US military's own report: US faces Vietnam collapse in Iraq

[memyselfI]

Now, why would the military's own officers want to compare Iraq to Vietnam? Why do they want to hurt the troops and want America to lose???? :hmmm:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2023865,00.html

An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.

The officers - combat veterans who are experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the "new way forward" strategy announced by George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province.

But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, according to a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations.

"They know they are operating under a clock. They know they are going to hear a lot more talk in Washington about 'Plan B' by the autumn - meaning withdrawal. They know the next six-month period is their opportunity. And they say it's getting harder every day," he said.

By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, American officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion.

But the next six months are make-or-break for the US military and the Iraqi government. The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus's team are:

· Insufficient troops on the ground

· A "disintegrating" international coalition

· An anticipated increase in violence in the south as the British leave

· Morale problems as casualties rise

· A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad.

"The scene is very tense," the former official said. "They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis. But they're still trying to figure out what's the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they're thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do."

The team is an unusual mix of combat experience and academic achievement. It includes Colonel Peter Mansoor, a former armoured division commander with a PhD in the history of infantry; Colonel HR McMaster, author of a well-known critique of Vietnam and a seasoned counter-insurgency operations chief; Lt-Col David Kilcullen, a seconded Australian officer and expert on Islamism; and Colonel Michael Meese, son of the former US attorney-general Edwin Meese, who was a member of the ill-fated Iraq Study Group.

Their biggest headache was insufficient troops on the ground despite the increase ordered by President Bush, the former official said. "We don't have the numbers for the counter-insurgency job even with the surge. The word 'surge' is a misnomer. Strategically, tactically, it's not a surge," an American officer said.

According to the US military's revised counter-insurgency field manual, FM 3-24, written by Gen Petraeus, the optimum "troop-to-task" ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 US and allied troops in the city alone. Current totals, even including often unreliable Iraqi units, fall short and the deficit is even greater in conflict areas outside Baghdad.

"Additional troops are essential if we are to win," said Lt-Col John Nagel, co-author of the manual, in an address at the US Naval Institute in San Diego last month. One soldier for every 50 civilians in the most intense conflict areas was key to successful counter-insurgency work.Compounding the manpower problems is an apparently insurmountable shortage of civilian volunteers from the Pentagon, state department and treasury. They are needed to staff the additional provincial reconstruction teams and other aid projects promised by Mr Bush.

The cut in British troops in southern Iraq, coupled with the actual or anticipated departure of other allies, has heightened the Petraeus team's worries that the international coalition is "disintegrating" even as the US strives to regain the initiative in Iraq, the former official said.

Increased violence in the south is expected, caused in part by the "displacement" of Shia militias forced out of Baghdad by the US crackdown. American and Iraq forces entered the militant Shia stronghold of Sadr City on Tuesday for the first time since the surge began. No other major operation has yet been attempted there but "we or the Iraqis are going to have to fight them", one US officer said.

According to a British source, plans are in hand for the possible southwards deployment of 6,000 US troops to compensate for Britain's phased withdrawal and any upsurge in unrest.

Morale is another concern in the Green Zone headquarters: American forces are preparing for a rise in casualties as the crackdown gathers pace. In a message to the troops after he assumed overall command last month, Gen Petraeus praised their sacrifices while warning of more "difficult times" to come.

"We serve in Iraq at a critical time ... A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder to shoulder with our Iraqi comrades we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher," Gen Petraeus said.

"It's amazing how well morale has held up so far," the former official said. "But the guys know what's being said back home. There is no question morale is gradually being sapped by political debates."

The advisers are also said to be struggling to prevent the "politicisation" of the surge by the Shia-dominated government. The fear is that any security advances may be exploited to further weaken the position of Baghdad's Sunni minority.

Despite progress this week on a new law sharing Iraq's oil wealth, the Petraeus team believes the government is failing to work hard enough to meet other national reconciliation "benchmarks" set by Mr Bush.Yet it is accepted that the US is asking the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to do what most politicians in normal circumstances would refuse to contemplate. "What we're doing is asking Maliki to confront his own powerbase," one officer said.

Possibly the biggest longer term concern of Gen Petraeus's team is that political will in Washington may collapse just as the military is on the point of making a counter-insurgency breakthrough. According to a senior administration official, speaking this week, this is precisely what happened in the final year of the Vietnam war. Steven Simon, the national security council's senior director for transnational threats during the Clinton administration, said a final meltdown in political and public backing was likely if the new strategy was not seen to be working quickly.

"The implosion of domestic support for the war will compel the disengagement of US forces. It is now just a matter of time," Mr Simon said in a paper written for the Council on Foreign Relations. "Better to withdraw as a coherent and at least somewhat volitional act than withdraw later in hectic response to public opposition... or to a series of unexpectedly sharp reverses on the ground," he said.

"If it gets really tough in the next few months, it will throw fuel on the fire in Washington," the former official said. "Congress will be emboldened in direct proportion to the trouble in Iraq." If the policy was not judged to be working by Labor Day (the first Monday in September which marks the start of the new political year), Mr Bush could lose control of the policy to Congress and be forced to begin a phased pull-out, he suggested.

A senior Pentagon official said this week that it was too early to gauge the strategy's chances of success - but preliminary reports were encouraging. "There are some promising signs. There is a new overall Iraqi commander in Baghdad. A number of joint operations have just begun. The number of political murders has fallen. Iraqi forces are showing up as promised, admittedly a little bit under strength, and are taking up some of the responsibilities that Maliki said he would,"he said. "We have to be realistic. We're not going to stop the suicide bombers and the roadside explosive devices for some time. And the military alone are certainly not going to solve the problem. Maliki has to meet the benchmarks. A civilian surge is needed, too. The Iraqis have to do it themselves."

US officials say they also have rising hopes of a breakthrough in Sunni-dominated Anbar province where tribal chiefs are increasingly hostile to al-Qaida and foreign fighters - and are looking to build bridges with moderate Shias.

But this week's US decision to join talks on Iraq with Iran and Syria, after previously refusing to do so, is nevertheless seen as an indication of the administration's growing alarm at the possibility of a historic strategic failure.

[patteeu]

a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat

There is no question morale is gradually being sapped by political debates.

Possibly the biggest longer term concern of Gen Petraeus's team is that political will in Washington may collapse just as the military is on the point of making a counter-insurgency breakthrough. According to a senior administration official, speaking this week, this is precisely what happened in the final year of the Vietnam war.

To the extent that a comparison is being made to Vietnam, it looks like they're pointing the finger at you.

[Sam Hall]

:rolleyes:

[memyselfI]

To the extent that a comparison is being made to Vietnam, it looks like they're pointing the finger at you.

Uh-huh, and if the guys in the WH and Pentagon could have won this by now, or at least figure out a way NOT to lose, then there would be no fuggin debate...

But Gosh, those debaters have been there on the battlefield and in the way the entire time. ROFL ROFL ROFL

[Taco John]

That's what happens when you send the troops in without a plan for victory. This war is being lost in the Oval Office.

[ChiefaRoo]

This is what happens when you have a feckless, ignorant population whose more interested in Britney's bald head than the reality of how the world is.

I think that the troops will come home prematurely and in ten to fifteen years we can all revisit the error while we look at the radioactive hole where NYC once stood.

[trndobrd]

Your thread title is misleading. The article contemplates a potential "Vietnam style"...the reporter's words, not quoted from an military official...withrawl because of loss of political and public support.

[Ultra Peanut]

This is what happens when you have a feckless, ignorant population whose more interested in Britney's bald head than the reality of how the world is.

I think that the troops will come home prematurely and in ten to fifteen years we can all revisit the error while we look at the radioactive hole where NYC once stood.The War in Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorism, aside from fueling more of it. The fact that you seem to believe it does makes you even less observant than the "feckless, ignorant population" you speak of.

[chagrin]

He said we have six months, what's the problem? Let the surge begin and get it done.

Meme, laughing at any perceived "bad news" about the war is really in poor taste but what else can we expect from you and yours?

[StcChief]

This is what happens when you have a feckless, ignorant population whose more interested in Britney's bald head than the reality of how the world is.

I think that the troops will come home prematurely and in ten to fifteen years we can all revisit the error while we look at the radioactive hole where NYC once stood.

or maybe the NK terrorists will take out gay SF and do us all a favor.

[patteeu]

The War in Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorism, aside from fueling more of it. The fact that you seem to believe it does makes you even less observant than the "feckless, ignorant population" you speak of.

Irony.

[NewPhin]

or maybe the NK terrorists will take out gay SF and do us all a favor.

Lovely, just lovely.

[Extra Point]

Right or wrong, we're in it. The surge in troops will include a future son-in-law, within the next 4-6 months. More surveillence, interaction, and sniper fire.

Whatever your feelings are in the matter, we need to support the men and women in the military, who hopefully can get in, get the important work done, and come home. Alive.

[Radar Chief]

Uh-huh, and if the guys in the WH and Pentagon could have won this by now, or at least figure out a way NOT to lose, then there would be no fuggin debate...

But Gosh, those debaters have been there on the battlefield and in the way the entire time. ROFL ROFL ROFL

It took you 15 minutes to come up with that weakazz deflection? You’re slip’n.

[Radar Chief]

Lovely, just lovely.

Dude, we’re talk’n San Fran here. Next time try “fabulouth”. ;)

[StcChief]

Lovely, just lovely.

your safe in Fayetteville...terrorists can't even spell it.

[BucEyedPea]

This is what happens when you have a feckless, ignorant population whose more interested in Britney's bald head than the reality of how the world is.

I think that the troops will come home prematurely and in ten to fifteen years we can all revisit the error while we look at the radioactive hole where NYC once stood.
I don't think those over at the Cato Institute, American Conservative, Rockford Institute, or the Independent ( all right wing institutes who are anti-war) are feckless and ignorant nor do they have any interest in Britney Spears. They've just have had the emotional stamina to not fall for emotional demogaguery and can see not only the folly but the half-truths of what's going on. Including the hijacking by some international-leftists of the party.

[pikesome]

I don't think those over at the Cato Institute, American Conservative, Rockford Institute, or the Independent ( all right wing institutes who are anti-war) are feckless and ignorant nor do they have any interest in Britney Spears. They've just have had the emotional stamina to not fall for emotional demogaguery and can see not only the folly but the half-truths of what's going on. Including the hijacking by some international-leftists of the party.

Or they could be so wrapped up in their own intellectual superiority that, rather than fixing what we have, they spend their time pointing fingers and bitching. There has to be some way to get us out without quiting, packing up our toys and going home. This throwing up of the hands needs to stop, we do it every time something isn't easy and/or done the way we want.

[BucEyedPea]

Or they could be so wrapped up in their own intellectual superiority that, rather than fixing what we have, they spend their time pointing fingers and bitching. There has to be some way to get us out without quiting, packing up our toys and going home. This throwing up of the hands needs to stop, we do it every time something isn't easy and/or done the way we want.
I think that's more accurate for some of the "intellectual" NeoCons at the WH, many who jumped shipped later pointing fingers and bitching about Bush's imcompetence and not taking any responsibility for their share in the matter. Not to mention the remaining ones, who want to go further with more of the same policy, including false reports, by striking Iran. The guys I follow, have advocated very sensible solutions ( including on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which is the core problem) which have been summarilary dismissed. I've posted them. The guys up in the real DC are hell-bent on conquest.

What's that sayin'? Doing the same thing, over and over again, to no result is a form of insanity? Our presence is fueling the insurgency. We can't do anything about the sectarian stuff.

[pikesome]

I think that's more accurate for some of the "intellectual" NeoCons at the WH, many who jumped shipped later pointing fingers and bitching about Bush's imcompetence and not taking any responsibility for their share in the matter. Not to mention the remaining ones, who want to go further with more of the same policy, including false reports, by striking Iran. The guys I follow, have advocated very sensible solutions ( including on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which is the core problem) which have been summarilary dismissed. I've posted them. The guys up in the real DC are hell-bent on conquest.

I'm not going to argue that Bush's crew is steering the ship right but why is it always a binary question? It's either "Nuke Iran" or "Run Home To Momma". Middle ground would be the prudent choice here, I think, which would mean that the Cato guys would have to settle for troops in Iraq and the WH would have to quit screwing with Iran. Could be done if everyone wasn't so convinced that compromise is wrong because they are so right.

[noa]

What's that sayin'? Doing the same thing, over and over again, to no result is a form of insanity? Our presence is fueling the insurgency. We can't do anything about the sectarian stuff.

Yep, it also reminds me of that William Blake line from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell: "If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise."

[noa]

I'm not going to argue that Bush's crew is steering the ship right but why is it always a binary question? It's either "Nuke Iran" or "Run Home To Momma". Middle ground would be the prudent choice here, I think, which would mean that the Cato guys would have to settle for troops in Iraq and the WH would have to quit screwing with Iran. Could be done if everyone wasn't so convinced that compromise is wrong because they are so right.


Exactly. Considering the situation we are in, every option should be on the table for consideration. That includes partitioning, taking a middle ground, whatever.

[BucEyedPea]

I'm not going to argue that Bush's crew is steering the ship right but why is it always a binary question? It's either "Nuke Iran" or "Run Home To Momma". Middle ground would be the prudent choice here, I think, which would mean that the Cato guys would have to settle for troops in Iraq and the WH would have to quit screwing with Iran. Could be done if everyone wasn't so convinced that compromise is wrong because they are so right.
Binary solution? I think that also applies more to Bush and his Krewe...they see it all in terms of two-valued logic as in forces of evil versus good.

Bush has planned from day one on keeping troops in Iraq anyway, because he has been building bases and the largest US embassy there, so what's your point?

One of the ME's main complaints has been our troops' presence on their lands. Just read binLaden's letter.

Oh and ftr, at first I was against pulling out up to about 8 months ago. Again, it's our presence that's fueling the insurgency. I've recommended partitioning for over two years. So don't complain about my not recommending any middle-ground just because you missed a bunch of earlier posts. That applies to the Krewe up in the WH.

[pikesome]

Binary solution? I think that also applies more to Bush and his Krewe...they see it all in terms of two-valued logic as in forces of evil versus good.


It's a problem both sides are guilty of. I still hear people bitch about the handling of Iraq by saying "Bush stole the election". How the hell does that help? Bush and Co seemed to have looked up "hubris" in the dictionary and thought it sounded good to them. What's my alternative? A whinny letter from Congress and threats to quit paying so the troops come home. I'm not pleased with my choices. Everyone who hasn't cut bait on Iraq sides with Bush and everyone else isn't about to be seen trying to work out a compromise. I guess frustration is at the top of my feelings at the moment.

[BucEyedPea]

Well you outta read The Independent Institute if you're sincere in what you have said here. They are reasonable, imo, and have recommend good solutions that, as I said, have been summarily dismissed.

I surmise the reason is not really stupidity up in the WH, but is a hidden agenda. Not totally hidden by all who don't rely on news sound bites. I say that agenda, can be seen because you can pick up bits and pieces from comments and even read whole mission statements in their think-tank writings; then watch what they do. That agenda is and always has been a full all out assault on the ME that's not already a puppet govt or ally ( because they too have terror links) to remake it. As Condi says we are "witnessing the birth pangs of a new ME!"

The purpose of war: to restructure territory and power.

[pikesome]

Well you outta read The Independent Institute if you're sincere in what you have said here. They are reasonable, imo, and have recommend good solutions that, as I said, have been summarily dismissed.

I surmise the reason is not really stupidity up in the WH, but is a hidden agenda. Not totally hidden by all who don't rely on news sound bites. I say that agenda, can be seen because you can pick up bits and pieces from comments and even read whole mission statements in their think-tank writings; then watch what they do. That agenda is and always has been a full all out assault on the ME that's not already a puppet govt or ally ( because they too have terror links) to remake it. As Condi says we are "witnessing the birth pangs of a new ME!"

The purpose of war: to restructure territory and power.

It's the same as the last 200 years of US history, put a government that will allow us to compete fairly (ie give us as much advantage as possible) in power and support it. I guess school was out when Iran, part 1, was being discussed. It should be possible to learn from our previous lessons and find a plan that might work better. I still hold that being in Iraq wasn't bad to start but it's clear that Bush's crew hadn't learned anything from history.

[BucEyedPea]

I was against Iraq from Day One solely on gut feel and not reading anything.
I saw debates on it on my former Buc board and I didn't like it at all.

I did support Afghanistan.

I am opposed to how the WoT is being conducted, in this post Cold War, even if I am for aspects of it. Those supporting Iraq from Day One have failed to learn from history too. There is a quote by RR after he pulled out from Bierut I posted once. I think he was wise. It's hubris to think we can always win these things or engineer an entire region via military means. Cripes! Even the Japs thought they were liberating the Pacific before we went to war with them.

[alanm]

Right or wrong, we're in it. The surge in troops will include a future son-in-law, within the next 4-6 months. More surveillence, interaction, and sniper fire.

Whatever your feelings are in the matter, we need to support the men and women in the military, who hopefully can get in, get the important work done, and come home. Alive.
Don't expect any support from Denise. She's rooting for the Iranians.

[penchief]

To the extent that a comparison is being made to Vietnam, it looks like they're pointing the finger at you.

Your point is well taken but the failure of Viet Nam was not the fault of those who opposed imposing our political will on countries that were unwillig partners, but was more accurately the fault of tunnel vision; much like that which is being promoted by the power-quo in our Iraq misstep.

[ChiefaRoo]

I don't think those over at the Cato Institute, American Conservative, Rockford Institute, or the Independent ( all right wing institutes who are anti-war) are feckless and ignorant nor do they have any interest in Britney Spears. They've just have had the emotional stamina to not fall for emotional demogaguery and can see not only the folly but the half-truths of what's going on. Including the hijacking by some international-leftists of the party.


Those institutions don't give this nation strength. The people do and when the people get weak the politicians get weak and then all hell breaks loose. **** it. I live in KS and when a major city gets hit again by a weapon funded by hate and oil money I'll still be here but the blue state bed wetters who live in said big city will be gone. Take Jiz for example. He lives in Arizona which is home to an out of control border and the largest Nuclear Reactor in the US. When someone walks a WMD across the border and detonates near the Nuke plant then you pussies can watch your family die in front of you while remembering that we needed to be compassionate enough not to build a fence or to stop the bad guys (by bringing the troops home) who took advantage of said fence not being built. We'll see if this country has the wisdom to keep itself safe and prosperous. I think we do but it's going to take a terrible event to really learn the lesson.

[ChiefaRoo]

The War in Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorism, aside from fueling more of it. The fact that you seem to believe it does makes you even less observant than the "feckless, ignorant population" you speak of.

Wrong peanut. The war in Iraq is about control of the region and the flow of oil money. Will it go to a peaceful country or rogue elements bent on crushing the infidel in the name of God? Saddam was just a convenient target. This is big picture stuff and the majority of Americans don't get it.

Regarding the whole bullshit canard of the US creating more terrorists. It's a false premise. History will show you these crazies have attacked us for decades and ignoring them makes them more powerful. What they don't like is our way of life. They don't like freedom you twit, they don't like you and they don't like me and if you have a vagina you better shut up, put the burka on a not look sideways at a man or your going to get shot in the back of the head in an empty soccer stadium. So you have a choice in their minds. Renounce freedom and prostrate yourself before their version of Islam or die.

Some of you people are fools who have no concept of the enemy we are up against. The fact is some of you are too stupid and weak to be free.

[BucEyedPea]

Wrong peanut. The war in Iraq is about control of the region and the flow of oil money.
It is about control of the region. You must have read PNAC too.
Oil was already flowin'. No problems there.
None of these things have anything to do with a bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan who hate America. Peanut is right. You don't fight evil with another evil.

[BucEyedPea]

Those institutions don't give this nation strength. The people do and when the people get weak the politicians get weak and then all hell breaks loose. **** it. I live in KS and when a major city gets hit again by a weapon funded by hate and oil money I'll still be here but the blue state bed wetters who live in said big city will be gone. Take Jiz for example. He lives in Arizona which is home to an out of control border and the largest Nuclear Reactor in the US. When someone walks a WMD across the border and detonates near the Nuke plant then you pussies can watch your family die in front of you while remembering that we needed to be compassionate enough not to build a fence or to stop the bad guys (by bringing the troops home) who took advantage of said fence not being built. We'll see if this country has the wisdom to keep itself safe and prosperous. I think we do but it's going to take a terrible event to really learn the lesson.
Ideas mark the forward progress of a nation—not bullets and invasions. Those should only be necessary for providing defense. Offensive wars are not defense. Wars destroy economies. They don't make it prosperous...that's only for certain industries.

So much for providing strength for our nation when we have porous borders at home that the same CIC has been reluctant to protect, until his hand was forced, and who supports amnesty for the invaders. Many of whom, I am sure, may be from the ME.

What a bunch of inconsistent policies.

[go bowe]

He said we have six months, what's the problem? Let the surge begin and get it done.

Meme, laughing at any perceived "bad news" about the war is really in poor taste but what else can we expect from you and yours?one man's poor taste may be another man's bile...

or something like that...

[go bowe]

Irony.hey...

why do you hate people for having freckles???

[Taco John]

Some of you people are fools who have no concept of the enemy we are up against. The fact is some of you are too stupid and weak to be free.


ROFL HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*WHEEZE*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

*WHEEZE*

AAAAAAAH! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!


What a ****ing jackass! HAHAHAHAHA!

[go bowe]

Don't expect any support from Denise. She's rooting for the Iranians.somebody has to root for the underdog...

it's the american way, after all... :p :p :p

[go bowe]

Those institutions don't give this nation strength. The people do and when the people get weak the politicians get weak and then all hell breaks loose. **** it. I live in KS and when a major city gets hit again by a weapon funded by hate and oil money I'll still be here but the blue state bed wetters who live in said big city will be gone. Take Jiz for example. He lives in Arizona which is home to an out of control border and the largest Nuclear Reactor in the US. When someone walks a WMD across the border and detonates near the Nuke plant then you pussies can watch your family die in front of you while remembering that we needed to be compassionate enough not to build a fence or to stop the bad guys (by bringing the troops home) who took advantage of said fence not being built. We'll see if this country has the wisdom to keep itself safe and prosperous. I think we do but it's going to take a terrible event to really learn the lesson.9/11 wasn't a terrible event?

there's quite lot of dead folks who think it was a terrible event...

if 9/11 wasn't enough to teach us the lesson that you obliquely refer to, what would it be?

[go bowe]

* * *
...too stupid and weak to be free.we're free?

how come nobody told me til now...

i just bought some leg shackles really cheap...

and i got a jr. spitting hood too...

[ChiefaRoo]

It is about control of the region. You must have read PNAC too.
Oil was already flowin'. No problems there.
None of these things have anything to do with a bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan who hate America. Peanut is right. You don't fight evil with another evil.

1) We're not evil. We're not an empire, we don't even care if they truly like us. Our interests only lie in these countries joining the world in the goal of moving civilization forward - I.e. China.
2) In the wrong hands the money is fungible and can be moved around the world outside of the banking system into the hands of people like A.Q Khan.
3) Those cavemen are only the delivery vehichles. If they receive real weapons funded with oil money that's when it gets serious for us.

Pea your're a smart person I know you get this.

[ChiefaRoo]

we're free?

how come nobody told me til now...

i just bought some leg shackles really cheap...

and i got a jr. spitting hood too...


My friend you're only imprisoned by your lack of mental capacity.

[ChiefaRoo]

9/11 wasn't a terrible event?

there's quite lot of dead folks who think it was a terrible event...

if 9/11 wasn't enough to teach us the lesson that you obliquely refer to, what would it be?

9/11 is so far in the past for most people they don't even feel it anymore. 9/11 was terrible from my point of view. I'm talking about an event that could kill tens of thousands, damage the world economy and cause us to a destroy nation like Iran or NK in retaliation which would bring even more death. That kind of scenario gets more likely as the world becomes more advanced technologically. These primative cultures have to be changed. If not it's just a matter of time before ideology and technology combine to produce wide scale death.

[ChiefaRoo]

ROFL HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*WHEEZE*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

*WHEEZE*

AAAAAAAH! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!


What a ****ing jackass! HAHAHAHAHA!


More a moron Taco and a Donkey fan.

[Taco John]

Whatever you say, fascist.

Dur duh dur duh durrrr.... I'm jest too stupid to be free... Der duh der duh derrrr.

[BucEyedPea]

1) We're not evil.

1)a.Did I say "we?" I'm talkin' 'bout certain people in the WH advising this very unAmerican belligerence. I am NOT referrin' to the American people who see through this charade of "defense."

And what I meant by "evil" was having to kill over 100,000 ( some say as high as 650,000) innocent people, mostly women and children, to keep oil flowin?

What happened to respect for human life?

We're not an empire, we don't even care if they truly like us.
1)b. Well, one of those advising for this strategy is Charles Krauthammer, a leading NeoCon pundit. He was boasting and bragging on tv about how we are an "empire" now. It may not be in the form of 16th through 19th century "colonies" but in the modern form of "bases." We're in s/g like 140 countries now.

Your post was reminiscent of past empires that desired to "control" regions for their resources. How is that different from the Soviet Union having to eke out an existence thru conquest? How is this in alignment with the principles of free markets and trade/exchange for such oil? We don't have to conquer for it, we can just buy it.

I don't care if they like us or not; but I do care that certain policies incite other peoples to kill us.

Our interests only lie in these countries joining the world in the goal of moving civilization forward - I.e. China.
How is such global social engineering consistent with limited govt principles of conservatism?
How can conservatives cry about liberals social engineering at home when our party claims we have to socially engineer abroad. Activist govt is not conservative and it's expensive...and deadly.

This too is reminiscent of past empires. Rome claimed they were bringing the barbarians civilization. The commies claimed they brought national liberation. The Japs claimed they were bringing liberation to the Pacific. The Spanish claimed to bring salvation.


2)a. In the wrong hands the money is fungible and can be moved around the world outside of the banking system into the hands of people like A.Q Khan.
So what if any money moves around outside of the banking system. I support monetary freedom. I thought terror related accounts were frozen anyhow. Are you saying we need a global police state to handle this?

You can't control everybody in a country (or a family, heck I can't even control myself sometimes) let alone an entire planet.

3)a. Those cavemen are only the delivery vehichles. If they receive real weapons funded with oil money that's when it gets serious for us.
Maybe we should wage a coup in Saudi Arabia then instead, since some of their money has gone to the same and most likely still does. And secure our own freakin borders.

You do know that Pakistan, our ally, is a terrorist haven now?
This is guerilla war, very decentralized and with use of computers and the net.
It can't be won with conventional nation state warfare. And we are not winning it.

I suggest we engage Iran, Syria even, on their 2003 proposals which include resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict fairly, as well as support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Then get off their lands and let them be the type of countries they want with their own Muslim rulers.

However, I don't agree that these cavemen were just the delivery vehicles...they are not allied with Iran, Iraq or Syria. It's a separate movement known for large scale attacks. In fact that's part of my whole disagreement. Iran considers binLaden an enemy anyway. Iran is even claiming terrorist attacks on it's eastern border with Afghanistan.The others do their dirty work in Israel. BinLaden attacked America directly.

The problem IS TOO much govt. More is not the solution.

Pea your're a smart person I know you get this.

I appreciate the compliment. You're smart too but there are smart people on both sides and smart people can disagree. It has nothing to do with smarts though. It has to do with values.

[go bowe]

This is what happens when you have a feckless, ignorant population..and just what would YOU know about freckles?

[go bowe]

My friend you're only imprisoned by your lack of mental capacity.yeah, i'm actually a fat little retart kid with no arms and a brain the size of a cracked walnut...

[go bowe]

9/11 is so far in the past for most people they don't even feel it anymore. 9/11 was terrible from my point of view. I'm talking about an event that could kill tens of thousands, damage the world economy and cause us to a destroy nation like Iran or NK in retaliation which would bring even more death. That kind of scenario gets more likely as the world becomes more advanced technologically. These primative cultures have to be changed. If not it's just a matter of time before ideology and technology combine to produce wide scale death.nobody i know has forgotten about 9/11,,,

the rest of your post i pretty much agree with...

especially the part about the ideology meeting technology thing...

that's gonna be a real problem...

actually it already has happened on the tactical level...

did you hear they found a bunch of those new armor piercing road side bombs that have to have come from iran, due to the level of sophistication of the weapons... [probably should have used a "?" there]

[go bowe]

More a moron Taco and a Donkey fan.hey now...

mit romney is a mormon...

and taco isn't (because he's holding out for that 72 virgins thing)...

[go bowe]

Whatever you say, fascist.

Dur duh dur duh durrrr.... I'm jest too stupid to be free... Der duh der duh derrrr.that's ok...

btw, it's freckles, not feckles...

[ChiefaRoo]

nobody i know has forgotten about 9/11Hello - commatard on the loose.,

the rest of your post i pretty much agree with...

especially the part about the ideology meeting technology thing...

that's gonna be a real problem...

actually it already has happened on the tactical level...

did you hear they found a bunch of those new armor piercing road side bombs that have to have come from iran, due to the level of sophistication of the weapons... [probably should have used a "?" there]

I disagree there is a significant portion of our population that has chosen to forget 9/11. It's too painful for them, it's too real and they just don't want to think about it so they hide themselves in our pop culture and concentrate on things that don't contain any harsh reality. For example, take the whole Anna Nicole fixation in the media. It's being driven by ratings which are driven by people. I think it's fantastic that people devote orders of magnitude more time thinking about how a drug addicted, ex-stripper lived and died than what is going on in Washington and around the world. While I do understand the curiosity of such trivia it seems to me that too many people have simply checked out of reality in this country.

Democracy only works if the people participate in the process. If the people give away their power through non-participation they will get a progressively weaker and less effective government which is the beginning of the end of a democracy. No democracy in the history of man has survived as long as the US has. The Greeks, Frenchies are all younger in terms of longevity of their democracies past and present. Democracy is very powerful as long as it is defended but if the people abandon their responsiblity to participate and hold accountable our pols then it can and will eventually collapse into a form of socialism and then totalitarianism as the government will cease working for the people and in turn will begin to dictate to the people.

[ChiefaRoo]

Whatever you say, fascist.

Dur duh dur duh durrrr.... I'm jest too stupid to be free... Der duh der duh derrrr.

Fascism backed by a fanatical following of brain washed religious zealots is what we're fighting against my man don't you understand that? You seem to be one of those people who think that all cultures on planet Earth are equal. They're not. The USA changed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and look how that has turned out. Not too bad. The crazoids in the Muslim world need to be defeated as well. Pea has a point in that the solution is NOT just a militarily one. I agree the military isn't the end all the Iraqi people are. That being said I have no problem using the US military as a tool to defeat less advanced cultures to defend our democracy and to give these people a chance to have their own form of elected govt. You can't just play defense. Defense will lead to a destroyed city. You can't wait until the bad guy flies a dirty bomb into the Sears Tower before you react.

By the way the US hasn't killed 650,000 or whatever the number of Iraqis who have died Pea. The people dying everyday now are by and large the result of tribal warfare. I would say it's better to let them spill each others blood until they figure out they don't want any more killing than to let a dictator sit on top of oil money that could find it's way into the hands of bad guys who want to destroy us. The Muslim worlds blood is on it's own hands. They are tribal, they believe in an eye for an eye, they kill just because of tribal difference. In truth they are backward. The US can't completely put the lid on the killing as it's something they have to evolve from and decide they don't want anymore. However, we can set up a market structure and a reasonably sound government that will allow them to keep their country together and rebuild it towards helping the people to live a better life in the long term. Some would say we should of left Saddam in place so he could control the country by gassing Kurds and poundingon the Shiites to the South. Well, Bush made the decsion to change that now it's up to the Iraqis as a whole to decide their fate.

[ChiefaRoo]

1)a.Did I say "we?" I'm talkin' 'bout certain people in the WH advising this very unAmerican belligerence. I am NOT referrin' to the American people who see through this charade of "defense."

And what I meant by "evil" was having to kill over 100,000 ( some say as high as 650,000) innocent people, mostly women and children, to keep oil flowin?

What happened to respect for human life?


1)b. Well, one of those advising for this strategy is Charles Krauthammer, a leading NeoCon pundit. He was boasting and bragging on tv about how we are an "empire" now. It may not be in the form of 16th through 19th century "colonies" but in the modern form of "bases." We're in s/g like 140 countries now.

Your post was reminiscent of past empires that desired to "control" regions for their resources. How is that different from the Soviet Union having to eke out an existence thru conquest? How is this in alignment with the principles of free markets and trade/exchange for such oil? We don't have to conquer for it, we can just buy it.

I don't care if they like us or not; but I do care that certain policies incite other peoples to kill us.


How is such global social engineering consistent with limited govt principles of conservatism?
How can conservatives cry about liberals social engineering at home when our party claims we have to socially engineer abroad. Activist govt is not conservative and it's expensive...and deadly.

This too is reminiscent of past empires. Rome claimed they were bringing the barbarians civilization. The commies claimed they brought national liberation. The Japs claimed they were bringing liberation to the Pacific. The Spanish claimed to bring salvation.



So what if any money moves around outside of the banking system. I support monetary freedom. I thought terror related accounts were frozen anyhow. Are you saying we need a global police state to handle this?

You can't control everybody in a country (or a family, heck I can't even control myself sometimes) let alone an entire planet.


Maybe we should wage a coup in Saudi Arabia then instead, since some of their money has gone to the same and most likely still does. And secure our own freakin borders.

You do know that Pakistan, our ally, is a terrorist haven now?
This is guerilla war, very decentralized and with use of computers and the net.
It can't be won with conventional nation state warfare. And we are not winning it.

I suggest we engage Iran, Syria even, on their 2003 proposals which include resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict fairly, as well as support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Then get off their lands and let them be the type of countries they want with their own Muslim rulers.

However, I don't agree that these cavemen were just the delivery vehicles...they are not allied with Iran, Iraq or Syria. It's a separate movement known for large scale attacks. In fact that's part of my whole disagreement. Iran considers binLaden an enemy anyway. Iran is even claiming terrorist attacks on it's eastern border with Afghanistan.The others do their dirty work in Israel. BinLaden attacked America directly.

The problem IS TOO much govt. More is not the solution.



I appreciate the compliment. You're smart too but there are smart people on both sides and smart people can disagree. It has nothing to do with smarts though. It has to do with values.

You make some good points Pea but it seems to me your coming at this from a Libertarian point of view (less govt. more de-centralization) when considering Iraq and I think you're wrong. I used to think more like you do. What I have come to realize is people in immature, tribal, and/or dysfuntional nation states DO need the heavy hand of government. NOT a tyrannical dicator but a heavily structured central government backed by power. The fact is a large portion of the world is not ready to be democratic tomorrow. They need to transition from primative tribal classes to a functioning democracy as the end goal. That takes a lot of control from a central government and time otherwise you have chaos. Deng Xiao Ping once told Richard Nixon that he believed the Chinese ultimate goal should be to work towards becoming a Democracy. That being said if they would of tried doing that in the 1970's when they were a backward, piss poor country with a huge population the result would of been chaos and tribal wars with over 850 million people going every conceivable political, religious and tribal direction. As distasteful as it sounds to you and me I believe the mid wife of democracy in Iraq is a powerful centralized government that can actually hold together a nation by sheer force. Slowly, over time the power gets handed back to the people as their economy, the rule of law and their society becomes more mature and more peaceful. Once they are peaceful they no longer are a threat to the US. I wish this wasn't how it works but in this case I think it is.

I know what you're thinking and you can't use our own history as a blueprint. The USA is the exception and not the rule. We don't have 1000 long year grudges to deal with. Our land was originally populated by like minded people (no disrespect to the Indians who were here) who wanted freedom from European governments. Today (with the exception of SOME illegals who don't give a damn about democracy or freedom) we still bring people into this country not based on tribal affiliation but in the way they think. What lures them is the chance to have a better life in a stable country. My best friend is a Turk who is now a VP of Finance of United Agri Products at age 44. He lives near Denver and has a wife named Debbie! He's as much an American as you and I eventhough he was born on the other side of the planet. He is American because of how he thinks and not because of what his skin color is or his ethnic heritage. The USA is a a marvelous and wonderful place and we attract people who replensish the brain pool, strengthen the economy and stand up for freedom (He's Muslim by the way and voted for Bush twice). You can't do that anywhere else in the World. If you and I moved to Iran or France we would still be outsiders no matter how we thought or acted. Hell, our kids would still be outsiders. You see most other countries don't assimiliate people into their society they balkanize them. My overall point is when you don't have common values that is when you must have a strong government to in effect "teach" the people. Iraq has a chance to become a good solid country. Right now they need force and structure. We are the force, the elected Iraqi govt. is the structure. They may or may not make it. I hope they do not only for their people but for our people and for the soldiers who have and will die trying to help these people turn away from tyranny and religious fanaticism.