*Thinks about it* Fuck what "sits well with my history", you fucking shmuck. I'll post what I want. I took back a lot of last night's shit, because it wasn't formed well, but the sentiments remain. I'm just not going to let it give me ulcers anymore is all.
No, it's the fact that the Kool-Aid drinkers will go to their graves muttering "We coulda won in Vietnam/Iraq/Wherever the Hell Some Future Administration Enmires Us, if it wasn't for the media and them goddamn hippies," because they're afraid their dicks will fall off if they admit, "Gee, I might have misjudged this thing back when the drumbeat started five years ago." It's redundant, boring, tiresome, and sounds like the echo from up Dubya's ass. In other news, it's a whopping 78 degrees here...a little warm for my part of the world.
Iraq IS losing us the War on Terror. Logically, to win the War on Terror, we must reduce the number of terrorists and terror incidents. Clearly, Iraq has increased both. Strike One. To deal with terrorists and those states that support them, we must have military resources available to deal with such. At present, our military is tied up in Iraq and frankly unable to take on true terror states, like Iran, which proceeds apace with its nuclear program knowing that we can't invade them. Sooner or later Iran WILL have the WMD's Iraq never had, and then what? The danger to America increases. Strike two. Thirdly, the war in Iraq has cost us political capital that would have been better used to build more international cooperation. We can't win this war singlehandedly, and acting like we can and ignoring the advice of our friends and allies when we are about to do something stupid does not gain us respect. Strike three. Even if Iraq turns out to be a peaceful democratic non-raging-towelie state (insert pause for bitter laughter), I don't see how it's going to turn out to be a "win" strategically, not with Afghanistan already losing ground to the Taliban and Iran getting the Bomb. Nor will it ever put Bush's legacy back together again, so I don't know why support for the war continues amongst otherwise intelligent people here. There must be something addicting in that Kool-Aid.
Double Post - Wordforge and the US Victory Plan for Iraq must be on the same slow and inefficient server.
No we don't. Although number wise it might look bad hundreds or thousands of new terrorists do not replace what organizations like Al Qaeda lose when big time guys like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed go down. Any random towlie in some random Middle Eastern country can inflict some damage on those around him by wildly firing off an AK but to be a serious threat to this country terror organizations need skilled plotters who can plan out severe attacks that are somewhat capable of succeeding.
And nobody thought they were much of a threat right up until 9/11. Seems to me that increasing their numbers also increases their resources, no?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html We might've thought that they weren't a threat at one time but that changed after the African embassy bombings and attack on the Cole. Some resources are more valuable than others.
True; they're aryan (entymologically related to the word "Iran."). They're also about equal to Arabs in terms of their cultural chauvinism. I know when someone abuses the language for cynical political purposes; one doesn't need to be a military strategist to do that.
Don't blame him for voting for Bush. Blame the Dems for not being able to run any candidate that could beat Bush. Fuck, a monkey should have been able to beat Bush and the best the Dems could come up with was John "Did I Mention I Have Three Purple hearts" Kerry.
1) And what has our war in Iraq done but increase islamic extremism? Hell, Iraq was one of the more progressive states in the region (barring the totalitarianism) 2) The administration manufactured those WMDs or at the very least relied on shitty intel. When Saddam sent documents elucidating the destruction of his former stockpiles, our government basically demanded that he prove a negative. Or face invasion. Nothing he could have done, even being innocent, would have stopped the invasion of Iraq. I am not saying he was innocent. The man was an evil pseudo-genius. But still Iraq had nothing to do with Osama, or the Taliban. If we wanted to deal with them, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and/or Iran. Or perhaps our so-called Allies in pakistan. But look? Just what was predicted 13 years ago? Wow.
Which we could have avoided if our management of the country were... you know... competent. I place the blame on the shoulders of policymakers for that... We should have instituted a modified version of our german/japanese reconstruction plans. Military dictatorship until the reconstruction is done
Not all terrorists or incidents are created equal. A bomb in a market in Ramadi and the attacks on the WTC on 9/11 are both terrorist incidents. But 100 of the former is nowhere near as significant as 1 of the latter. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and al-Zarqawi were but single terrorists, just as are each of the many hundreds of dissolute young men in Iraq fighting in the insurgency. But capturing or killing one of the latter is much more beneficial in terms of fighting the War on Terror than killing all of the former. So, I don't accept your premise that reducing both terrorists and the number of incidents is necessarily a measure of success in the War on Terror. I'd measure it by the amount of damage terrorists can actually do to US. And, at this point, it ain't much. But why? Your own premise is that fighting terrorists only creates them. When Iraq is stabilized, we will be in a much better position to put pressure on Iran. And we don't need to invade to be a threat to them. Iran is still years away from a bomb. There is still time for either (1) them to come to their senses or (2) for the West to intervene. And bases in Iraq will make an intervention--if it is necessary--far more effective. Other countries are already cooperating with us on the soft-approach to fighting terrorism. The civilized world has just as much to lose from terrorism as we do. No one else can really contribute much militarily. And we've always had plenty of friends and allies in our coalition. Iraq's already shown itself to have some capability at running a democratic government. It's still a work in progress, but it's certainly not without promise. The Taliban may claim an outlying village or two in some remote corner of Afghanistan, but they're not going to get back control of the country. And, as I said, Iran getting the bomb is not a foregone conclusion. Bush's legacy will not be written by his political opponents today. It will be written by historians tomorrow. But I'm unconcerned about that; I want us to make the best of our current options.
I mean "we", as in everybody, as in, it doesn't become a blackhole that sucks everyone in, and leads to WWI, II, & III.
There is a difference between fighting a group of people, and fighting them intelligently. Lesson 1. Do not Over-extend. We do not have the manpower, or the tactical doctrine, necessary to occupy 2 third world powder-keg nations anymore. We had difficulty when we did have the resources dealing with slavic looters during the occupation of germany. Let alone well funded terrorist groups. I am trying to find the exact numbers of troops needed, but I know it was in the hundreds of thousands to low millions (depending on when during the occupation). Which we no longer have at our disposal very readily, nor do we use a tactical doctrine that lends itself to land-based occupations like we did in WW2
Our handling of the insurgency has indeed left much to be desired. And unlike the claim that we caused the insurgency, that's an entirely legitimate criticism.
You're dictating what's legitimate!! Says the guy who was sniveling about the right to his opinion upthread.
