bush’s unnecessary war in Iraq; I will not line up to support the transfer of huge portions of the country’s wealth to already profitable corporations… not when there are schools, hospitals, police and firefighters who need and deserve the money. More importantly, millions of Americans do not support him, and hundreds of millions of people around the globe do not support him.

America was founded on fine principles, and has been refining and expanding the rights of its citizens ever since. It has been a world leader in human rights, an inspiration. Now, the administration is running a gulag in Cuba to avoid being forced to extend those excellent rights and principles as it ought. Passengers are pulled off of airplanes transiting through the US and deported to countries where it is known that they will be tortured because it is known that they will be tortured, and possibly say something useful. To send a message to the administration, it’s friends and allies voted to have SUDAN take a chair at the UN Commision on Human Rights over the US! Dismiss the institution if you will, the message means something. Does anyone, in anyway, think that this level of antagonism and mistrust is in any beneficial in bringing an end to terror?

The day after 9/11, I saw an editorial cartoon: the Lady Liberty, the Statue of Liberty, sitting on her pedestal, head in her hands, weeping. Behind her New York was still smoking. A year, two years later, another editorial cartoon. Lady Liberty, arms crossed, scowling in disgust, onboard a flight taking her back to France.

Yes, I think the administration could do better.

Offer a vision to unite Americans in what they are and what they could be, not what they’re against. Offer a vision and plan to the world to convince everyone else out there to join up, rather than stand aside in disgust.

America has so much to offer; those standing aside need to be inspired by something that speaks to the best parts of America, not from the wounded, angry, hurt.

[Danimal]

@Tigerman

[quote=“Bodo”]I think many in this IP forum have posted their “plans” or alternatives on other threads countless times (will try to find some links). The caveat is that those who disagree with the Iraq quagmire didn’t advocate for going to Iraq in the first place. You seem to be asking for a plan or alternative to the present situation - well the present situation is FUBAR - I personally don’t have an answer to the current FUBAR situation. It gives me a migraine just thinking about it.

I’m always amazed by the critics. They lament how terrible the sitation is now. They seem to completely lack perspective, or a memory.

If things are so horrible now… how bad were they in Iraq prior to the invasion?

Yes, there has been terrible loss of life since the invasion and occupation began. But, was there no loss of life or less loss of life prior to the invasion of Iraq?

Do you all honestly measure success of the type sought in Iraq by the immediacy thereof? Is that a realistic standard?

How exactly is the current situation FUBAR? Has there not been any progress since Saddam was ousted? Since the Iraqis took control of their government? Since the Iraqis voted? Can none of you see the slow, and yes often painful, advances taking place in Iraq?

Or do you simply refuse to see this progress?[/quote]
I think you’re missing the point, Tigerman. If Iraq was never necessary, these little baby steps of progress are irrelevant. It’s a bit like saying,

[Bodo]

@Tigerman

[quote=“Bodo”]I think many in this IP forum have posted their “plans” or alternatives on other threads countless times (will try to find some links). The caveat is that those who disagree with the Iraq quagmire didn’t advocate for going to Iraq in the first place. You seem to be asking for a plan or alternative to the present situation - well the present situation is FUBAR - I personally don’t have an answer to the current FUBAR situation. It gives me a migraine just thinking about it.

I’m always amazed by the critics. They lament how terrible the sitation is now. They seem to completely lack perspective, or a memory.

If things are so horrible now… how bad were they in Iraq prior to the invasion?

Yes, there has been terrible loss of life since the invasion and occupation began. But, was there no loss of life or less loss of life prior to the invasion of Iraq?

Do you all honestly measure success of the type sought in Iraq by the immediacy thereof? Is that a realistic standard?

How exactly is the current situation FUBAR? Has there not been any progress since Saddam was ousted? Since the Iraqis took control of their government? Since the Iraqis voted? Can none of you see the slow, and yes often painful, advances taking place in Iraq?

Or do you simply refuse to see this progress?[/quote]

Let me refer you to Danimal’s words below, and then go back and read the quote from me. I think this begins to answer your question, TG.

[quote]I think you’re missing the point, Tigerman. If Iraq was never necessary, these little baby steps of progress are irrelevant. It’s a bit like saying,

[Bodo]

By the way, excellent posts Jaboney. :bravo: :bravo:

What he said.

Bodo

[Bodo]

[quote]Tigerman’s words regarding the Bush Plan:

1. “Hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government.”

2. “Help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005.”

3. “Continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation’s infrastructure and economy.”

4. “Encourage more international support for Iraq’s democratic transition.”

5. “Enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.”

6. “Find and defeat the terrorists.” [/quote]

I’d say achieving only 2 out 6 stated goals (ala Tigerman) for Iraq is not a great record.

Bodo

[Tigerman]

[quote=“Bodo”][quote]Tigerman’s words regarding the Bush Plan:

1. “Hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government.”

2. “Help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005.”

3. “Continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation’s infrastructure and economy.”

4. “Encourage more international support for Iraq’s democratic transition.”

5. “Enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.”

6. “Find and defeat the terrorists.” [/quote]

I’d say achieving only 2 out 6 stated goals (ala Tigerman) for Iraq is not a great record.

[/quote]

If you want to look at it that way, I’d say its at least 4 of 6. Maybe 5 of 6.

In any event, there is no time limit on this.

[Tigerman]

[quote=“Jaboney”]What would be better?
In the PNAC’s own terms, American ideals and maintaining good relations with long standing allies would be an excellent start.[/quote]

You are talking about an ideal. Unfortunately, reality hits hard sometimes.

@Jaboney

I appreciate that the desire to maintain America’s pre-eminent place in the world is quite natural. I believe that in many ways it could be quite healthy, for America and the world. Advanced arms are obviously a part of that, but a part only, not the whole. Allies, leadership, respect, trust, these all matter.

Look, its not really all that important for us to have the trust of nations such as France. I mean, let’s be serious… France has been working to undermine US prestige and influence for how long? It isn’t as if France, Russia, China, Germany and a host of other nations really were trying to gain OUR trust… is it? Trust and respect are two-way streets.

@Jaboney

George W. Bush took office promising to be a uniter, not a divider, and yet America is more divided than it has been since Vietnam.

911 attacks.

@Jaboney

America is also more mistrusted in the international realm.

Is it really? Please think about this. Really? I doubt it. Really.

@Jaboney

The vision that Bush offers to unite everyone is a desperately impoverished one: we love freedom, they hate our freedoms; you’re either with us, or against us. It just doesn’t cut it.

Sounds good to me.

@Jaboney

I will not line up to support Bush’s unnecessary war in Iraq…

That’s your privilege. And yes, few things are necessary… but, sometimes one path is better than all the others.

@Jaboney

I will not line up to support the transfer of huge portions of the country’s wealth to already profitable corporations… not when there are schools, hospitals, police and firefighters who need and deserve the money.

Need and deserve. Why do you get to decide who needs and deserves what?

@Jaboney

More importantly, millions of Americans do not support him…

He was re-elected in a democratic election. He was elected to lead. A leader does what he/she believes is best.

@Jaboney

…and hundreds of millions of people around the globe do not support him.

Sorry if this sounds harsh… but I couldn’t care less. Al Qaeda doesn’t support Bush either.

@Jaboney

America was founded on fine principles, and has been refining and expanding the rights of its citizens ever since. It has been a world leader in human rights, an inspiration. Now, the administration is running a gulag in Cuba to avoid being forced to extend those excellent rights and principles as it ought.

1. Its not a gulag.

2. The detainees there are not entitled any special rights.

@Jaboney

Passengers are pulled off of airplanes transiting through the US and deported to countries where it is known that they will be tortured because it is known that they will be tortured, and possibly say something useful.

Bush isn’t the first president and the US isn’t the first nation to take special measures during war time.

@Jaboney

To send a message to the administration, it’s friends and allies voted to have SUDAN take a chair at the UN Commision on Human Rights over the US!

I don’t think the UN was sending any message to the US in that move. That was UN business as usual. Just like the corruption at the UN in the oil for food program. Yes, I completely dismiss the UN as any measuring stick of goodness and or moral authority. Fuck the UN.

@Jaboney

Dismiss the institution if you will, the message means something.

Yes. It means the UN is a pathetic pile of corrupt shit.

@Jaboney

Does anyone, in anyway, think that this level of antagonism and mistrust is in any beneficial in bringing an end to terror?

The mistrust and antagonism were there all along. What you folks don’t like is that the US is now not going along with the crap at the UN. You folks think that the US should just behave and do as the corrupt UN instructs. Screw that.

@Jaboney

The day after 9/11, I saw an editorial cartoon: the Lady Liberty, the Statue of Liberty, sitting on her pedestal, head in her hands, weeping. Behind her New York was still smoking. A year, two years later, another editorial cartoon. Lady Liberty, arms crossed, scowling in disgust, onboard a flight taking her back to France.

That means what? Nothing, IMO.

@Jaboney

Yes, I think the administration could do better.

Of course it could. And so could all of you and all of the nations that have dragged their feet or otherwise sought to undermine US efforts in this matter.

@Jaboney

Offer a vision to unite Americans in what they are and what they could be, not what they’re against.

Bush did that before he was elected the first time. Then… 911 attacks. When someone is punching you in the face, its a good idea to unite first against that person punching you in the face.

@Jaboney

Offer a vision and plan to the world to convince everyone else out there to join up, rather than stand aside in disgust.

That would be funny if it were not so sad. Bush did offer a plan… the corrupt UN dismissed it. You think the burdon is on the US to make this work… Its not. We’d love your support and assistance… but, do fuck off and stand aside in disgust if you don’t want to help. Like I care that France, Russia and China and Germany are “disgusted” at US actions. They ought to look at their own actions… there is plenty there for disgust if that’s how they wish to feel.

@Jaboney

America has so much to offer; those standing aside need to be inspired by something that speaks to the best parts of America, not from the wounded, angry, hurt.

Those standing aside need to reach down and check to see if they have a pair… and they ought to take a good look at themselves to see whether they have any standing to point the critical finger.

[Tigerman]

@Danimal

I think you’re missing the point, Tigerman. If Iraq was never necessary…

Of course the war is not necessary.

That doesn’t mean it is not the best of several possible paths that could have been taken.

That is the issue… not whether or not the war was necessary.

As such, the rest of your argument is moot, IMO.

[Danimal]

@Tigerman

Of course the war is not necessary.

That doesn’t mean it is not the best of several possible paths that could have been taken.

That is the issue… not whether or not the war was necessary.

As such, the rest of your argument is moot, IMO.

sigh
That’s not what Bush and Blair claim.

Tuesday, both leaders [Bush and Blair] said the invasion was necessary because Saddam had flouted U.N. sanctions requiring his government to give up its weapons programs.

cnn.com/2005/US/06/07/iraq.uk.memo/

Either way you want to phrase it is fine with me, but my point is still valid (not to mention swept under the rug). If Iraq wasn’t necessary (or if Iraq wasn’t the best poossible path blah, blah, blah), these little baby steps of progress that you refered to are irrlevant.

[Jaboney]

I get where you’re coming from Tigerman, I really do.

Enjoy your trip. Hope to see you when you get back.
Cheers, man.

[color=green]
And when you come back, how about a little less of this[/color]:

[quote=“Tigerman”] We’d love your support and assistance… but, do fuck off and stand aside in disgust if you don’t want to help…

Those standing aside need to reach down and check to see if they have a pair…[/quote]

[Rascal]

@Tigerman

[quote=“Danimal”]I think you’re missing the point, Tigerman. If Iraq was never necessary…

Of course the war is not necessary.[/quote]
Huh, since when it’s not ‘necessary’? Didn’t the US go in to make sure of Saddam’s WMD program/possession?
I mean that’s what you have been repeating as one of the reasons for the war - but now you say it wasn’t actually necessary to do that (considering the only means was going to war)!?

Please explain the apparant contradiction.

[mofangongren]

@Tigerman

Those standing aside need to reach down and check to see if they have a pair… and they ought to take a good look at themselves to see whether they have any standing to point the critical finger.

Those in the 101st Fighting Keyboardists might want to cease their standing aside and join the actual fray. Recruitment is currently going pretty badly in the U.S., and this would sure be a great way to show how much you support the war. Uncle Sam needs people.

[Jaboney]

[color=green]Mod note: Touche. Good jokes all 'round. Now, before we start getting silly, instead of just funny, could posters on both sides try to goad each a little less, and assume the best of each other a little more?
Batting ideas around vs. hurtling insults… hmm, one makes you smarter, one makes us all smell like we’ve been mucking out stalls.
Smart, stinky. Smart, stinky. Hmmm… [/color]

[mofangongren]

@Tigerman

[quote=“Danimal”]I think you’re missing the point, Tigerman. If Iraq was never necessary…

Of course the war is not necessary.[/quote]

The first step to recovery it to admit that this war was unnecessary, so I thank you very much for coming out with this. From its planning right on through it’s been clear that the Bush administration treated this war as something unnecessary or, perhaps more accurately, “frivolous”. How was it that we supposedly invaded to go after “WMDs” and yet did not have even enough troops to safeguard the sites that had already been identified and sealed by the UN inspectors? How was it that the Bush administration did not take the troops’ well-being seriously despite the increasing use of IEDs against them? After all, the DoD didn’t even bother asking the maker of armored humvees whether they could go to full capacity. Perhaps this war has been seriously hobbled by the fact that it does not match in with any of the criteria laid out in the Powell Doctrine by Powell and Weinberger – ideas aimed specifically at helping the United States avoid getting quagmired and bled in an aimless fashion.

@Tigerman

That doesn’t mean it is not the best of several possible paths that could have been taken.

Given how well it’s turned out so far – with the U.S. in the middle of nowhere and no way to get out, I guess there were some other equally valid uses of our military. For example, Bush could have invaded Antarctica. I hear there’s lots of whales and penguins down there to kill. Frankly, one good path would have been to focus on nailing OBL and his boys – guess Bush just took his eye off the ball to pursue a pre-911 obsession with Iraq. It’s like trusting a teenager with the car to go down and pick up some groceries – and 12 hours later you get a drunken call from two states away.

@Tigerman

That is the issue… not whether or not the war was necessary.

Right. And now that it’s been firmly established that the war was unnecessary and ludicrous, I think we can move on to other valuable topics.