THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
...you only go to war when you have exhausted all other options; that you go to war with everything and everyone you need, not incrementally; that you clearly define your objectives; and that your military leaves after winning the war.

When you are privileged enough to unilaterally decide when you shall go to war, that policy is a great one. However, what if you are not so privileged? What if a beligerent unexpectedly declares war against you and then commences to go to war against you via a series of attacks? Or worse yet, the beligerent doesn't bother to declare war on you until after a major attack has destroyed a major part of your weapons systems. Shall you not do what you think is most likely to successfully defend yourself against more such attacks? For example, shall you not take the war directly to the beligerent in the belief that the best defense is a timely offense, when waiting for the ideal circumstances appears to likely prove fatal?

After Pearl Harbor we were totally unprepared to defend ourselves, but after losing a great many battles, we we went offensive with such weapons system we had and attacked the Japanes Navy at Midway and the Japanese homeland via Billy Mitchell and company. Winning those and other small offensive battles bought us a great deal of time to build up our offensive capability to a level that would allow us to win.

We were adequately prepared to remove the Taliban government and the Saddam government. We were not and are not yet adequately prepared to win the reconstruction. We'll see whether time is on ourside and we will become adequately prepared.

0 Replies

perhaps highlighting a bit might help clarify:

Quote:

you only go to war when you have exhausted all other options; that you go to war with everything and everyone you need, not incrementally; that you clearly define your objectives; and that your military leaves after winning the war.

and btw, these are not my ideas, they are Powells, I remain a pacifist.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It really doesn't matter how many negative reports can be published in the media. None of the higher ups have been penalized in any way, and only the lower ranking enlisted are paying the price. humbug!

Until you learn otherwise, why not assume that the atrocities committed by individual troops are committed as a consequence of the actual atrocity perpetrators themselves and not their associates or their higherups? John Kerry played the same game as you are now. Less than two dozen atrocities (for all of which, the guilty perpetrators were imprisoned except perhaps for Kerry himself) yet John Kerry characterized that Vietnam problem as involving all our troops and all their leadership. In other contexts that sort of thing, blaming all the members of a group for the evil deeds committed by a few of those members, is called bigotry.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

perhaps highlighting a bit might help clarify:

Quote:
you only go to war when you have exhausted all other options; that you go to war with everything and everyone you need, not incrementally; that you clearly define your objectives; and that your military leaves after winning the war.

and btw, these are not my ideas, they are Powells, I remain a pacifist.

When one goes to war in reaction to being attacked, one rarely has "the time and means to go to war with everything and everyone you need, not incrementally; that you clearly define your objectives." One of the main reasons this is true is because one rarely has the time to figure out to a certainty what is everything and everyone needed and what will ultimately turn out to be the appropriate strategy and objectives to actually win. War is a trial and error process where the quickest witted/right-guessors win. War is not like some board game, say chess, where all the means, rules and objectives are known ahead of time. Even in chess one is often surprised by the creativity of one's opponent.

By the way, our military has not always left after winning due to the fact that the losers didn't always want us to go until after they became certain they didn't need our help reconstructing their country and government, and protecting same.

0 Replies

yeah you must be right, Powell must have been an idiot.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Personally JW I think you seem more hate filled than I do even though you have a postive delusional attitude about Iraq and the administration in general.

Revel. How many times do your posts start out with "I don't know anything about this, BUT...", or you are complaining about how "sad" you are, or you are whining about how much this administration "disgusts" you, or how depressing you find your current situation as it relates to politics and who knows what else. Get over it. I don't hate anyone and I've never been happier. My favorite president of all time has just been re-elected for another four years and we OWN the House and Senate and will have an even bigger majority in two years. Great things are possible and I'm both optimistic and ecstatic and excited to be witness to them.

I worked hard for President Bush and now that the election is behind me I am using that same amount of time in supporting our troops and their families everywhere. I'm organizing care packages and have built up a sizable list of regulars I support with cards, letters and emails. It's no sacrifice on my part because I get much, much more from them than they will ever know. It's just my very miniscule way of saying "thank you" and making sure what happened to the Vietnam vets when they returned does NOT happen to the current men and women serving.

If you are truly as unhappy and angry as you appear at the way things are going today, I suggest you stop complaining and get out and support those you want to see elected to effect the changes you so desperately think are needed. It's doable, but it's very time consuming and hard work. You won't have much time for complaining and grumbing.

Quote:

Those links were from yahoo, it just came out today. The reason that it is new is because of the way it came out. A wife a navy seal guy was just simply putting pictures that her husband brought home from Iraq on the internet and now there is an investigation because in the pictures the soldiers were torturing detainees. The reason that is important is because it was not in the aba whatever prison so that means that the abuse of prisoners was more widespread than the military people made out.

I don't care where your links came from, the story of the S.E.A.L.S broke two days ago and if you're just now getting around to knowing about it, I can't help you there. The name of the prison is Abu Ghraib and no, this SEAL incident is not nearly as bad, although I don't condone any type of misconduct. These men will be dealt with. Keep in mind that we have about 1.5 million in our volunteer military and these things are bound to happen from time to time, just as they have happened in ALL wars. I will tell you what DOES surprise me is that the incidents are SO relatively few and that it doesn't happen more often. Given what some of the men in Iraq have shared with me, I'm VERY surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Quote:

Also the fact that they were not doing those kinds of things in secret bothers me because that means it must be commonplace which puts another lie to the long list of lies that the top leaders of the military told during the prisoner abuse scandal.

You weren't there, you have no earthly idea how commonplace it is or is not and I find it rather ridiculous on your part that you have such willingness to jump to conclusions before an investigation has even begun. Your constant complaints of "lies" from anyone in this administration or in the Defense Department are so rampant, I don't even bother to reply to them anymore.

Quote:

Do you believe that because others do things wrong that anything we do is therefore right? Do you think we just have free reign to do anything at all as long as it does not seem as barbaric as beheading people?

I believe that although there are any number of reasons the men and women of this country volunteer to serve in the military we can't overlook one important motive, that being patriotism. I believe there are those both here on A2K and in this country and all over the world who see that statement as sentimental and corny, but you have only to TALK to these people to know that it's true.

I believe the media and people like you are ALWAYS going to focus on the VERY small numbers that break the rules or refuse to take orders or abuse the laws of war. This is to be expected. As I said above, I will continue to be AMAZED at not how many problems we're seeing, but how FEW.

Quote:

Personally people like you make me sad because you are so arrogant that you think we can do no wrong or if it is wrong it does not count because it is not as wrong as what others do

People like you are going to remain "sad" and that's not my problem or my current priority. You believe what you want to Revel, but I refuse to be sucked into your pessimistic, defeatist, melancholy little world. You have no clue as to the incredible danger and difficulties our soldiers are facing on a daily basis, and facing it with zero complaining and whining.

So pardon me while I continue to believe the US is the greatest country on the planet, and while I will always count my blessings to be a part of it.

My last suggestion is if you feel so "put upon" and annoyed by what I have to say, just don't read my posts. That's precisely what I plan to do with yours. We've been on this merry-go-round far too long.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

yeah you must be right, Powell must have been an idiot.

How about Powell is naive and/or simplistic, or, perhaps more likely, Powell is simply inadequately quoted by failure to include his qualifying assumptions on this particular subject? On the otherhand, idiots, for example, are those folks who accept the doctrines of others without first making their own analysis of their validity.

0 Replies

oh, I stand corrected. Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff later appointed to Sec State is/was simply naive. I defer to your superior judgement.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

oh, I stand corrected. Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff later appointed to Sec State is/was simply naive. I defer to your superior judgement.

My bet is you forgot or didn't know Powell's qualifying assumptions on his doctrine.

By the way, there you go again adopting someone's doctrine, mine in this case, without examining it yourself for its validity. Surprised

I'm curious. Are you a pacifist who is against all forms of self-defense or only some forms?

0 Replies

JustWonders,
It has been alleged that some people must encounter a significant emotional event derived from following their belief system, before they are able to change it.

Perhaps, you have just created such an event for revel. I hope so. If so, I will truly congratulate you both.

0 Replies

So it goes.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

revel wrote:
Personally JW I think you seem more hate filled than I do even though you have a postive delusional attitude about Iraq and the administration in general.

Revel. How many times do your posts start out with "I don't know anything about this, BUT...", or you are complaining about how "sad" you are, or you are whining about how much this administration "disgusts" you, or how depressing you find your current situation as it relates to politics and who knows what else. Get over it. I don't hate anyone and I've never been happier. My favorite president of all time has just been re-elected for another four years and we OWN the House and Senate and will have an even bigger majority in two years. Great things are possible and I'm both optimistic and ecstatic and excited to be witness to them.

I worked hard for President Bush and now that the election is behind me I am using that same amount of time in supporting our troops and their families everywhere. I'm organizing care packages and have built up a sizable list of regulars I support with cards, letters and emails. It's no sacrifice on my part because I get much, much more from them than they will ever know. It's just my very miniscule way of saying "thank you" and making sure what happened to the Vietnam vets when they returned does NOT happen to the current men and women serving.

If you are truly as unhappy and angry as you appear at the way things are going today, I suggest you stop complaining and get out and support those you want to see elected to effect the changes you so desperately think are needed. It's doable, but it's very time consuming and hard work. You won't have much time for complaining and grumbing.

Quote:
Those links were from yahoo, it just came out today. The reason that it is new is because of the way it came out. A wife a navy seal guy was just simply putting pictures that her husband brought home from Iraq on the internet and now there is an investigation because in the pictures the soldiers were torturing detainees. The reason that is important is because it was not in the aba whatever prison so that means that the abuse of prisoners was more widespread than the military people made out.

I don't care where your links came from, the story of the S.E.A.L.S broke two days ago and if you're just now getting around to knowing about it, I can't help you there. The name of the prison is Abu Ghraib and no, this SEAL incident is not nearly as bad, although I don't condone any type of misconduct. These men will be dealt with. Keep in mind that we have about 1.5 million in our volunteer military and these things are bound to happen from time to time, just as they have happened in ALL wars. I will tell you what DOES surprise me is that the incidents are SO relatively few and that it doesn't happen more often. Given what some of the men in Iraq have shared with me, I'm VERY surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Quote:
Also the fact that they were not doing those kinds of things in secret bothers me because that means it must be commonplace which puts another lie to the long list of lies that the top leaders of the military told during the prisoner abuse scandal.

You weren't there, you have no earthly idea how commonplace it is or is not and I find it rather ridiculous on your part that you have such willingness to jump to conclusions before an investigation has even begun. Your constant complaints of "lies" from anyone in this administration or in the Defense Department are so rampant, I don't even bother to reply to them anymore.

Quote:
Do you believe that because others do things wrong that anything we do is therefore right? Do you think we just have free reign to do anything at all as long as it does not seem as barbaric as beheading people?

I believe that although there are any number of reasons the men and women of this country volunteer to serve in the military we can't overlook one important motive, that being patriotism. I believe there are those both here on A2K and in this country and all over the world who see that statement as sentimental and corny, but you have only to TALK to these people to know that it's true.

I believe the media and people like you are ALWAYS going to focus on the VERY small numbers that break the rules or refuse to take orders or abuse the laws of war. This is to be expected. As I said above, I will continue to be AMAZED at not how many problems we're seeing, but how FEW.

Quote:
Personally people like you make me sad because you are so arrogant that you think we can do no wrong or if it is wrong it does not count because it is not as wrong as what others do

People like you are going to remain "sad" and that's not my problem or my current priority. You believe what you want to Revel, but I refuse to be sucked into your pessimistic, defeatist, melancholy little world. You have no clue as to the incredible danger and difficulties our soldiers are facing on a daily basis, and facing it with zero complaining and whining.

So pardon me while I continue to believe the US is the greatest country on the planet, and while I will always count my blessings to be a part of it.

My last suggestion is if you feel so "put upon" and annoyed by what I have to say, just don't read my posts. That's precisely what I plan to do with yours. We've been on this merry-go-round far too long.

You were the one to start responding to my post first and you were the one to respond to my post the last time. If you want to avoid me now because you find me too emotional or whatever that is fine with me because I find you to be mean and arrogant without cause.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

When one goes to war in reaction to being attacked, one rarely has "the time and means to go to war with everything and everyone you need, not incrementally; that you clearly define your objectives."

when one goes to war after having been attacked, one usually goes to war with the country that attacked you.

iraq has never attacked the united states of america.

so where is osama these days, anyway?????

0 Replies

False Hopes In Iraq

By Richard Hart Sinnreich
Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page B07

Gradualism rarely is a productive way to apply military power. War, as theorist Carl von Clausewitz reminded us, is not just the application of force against an unresisting object. Enemies adapt, and piecemealing combat power allows them that much more freedom to do it.

All of which is relevant to Iraq troop levels -- which, the Pentagon announced last week, will climb for the next few months to 150,000, the highest level since the war began. Only about 1,500 will be troops not already scheduled to deploy. The rest of the increase will come from extending the tours of the units the new deployments were intended to replace.

That's likely to arouse justifiable unhappiness among affected soldiers and their families. For all the benefits of unit rotation, raising expectations only to shatter them isn't one. As many have noted, the human burdens of this war are being borne by a very small number of our citizens in and out of uniform. Overstraining their undoubted dedication isn't wise.

But the broader question is what, in a military sense, 12,000 more troops for a few months will buy us. In that connection, recent trends are anything but encouraging.

This year alone U.S. troop levels in Iraq rose from 115,000 in February, to 130,000 in March, to 138,000 in May, to 140,000 in July, before dipping to 138,000 in September. During the same period, insurgent attacks on coalition forces, never mind Iraqis, rose from around 400 a month to 2,400.

That's an ominous correlation. It suggests that the insurgents have been able not only to withstand incremental U.S. troop increases but also to expand their operations significantly despite them.

There's no obvious reason to expect that another marginal troop increase will reverse that pattern. On the contrary, official announcement of the increase as merely a temporary measure to dampen violence in advance of January's scheduled election offers the insurgents every incentive to ride it out.

Given the overall scarcity of coalition forces in relation to Iraq's populated geography, that shouldn't be too difficult. From the outset, the military problem in Iraq has never been insufficient troops to defeat the enemy in battle, but rather insufficient troops to secure what they've won.

Now that we've belatedly decided to clear the insurgents from urban strongholds such as Samarra and Fallujah rather than simply hoping they would disarm, the problem is likely to mount. Each local success implies a subsequent requirement to secure the cleared locality, and troops committed to such occupation can't also continue to attack.

Nor, apparently, can we count on Iraq's fledgling security forces to bail us out. Even the most encouraging reports of their performance confirm that their reliability and effectiveness depend entirely on their continued integration with better equipped, trained and led coalition forces. Turning cleared areas over to them lock, stock and barrel isn't feasible yet.

Meanwhile, far from seeing an increase in other than U.S. forces, all the indications are that January may well see the departure or reduction of some current allied contingents. Presuming that these cutbacks would not include our British allies, the military consequences would be relatively modest, however uncomfortable the political ramifications. But they certainly wouldn't help.

All of which suggests that, as has been true from the first day of the invasion, this is America's war to win or lose. Barring an unlikely change of heart by those with little reason to have one, we had better start thinking seriously about what it will take to win it.

The odds are that continued gradualism won't. The temptation is to blame it on politicians too stubborn to admit that their predictions of cheap success in Iraq were monumentally wrong.

But that doesn't excuse military commanders who should know better and who repeatedly have insisted that they have all the troops they need even as events just as repeatedly have proved otherwise. A brand new lieutenant would blush at so consistent a pattern of military misjudgment.

That also happened 40 years ago, and we're still paying the price. Even the most stubborn leaders should be reluctant to risk making the same mistake again.

0 Replies

Images of fighting in Fallujah

Blogger's Display Is More Graphic Than a Military Slide Show

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page A20

Two photo-rich summaries of the battle of Fallujah -- one produced by the U.S. military in Iraq, the other by an anonymous American blogger -- highlight how the terrain in such counterinsurgency fights can be as much psychological as physical.

Both presentations have gained increasing Internet audiences recently and attempt to convey, among other things, the suffering imposed on Iraqi civilians in Fallujah.
That is where similarities end, however. The military's presentation depicts the fight for Fallujah as a liberation of a city from the insurgents. The Web log posts far more graphic wire service and other photos, and tends to point the finger of blame for civilian suffering at the military. [URL=http://][/URL]

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

when one goes to war after having been attacked, one usually goes to war with the country that attacked you.
iraq has never attacked the united states of america.

Serbia and Bosnia never attacked the US, but the Serbs were murdering Bosnian civilians. We invaded Bosnia and Serbia from the air and then occuied Bosnia on the ground to stop further mass murder. We still occupy Bosnia on the ground to stop further mass murder.

Sudan never attacked the US, but Sudan's government was mass murdering Sudanese civilians. We invaded Sudan to stop the mass murder only to flee when one of our black hawk heliciopters was shot down.

Al Qaeda declared war against Americans everywere, attacked Americans several times outside the US, and did attack the US once, so far, promising to do it again.

Afghanistan never attacked the US, but the Taliban in Afghanistan were mass murdering Afghanistani civlians, and were harboring al Qaeda. We invaded Afghanistan to stop the mass murder of civilians, replace the Taliban with a democratic government, and destroy al Qaeda there. We still occupy Afghanistan on the ground to stop further mass murder by the surviving Taliban, and complete the destruction of al Qaeda there.

Iraq never attacked the US, but the Baathists in Iraq were mass murdering Iraqi civlians, and and were harboring al Qaeda. We invaded Iraq to stop the mass murder of civilians, replace the Baathist government with a democratic government, and destroy al Qaeda there. We still occupy Iraq on the ground attempting to establish a democratic government, stop continuing mass murder by the surviving Baathists, and complete the destruction of al Qaeda there.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

so where is osama these days, anyway?????

Rumor has it that Osama is living in the south of France in Chirac's summer palace (newly reconstructed from one of Saddam's palaces formally in Iraq) where he occassionally acts in television short subjects written and produced by Michael Moore, and he frequently earns enough in this employment to make the payments on his kidney dialysis machine. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

On FOX NEWS SUNDAY
John McCain said:"The problem we have here is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy rather than taking initiatives from which the enemy has to react to," he said.
"And the problem, when you react, you have to extend people on duty there, which is terrible for morale. There's a terrific strain on Guard and reservists. If you plan ahead, then you don't have to do some of these things.

"The military," he said, "is too small."
--------------------------
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, said U.S. forces in Iraq are "still paying an awesome price for the initial failures on policy and refusal to change them of this administration, of going in with too little power and too little legitimacy."

Biden, who recently returned from a trip to Iraq, told ABC's "This Week," "We've won everything we've tried to do, including Falluja, but then we've lacked the resources to secure what we've won."

Biden said that, after his trip to Iraq, he was "less concerned about an outbreak of civil war than I am about the outbreak of civil chaos."

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

On FOX NEWS SUNDAY
John McCain said:"The problem we have here is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy rather than taking initiatives from which the enemy has to react to,"

McCain suggests the initiative of increasing our troop strength in Iraq. He doesn't adequately explain how those additional troops can be properly utilized to accomplish our objective of a democratic Iraqi government.

It appears to me that we have at least the following alternatives, all of which include postponement of our involvement in Iraqi reconstruction:
1. Take the initiative to ruthlessly eradicate not only the Iraqi rebels, but also all those Iraqis who simply appear to "adhere to [them], giving them aid and comfort."
2. Delegate to the Iraqis the responsibility for suppressing the rebels, and only kill rebels with massive fire power whenever and wherever they collect together in large numbers, but do not occupy locations formally held by rebels.
3. Divide Iraq into three independent self-governing, self-defending states: one for the Kurds in the north; one for the Shia in the south; and one for the Sunni in the center; and then help defend each state against invasion by either of the other states, but otherwise stop trying to suppress rebels in any of the three states.
4. Leave Iraq until another tyrannical government seizes power and/or al Qaeda is reconstituted, and then, alas, return to replace again that government with another provisional government and/or to again destroy the resident al Qaeda, ad infinitum.
5. Tell the rest of the major nations in the world we are leaving Iraq by a date certain unless they escalate their participation in the democratization of Iraq.

I don't like any of these alternatives. I like building up our troop strength in Iraq even less. I think that will merely enforce the already too pervasive perception by Iraqis that the US intends to permanently occupy Iraq.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
when one goes to war after having been attacked, one usually goes to war with the country that attacked you.
iraq has never attacked the united states of america.

ican711nm wrote:
Serbia and Bosnia never attacked the US, but the Serbs were murdering Bosnian civilians. We invaded Bosnia and Serbia from the air and then occuied Bosnia on the ground to stop further mass murder. We still occupy Bosnia on the ground to stop further mass murder.

serbia/bosnia was a nato and u.n. mission. though we have troops involved. and if, you'll remember, the right wing was not too happy about it.

rep/bos/senate

ican711nm wrote:
Sudan never attacked the US, but Sudan's government was mass murdering Sudanese civilians. We invaded Sudan to stop the mass murder only to flee when one of our black hawk heliciopters was shot down.

surely you mean somalia? operation restore hope? u.n. humanitarian mission, ya know, feed the people keep the baddies from grabbing all the food?

not an invasion

ican711nm wrote:
Al Qaeda declared war against Americans everywere, attacked Americans several times outside the US, and did attack the US once, so far, promising to do it again.

yes, they did. led by osama bin laden who would seem to become osama bin forgotten. even musharraf has given up the pretense of looking for him.

ican711nm wrote:
Afghanistan never attacked the US, but the Taliban in Afghanistan were mass murdering Afghanistani civlians, and were harboring al Qaeda. We invaded Afghanistan to stop the mass murder of civilians, replace the Taliban with a democratic government, and destroy al Qaeda there. We still occupy Afghanistan on the ground to stop further mass murder by the surviving Taliban, and complete the destruction of al Qaeda there.

hmm, gee i remember it more like even though the taliban had been revealed by multiple documentaries and news stories to be a bunch of bloodthirsty religious zealots, the administration didn't seem too bothered by it. (yeah, i know... what about clinton? 2 wrongs don't make a right)

and as i understood it, and supported it; the u.s. was going into afghanistan to get bin laden, kill al qaida, and in the process of which, unseat the taliban.

i have no problem whatsoever with the u.s. being in afghanistan. i'm not happy that vast resources have been siphoned off to iraq. the afghanis appear to be genuinely happy for our help.

ican711nm wrote:
Iraq never attacked the US, but the Baathists in Iraq were mass murdering Iraqi civlians, and and were harboring al Qaeda. We invaded Iraq to stop the mass murder of civilians, replace the Baathist government with a democratic government, and destroy al Qaeda there. We still occupy Iraq on the ground attempting to establish a democratic government, stop continuing mass murder by the surviving Baathists, and complete the destruction of al Qaeda there.

not what we were told it was about, at all. "iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction". good thing i thought it was bull$hit before it started. i haven't been disappointed by the lack of their existence.

the iraq mission is a disgraceful waste of american lives, american resources, american money and american status. and clearly, the iraqi people are not "grateful to be liberated" in sufficient numbers to be of much use, even to themselves.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
so where is osama these days, anyway?????

ican711nm wrote:
Rumor has it that Osama is living in the south of France in Chirac's summer palace (newly reconstructed from one of Saddam's palaces formally in Iraq) where he occassionally acts in television short subjects written and produced by Michael Moore, and he frequently earns enough in this employment to make the payments on his kidney dialysis machine.

yeah, that's a ridiculous non-answer to a question that YOU should be very anxious to have answered.

but that's o.k. as usual your partisan slip is showing...

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

when one goes to war after having been attacked, one usually goes to war with the country that attacked you. iraq has never attacked the united states of america.

ican711nm wrote:

Serbia and Bosnia never attacked the US, but the Serbs were murdering Bosnian civilians. We invaded Bosnia and Serbia from the air and then occupied Bosnia on the ground to stop further mass murder. We still occupy Bosnia on the ground to stop further mass murder.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

serbia/bosnia was a nato and u.n. mission. though we have troops involved. and if, you'll remember, the right wing was not too happy about it.

True, but that's not the point is it? The point is you said:

Quote:

when one goes to war after having been attacked, one usually goes to war with the country that attacked you.

And, that wasn't true in the case of serbia/bosnia, since they didn't attack us, did they?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

surely you mean somalia?

Right you are. I erred. It was Somalia not Sudan. So I fixed my original statement:

ican711nm wrote:

Somalia never attacked the US, but Somalia government was mass murdering Somalia civilians. We invaded Somalia to stop the mass murder only to flee when one of our black hawk helicopters was shot down.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

operation restore hope? u.n. humanitarian mission, ya know, feed the people keep the baddies from grabbing all the food? not an invasion

I think Osama had a different interpretation of what that war was all about.

The following text is an excerpt from a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

Quote:

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

So Osama bin Laden would apparently agree with me (if he were still alive) that we attacked Somalia without Somalia attacking us first.But you said:

Quote:

when one goes to war after having been attacked, one usually goes to war with the country that attacked you.

So this untrue of our invasion of Somalia.

ican711nm wrote:

Al Qaeda declared war against Americans everywere, attacked Americans several times outside the US, and did attack the US once, so far, promising to do it again.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

yes, they did. led by osama bin laden who would seem to become osama bin forgotten. even musharraf has given up the pretense of looking for him.

Naa... He's gone but not forgotten!

ican711nm wrote:

Afghanistan never attacked the US, but the Taliban in Afghanistan were mass murdering Afghanistani civlians, and were harboring al Qaeda. We invaded Afghanistan to stop the mass murder of civilians, replace the Taliban with a democratic government, and destroy al Qaeda there. We still occupy Afghanistan on the ground to stop further mass murder by the surviving Taliban, and complete the destruction of al Qaeda there.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

hmm, gee i remember it more like even though the taliban had been revealed by multiple documentaries and news stories to be a bunch of bloodthirsty religious zealots, the administration didn't seem too bothered by it. (yeah, i know... what about clinton? 2 wrongs don't make a right) [Huh ]and as i understood it, and supported it; the u.s. was going into afghanistan to get bin laden, kill al qaida, and in the process of which, unseat the taliban. i have no problem whatsoever with the u.s. being in afghanistan. i'm not happy that vast resources have been siphoned off to iraq. [No they haven't. That's WFNA twiddle. According to General Franks, the less than 20,000 US troops that originally went into Afghanistan are almost all still there.] the afghanis appear to be genuinely happy for our help.

True for the most part, but that's not the point is it? The point is you said:

Quote:

when one goes to war after having been attacked, one usually goes to war with the country that attacked you.

And, that wasn't true in the case of Afghanistan, was it?

ican711nm wrote:

Iraq never attacked the US, but the Baathists in Iraq were mass murdering Iraqi civlians, and and were harboring al Qaeda. We invaded Iraq to stop the mass murder of civilians, replace the Baathist government with a democratic government, and destroy al Qaeda there. We still occupy Iraq on the ground attempting to establish a democratic government, stop continuing mass murder by the surviving Baathists, and complete the destruction of al Qaeda there.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

not what we were told it was about, at all. "iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction". good thing i thought it was bull$hit before it started. i haven't been disappointed by the lack of their existence.

That isn't all we were told. Powell told us and the UN much more 2/5/03. But that's not the point is it? The point is you said:

Quote:

when one goes to war after having been attacked, one usually goes to war with the country that attacked you.

And, that wasn't true in the case of Iraq either, was it?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

the iraq mission is a disgraceful waste of american lives, american resources, american money and american status. and clearly, the iraqi people are not "grateful to be liberated" in sufficient numbers to be of much use, even to themselves.

Perhaps you will be shown to be correct about future Iraqi gratitude. However, I'm betting you'll be shown to be wrong about what you alleged to be waste and future Iraqi lack of gratitude. Also, before we invaded Iraq many of the al Qaeda in Iraq fled there from Afghanistan to join others already encamped there. They weren't having an innocent boy scout campout. They were planning subsequent attacks on the US.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

so where is osama these days, anyway?????

ican711nm wrote:

Rumor has it that Osama is living in the south of France in Chirac's summer palace (newly reconstructed from one of Saddam's palaces formally in Iraq) where he occassionally acts in television short subjects written and produced by Michael Moore, and he frequently earns enough in this employment to make the payments on his kidney dialysis machine.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

yeah, that's a ridiculous non-answer to a question that YOU should be very anxious to have answered.

It was a ridiculous question, so I gave it a ridiculous answer. I bet Osama died due to kidney failure, is buried in a cave in Tora Bora, and his former subordinates are currently running the al Qaeda show with an Osama stand-in or two for publicity purposes.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

but that's o.k. as usual your partisan slip is showing...

So is yours. And that's ok too.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know