Coalition of the NOT so willing!

Discussion in 'The OT' started by jonstad, Oct 13, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/13/europe/web.1012britain.php
    Had enough? A whole raft of out own retired generals have characterized Iraq as everything from a mistake to a fiasco. Even our active commanders have grimly implied before Congress that we are now essentially in the position of playing referee in what may be a civil war, or at least may soon be.

    Britain's our only ally in this coalition with more than several hundred boots on the ground in Iraq. The rest(rather few with even two boots on the ground) are at best providing moral support. And even that we largely purchased with promises of aid and favors.

    So what's it gonna be? Are we going to stick it out until it becomes a coalition of the ONE???

    But then again, maybe Britain just doesn't have the "stomach for war"!:nono:
     
  2. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    3,363
    0
    Dec 17, 2003
    Does this sound familiar? Viet Nam.

    Repeating my own mantra-

    We won when we captured SH. On the outside we stay until the first election was executed. But now- we have no business there. Mission accomplished, a year ago. Time to elect an independent to the Presidency in 2008.
    Generals love a good war. This is not it. It is patrolling until you get killed or wounded. How the heck can you win when you already did that? Generals fight wars, they do not do nation building. Nations build their nation, not warriors from foreign countries.
     
  3. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    :disk: :sleeping: :zzz:
     
  4. skidog

    skidog Godfather

    400
    0
    Dec 2, 2004
    I heard something on the news this morning and I believe the British guy said that isn't what he meant. Sorry I'm not more clear on this I was running around getting ready to go to the cabin.
     
  5. durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    Terrorists are LOVING this. I wish more people understood our enemy and how they think.
     
  6. tommccann

    tommccann Legend

    182
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    And our world is a much safer place since the invassion of Iraq...

    Yeah, Right:nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:
     
  7. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    So, how far along are you on your bomb shelter or where you thinking of an escape route instead. I hear Canada is safe. Opps, scratch that.

    Just curious Tomm, where you for the invasion before you where against it? Be honest now.

    Bear!
     
  8. tommccann

    tommccann Legend

    182
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    Were you trying to say was I for the invasion of Iraq before I was against it?

    HECK NO!

    I believe this country has a right to defend itself. I do not, however, believe that this country should ever initiate a war. The incredible poor intelligence on WMD and total incompetence of President Bush and his cabinet has directly lead to the deaths of thousands of US and coalition soldiers and the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and created a perfect breeding grounds for radical Islam to flourish.

    For the record: I am totally against the US engaging in any military action against North Korea (or Iran). Any attack on North Korea would lead to a retaliatory strike by the North against South Korea, and our own military estimates show that 250,000 to 1,000,000 Seoul residents would potentially be killed.

    Bomb shelter! Allot of those left over from the cold war. Great for storing vegetables!
     
  9. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    Nothing like going to the "Roots" [cellar], Aye? :D :lol:

    Bear!
     
  10. Neil Derryberry

    Neil Derryberry Hall Of Fame

    2,014
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Would you rather the fight be on our shores then? Inaction on our part would have led to exactly that.
     
  11. tommccann

    tommccann Legend

    182
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Yeah, when......

    Purely speculation on your part.
     
  12. s8ist

    s8ist Banned User

    74
    0
    Aug 21, 2006
    This is some sorry rhetoric, and I'm surprised people still buy into it. One is the idea that somehow we are giving the terrorists what they want if we leave Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole concept of Islamic jihad is based on the premise that life is completely and utterly worthless in comparison to the rewards of the afterlife. There is no greater cause in Islamic radicalism than to die for Allah and his people. You pave the way for not only yourself, but also your family if you are a martyr. That being said, our presence in Iraq has created a convenient point of attack for terrorists. So in one way, the "fighting them over there, so they don't fight us over here" response is correct, but misleading because it assumes they wouldn't fight us on both fronts, and are not planning to attack the US again (which Bush even can't refrain from saying "We're safer but not yet safe.") He is saying that because we still have to fight them over here and we are.
    Let's take this discussion back to Iraq though. If the terrorists who have migrated and have been recruited within Iraq are unafraid of death, how will our withdrawal be giving them what they want? If anything, it makes it more difficult for them. This "appeasing the terrorists" rhetoric also wears thin because the conflict has taken a greater turn. The civil war among the Shiites and the Sunnis has now started, and we aren't prepared to handle a)insurgents, b)terrorists, c)political assassinations, d)security, e)sectarian violence. We were there to establish a democracy and help provide stability. We may have gotten them to vote but it seems that this is about where it ends. Even the CIA has said our presence there is breeding more terrorism. They are becoming more unstable, violent, and radical.
    If you do not understand that the terrorists would love nothing more than to die for the cause, then you are the one who does not understand the enemy. The war on terror should have been in Afghanistan or Pakistan so we could get the guy who is responsible for the attack on our soil on 9/11.

    I remember someone posted on a completely different site commenting that if this were WWII and Bush were president, the liberals would still be against him. I say if this were WWII and Bush were president, he would invade Antarctica and let Hitler off the hook like he did Bin Laden.
     
  13. durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    The biggest problem with that theory is that bin Laden himself said that our withdrawal from Somolia showed him that the United States didn't have the courage to fight which, in turn, encouraged him to step up attacks against us. 9/11 happened after our withdrawal. Removing ourselves from the conflict didn't make them drop their plans to bring the war to our shores. They will continue the kidnappings, the killings, the beheadings, and the like until they wipe out any Western or Jewish influence.

    We must remember that this enemy wants us dead. They don't want to negotiate and set up territorial and political boundaries.

    That same CIA report said that if we pull out of Iraq, it won't make the situation any better because it will embolden them even more. (That little snippet was omitted from many newscasts.) I agree that the enemy appears to be more unstable, etc., but that could be interpreted as "desperate." Corner an animal and you'll see how violent and radical it can get.


    That really doesn't dignify a response and is so far-fetched that is detached from reality, but...if Bush were fighting this war like FDR fought WWII, all Muslims would be rounded up to live in camps, entire cities would be bombed, not just military targets. FDR (and other presidents) have had the "luxury" of fighting enemies that had defined seats of power with politically drawn boundaries. There were armies to attack, capitals to seize.
     
  14. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    3,363
    0
    Dec 17, 2003
    Actually, I do believe that had we ignored all the issues with the inspections that were being stonewalled by SH, when the UN gave up and left, SH would have had a free pass to restart, initiate his continuation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons development as well as his missle delivery systems. To attack the US? probably not in this decade but definitly to retake Kuwait as well as take out Israel and then Saudi Arabia. We did the right thing by using our military might to put SH in Check Mate! Had we not done that when we did, By 2010 we would have had a huge problem to deal with. As it was, we went in and rather easily took out the man, and his government. The problem is, we need to get out and let the UN go back in and aid the Iraqi's on setting up a workable government that works for their civil war 3 parties. I don't understand where Bush thinks we need to do that. Probably he got a taste of playing war and likes it. Maybe if he got playing soldier out of his system when he was younger, he would have a more level head about it, like his dad. At least his dad knew he had a coalition to get Iraq out of Kuwait and then leave. GHWB was a soldier who know what his orders were. GWB is just a party animal with control of the military.
     
  15. s8ist

    s8ist Banned User

    74
    0
    Aug 21, 2006
    And I would be inclined to agree with you if I didn't think the reason why terror goes unchecked is because the people allow it to be unchecked. Their solidarity against us grows stronger and stronger because of our presence. There is still a resistance to this radical Islam, but it weakens every day we are there. The terrorists will ALWAYS want to kill us. But it is also a matter of how many are recruited, and how many people are influenced by their mindset. We haven't been winning the hearts and minds since then. I agree that simply withdrawing will not stop terrorists, I never claimed it would.
    You're right. No matter what, the plight of Islamic terrorists is simple. They will not stop until they have converted the world to Islam by threat of death.
    I don't think terrorists are any more desperate than they were before 9/11. Again, I think that shows how much you don't understand fanatical Islam. You can kill them in this world, but that will only mean you've brought them to Heaven. They really believe this, not like the average person in the US believes in Heaven. 9/11 and suicide bombings proves they are unafraid of death and the power and role of their faith in every affair (social and political). The whole point of terrorism is that it is warfare tactic of last resort which is obviously desparate, but powerful.

    Not accurate at all, which is why it was funny to respond to the person who made the rhetorical jab about Bush and WWII in the first place - we can see it isn't a great example. But I realize it was the sort of tongue-in-cheek strawman that only a self-proclaimed anti-Bush person would laugh at. But Muslims would not be rounded up in camps because they represent both the oppressor and the oppressed (it makes the WWII conflict seem simple). Whereas in Nazi Germany it was a clash between a megalomaniacal fascist Catholic, Hitler and the imprisonment and extermination of what he deemed to be genetically and morally inferior beings. The ideology of radical Islam only shares with Nazism a brutality that shows its cruelty and inhumane nature is blind to its own reflection.

    The truth is, terrorists don't care one way or another what we do. They will still want to attack us. The best thing we can do is defend ourselves and attack those responsible for 9/11. Our missteps aren't winning the hearts and minds of the people. This is what we should be fighting for. We need as many allies as we can get to fight these people with us. We will be standing alone on this one if we don't change our strategy. More troops or less troops. Let's make the decision at least.
     
  16. s8ist

    s8ist Banned User

    74
    0
    Aug 21, 2006
    by the way, Durl - Did you mean US rounding the Muslims up in camps or the Germans?
     
  17. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Many of us have been opposed to this ninny of a war from the very start on several grounds. We pointed out, quite accurately as it happens, that there was serious reason to doubt Saddam had the massive quantities of WMDs that were claimed. The IAEA had already concluded Iraq had no nuclear weapons or programs. That Saddam and Iraqis in general had nothing to do with 9/11. And if anything, Saddam and Osama were hated rivals rather than co-conspirators.

    But in addition to these objections, we also pointed out that beyond vague assurances that we would be "welcomed as liberators" and Iraqis would immediately embrace western ideas of freedom and democracy, there seemed to be no coherent or realistic plan for what would follow "regime change".

    Despite these objections and warnings, using the power of the Presidency, Bush was able to convince a majority of Americans this war was a good idea anyway.

    But Tom and I have not changed our minds. We have "stayed the course".:p This war was a bad idea to begin with and it's still a bad idea, and getting worse by the minute! The irony is that now, after ignoring our objections, warnings and predictions, accusing us of not supporting the troops, calling us un American and worse, now you turn to us cynically and ask, "what do you suggest we do now?"!

    Well, we suggested not to enter into this folly in the first place. And also if you weren't going to take our first suggestion, we suggested some contingency plans past having flowers strewn in our path and Iraqis kissing our feet.

    So now we are suggesting that we get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible. Assuming it was a legitimate goal to remove Saddam from power, we have acomplished that goal, several years ago now. Our continued presense in Iraq not only exacerbates the problems for us, but for the Iraqis as well. Will there be sectarian violence and death and terrorism in Iraq if we leave? Yes! But they've already got all that in spades WITH us there. What possible difference will it make if we leave? What possible good are we doing by not leaving?
     
  18. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    S8; and now jonstad [ Partially]
    If your premise is correct [ I agree by the way with the premise] that the radical Islamics want be a martyr to reap the happy rewards of after life then it makes little difference to them if they die there or here. If you understand them better than say durl or most of us than you would understand they would rather die here then there. Simply because they would see that as living up to their Jihad calling, "death to America".

    They are as fascist as Hitler ever was, actually more so, if that is even possible. Hitler was a Socialist secular fascist while these people are Muslim sectarian fascists reminiscent of 1000 years ago..

    You as many keep talking about Bin Laden as if he was still orchestrating the Jihad. He is the one that brought it to our shores and woke us up but Jihad against America existed long before he decided we where weak and unwilling to fight by our lack of action and retaliation for decades.
    The major underlying leadership and funding is now in/from Iran. Yactham Immejihad has a 100 fold hatred for us than bin Ladin and far better funded to boot. His finger [hand] prints are all over the "insurgency" in Iraq. This unknown (?) war between Iran and us really started in 73/74. And has bubbled to the surface since he took control.
    THe people of Iran are pro western and very american-esk and this is fueling the religious fanatics there more crazy.They have to annihilate us to regain total control over the Iran populace.

    THe Muslim Islamic fanatic fascists use terrorist tactics in their war/jihad as well as somewhat conventional methods in Iraq. Here to, by infiltration of Mosques, prisons, neighborhoods, and our society. [witness the demands they have on us to adapt our lives and laws to suit their cultural way of life and the prevalent appeasement] There are topics on this board about it. They have been emboldened since all this appeasing bellyaching began in this country as in France to change the dress code at their beaches {to start} The newspaper rules in Sweden, the work laws in England. WE did not shut the nation down on Saturdays to accommodate the Jews but a cop now can wear a turban instead of a cap and a driver license now can not show a womens face if she wants.On and on. No they may not be more desperate now but they sure are emboldened. Unlike our immigrant parents that wanted everything this country had to offer.

    The mantra and drum beat to attack those responsible for 911 has long since been accomplished except maybe bin Laden himself. Most died on 911 and he to will get his but he isn't the problem, never was. He is/was a small part in a very big problem that we let slip out of control a long time ago.

    A interesting poll just done by FOX said that 73% of Americans believe we will have a full scale war with the muslams in the next 20 years. That should frighten you considering how many are here already. This I have believed for some years but not many knew or acknowledged the seriousness of this coming war until it came to NYC and WDC. They are already waging war on us here and elsewhere but many think its no more than a passing police action and its our fault their mad because we are in Iraq. Bull ticky. This didn't just start 1 mo before 911.
    The war is already here in our country but not out in the open, yet people like yourself are thinking the same way as you did during the 70,80,90s.

    When we went into Iraq we knew that it would centralize the war in the middle east. That was the plan. IT was like a 2-fer or may a 3-fer. There was no way any planer was going to tell the NY Times that and tip off the jihad-ests, they took the bait. If we allow Iraq to slip away from us now we won't be able to go back. No, Nobody lied but the strategy, as all war stratagys, was not revealed for damb good reason. Me, I think it was brilliant and its working if allowed to work.. Read the Art of War. .

    If you objectively look at the circumstances of us going in and the rhetoric from the administration about the fact that it was "central" to the war on radical Islam you may start to see the method and importance of Iraq. It borders the biggest problems Syria and Iran but its surrounded by "friendly"nations. Turkey, Saudi Arabia,Kuwait, UAE, and not far from Jordan, Israel and even Lebanon.

    Yes I would rather keep the war there because they have shown their propensity and willingness to bring it here to us.

    Don't missunderstand me. Its not the Moslims or even Islamics. Its the fanatics that have taken over their religion and the lambish Muslims that will follow them as they are now. Witness, you never hear Muslims speak out against them as you/we speak out against our leaders and policys/actions. That alone should at the least concern you that it may be close to being here and thats close enough.

    Bear!
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    As an aside, perhaps you could explain how Hitler was either "Socialist" or "secular"? That should be interesting.:sure:

    Certainly, anyone wishing to be a martyr would rather do so in as a spectacular a fashion as possible. And in a manner that advances the cause they believe in as much as possible. And so "they would rather die here then there". But I think you far overestimate who "they" are, and their numbers. Although there are radical elements of Islam, just as there is, has been and will be again amongst Christians, Hindus, etc., I still believe most Muslims, just like most Christians and Hindus, just want to live their lives, raise their families and worship their God in relative freedom, peace and safety whether they live in Tehran or Toledo. That said, I agree the current numbers of radical Islamists are higher and their actions more problematic than any Christians, Hindus, etc. are at present.

    I'm not sure what newspapers in Sweden or labor laws in England, or "polls" of what will happen in 20 years have to do with anything.:confused: By now you should understand that my position in all this could be summed up by two words, "SCREW RELIGION!" If you want to wear a turban or cover your face in your private life, you are welcome to look and act the fool. But if you want to be a cop or drive a car, you have to wear the required regulation headgear or show your face on your driver's license. And to insist on that is not an infringement on freedom of religion. In fact IMHO, allowing exceptions for religious tradition in such cases has exactly the opposite effect. It mandates these traditions can be imposed on the rest of us. Should my "religion" require I strip naked three times a day and moon in the direction of Las Vegas, or that I can't leave the house without smearing my face with sheep dung, should my employer be required to accomodate my "traditions"?

    I find this line of reasoning a little hard to swollow. It sounds much more like rationalization after the fact. If we were to decide to create an example the Muslim world could follow, wouldn't it make much more sense and be much easier and less costly to cajole or bribe one of our despotic allies in the region, say Egypt or Saudi Arabia, into reforming themselves into the model democracies we wish for as examples to the region? Both are repressive, autocratic regimes and both are breeding grounds for terrorists. But we choose not to put diplomatic, economic nor military pressure on either of them. In fact, we seem to apply these measures to precisely the opposite end, to keep these regimes in power at all costs.
     
  20. s8ist

    s8ist Banned User

    74
    0
    Aug 21, 2006
    I don't think it makes little difference. I think it's more convenient for them to carry out jihad on Americans on foreign soil. It would be too simplistic to think they wouldn't try to fight us over here simultaneously. In fact, thanks to British intelligence thwarting the terror plot to blow up two planes using liquid explosives in the US, we are able to say we avoided some tragedies. The fact that we are in Iraq did not prevent that from happening. An awareness of terrorism combined with great intelligence and police work and a great relationship with Britain allowed this interception to happen. It is not only proof that terrorism can be prevented, but that it requires help from the international community. Another plane, another country, and we might not be so lucky. They are more than capable of fighting us in Iraq AND at home.

    His party used the moniker "Socialist" but it was anything but. Fascist and Socialist are pretty much ideologies that reside on opposite sides of the spectrum. But Hitler? Secular? please read the following quotes

    # I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]


    # Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

    # I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46]
    # And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174]

    # I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

    # Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 171]

    # For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

    # While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]


    # The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

    ^^^This quote in particular could show a similarity between Islamic radicals and Hitler's mindset. So I can see where you are coming from on this. But fascism also requires a nationalistic pride, which many Islamic countries lack-they also seem divided by religion (Sunnis and Shiites).

    I wouldn't believe FOX News if they reported the sky was blue. There has been so much erroneous reporting. A survey done (PIPA) on different news outlets showed that the majority of people who thought that 9/11 and Iraq were connected were the same people who watched FOX News. We know it isn't true. BUSH HIMSELF has had to admit it several times.

    Well, I don't like religion and I do worry about the consequences of religious radicals, however I don't believe all Muslims condone terrorism, especially not American Muslims. I do know who Gadhan is, but he's an exception. Islamic terrorism was not invented as a mere reaction to the Bush administration. It is a product of the social construction of Islam that has been influenced by years of foreign policy by many different countries. Israel, the cold war, deals with dictators, ... all of these things and more have influenced this radical political/religious movement.
    But to pretend that there are no political moves we can carry out other than military action seems to be a fallacious argument; especially when the evidence suggests our presence has brought more of a negative effect (breeding more terrorism, more deaths than under Husseins rule as a result of our invasion, more torture now than under Hussein's rule). I criticised Clinton and the UN for the sanctions that killed 1,000 people a year because of hunger, but this is worse!

    I'm thinking about plans, results, strategies. What is Bush's plan? The Democrats have a plan for going after terror. They think they need to get to Al-Qaeda again. I agree. What happened to at least getting the guy who is responsible for 9/11. We look like a number of things to the international community:
    1)Weak- for letting bin Laden get away,
    2) Stupid - For attacking the wrong country,
    3) Inconsistent - for letting Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran get away with developing nukes,
    4) Ineffective and Greedy - For not solving the problems in Afghanistan, and instead going after Iraq, whose largest contracts go to Halliburton.

    We're only digging ourselves a deeper hole. Islamic radicals may exist as long as I live, but we can decide how much influence they will have based on how our foreign policy can either help or hinder the Muslim peoples of the Middle East.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall