The war on Terror

[inplainview]

You're wrong, Rick.  This does say a lot about the folks that chose a leader that said (however grammatically poorly) he would work to achieve a vision of "spreading freedom and democracy" versus someone that was personally articulate but couldn't articulate a plan.

Bush is by no means perfect. Really when it comes down to it the American people just chose the lesser of two evils.

Given the current situation the world is in I don't think that Kerry would have done any better of a job.

Bush took advantage of the situation (9/11+Our newfound fear of terrorism) to oust Saddam. A guy who needed to be relieved of power, and it was an easy way to create a foothold in the Middle east. Notice how the bases there are becoming permanent. He needed an excuse to start building bases. Now we have a "reason" to have permanent and sustainable forces there, so if shit hits the fan over there we can respond quicker. So Iraq isn't terrorist central. It's close enough to support operations that are going to to truly counteract terrorism.

[TheGoodReverend]

I don't think the comparison to Hitler's Germany is apt. Hitler, because he annihilated whole races and classes of people in terrible ways the world had never seen before and has not seen since, is a worse evil than Saddam, although one wonders whether such distinction has any practical meaning when it is between two people so diabolical. There is another difference that is more significant in determining an appropriate political-military response from the US: Hitler aimed to conquer (at least) Europe. While Saddam did invade both Iran and Kuwait, he did so under circumstances that manifest desperation, not megalomania. Saddam was content just to be an all-powerful ruler of Iraq, not the whole world.

[UncleMao]

Its not wise to try and argue with Mao. Contemplater learned the hard way.

<a href='http://dontlinkthis.com/board/index.php ... =6535&st=0' target='_blank'>Downfall of Cuntemplater</a>

Read her tale and realize that he'll do the same to you without batting an eye.

What, he'll try extra hard to come up with mean things to say about someone he's never spoken to?

Oh and btw, I see in that thread that you defended her, so that's kind of odd that you would use it to show me the "power of mao" when you yourself disagreed with his assholishness.

All in all, I really give less than two shits about either of you, but when it comes down to it

But I've learned to live with it.

Oh whinny boo hoo hoo...

Bottom line, stay the fuck out of a discussion thread if all you can offer is...

I'd prefer to go live in a remote corner of the world where I'll be undisturbed than give a shit about anything anyone has said in this thread.

Stupid fucking shit gargling whore. You are a disgrace to the men and free range porcines who fucked your mother. Discussion threads need not your half-ass skank worthless. Notice nobody's defending you.

Mean people suck. Stupid people swallow and freshen up with urinal cake

Wait for it...

Yup. Still nobody defending you.

You are less than nothing.

[JustSumDude]

I have nothing to add to this discussion, nor do I have anything to add to this bitch-slapping contest within this discussion.

I'm pretty much wasting everyone's time with this post.





Yup.

[steampunk]

Mao, what do you think of these <a href='http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... loJTA9l6qk' target='_blank'>two</a> <a href='http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050824/wl ... NlYwN0bWE-' target='_blank'>stories</a> involving Australia?

(The first refers to the Aussie PM saying the gov't can/will enter mosques to see if they're teaching terrorism, and the second talks about an Aussie gov't official that said (paraphrasing), "if you want to live under Islamic law, get out of Oz.")

----------------------

And Reverend, while I happen to almost totally agree with you with regards to the war in Iraq (I think it was poorly "sold", WMDs were one reason not the only reason, and I would have probably supported it regardless), two things:

First, you misread what I typed. I didn't compare Saddam to Hitler. I compared the criticism of Bush's decision to attack Iraq ("Waaaah! Go after Osama, he's the the one that attacked the WTC and Pentagon!") with the criticism of FDR's decision to concentrate the war effort on Germany and not Japan ("Waaaah! Go after the Japs, they're the ones that attacked Pearl Harbor!").

Roosevelt was roundly (and in my view, wrongly) criticized for going after the Germans when the Japanese were the ones who "started the whole thing". But Hitler played into FDR's hands by declaring war on December 11th, giving FDR the "excuse" to defend his ally Britain and go after Germany. We slogged around in places like North Africa, Sicily, and Italy for over three years (December 1941 until June 1944) before we made it to the beaches of Normandy. Many Americans thought this was absolutely wrong and those resources were squandered when they would have been best spent fighting Japan. But Europe had always been a "mess", much like the Middle East is now, and history shows that the subsequent reduction of Germany (and Italy) and their complete rebuilding in "our image" via the occupation and the Marshall Plan, have produced a Europe that has peacefully coexisted with each other for 60 years.

And I do believe tactical mistakes were made in the war on terror and Iraq. Our successes in post-war Japan and Germany were due to reducing them to the stone age and dictating the terms through which they could reform. Looking back, we probably should have moved in with more troops and occupied the country for a longer period. A modern-day MacArthur should have told them what their constitution would look like instead of letting them go through this ridiculous media circus they're in now. But those are tactical mistakes (battles) not strategic (the war).

Second, when you say Saddam was no Hitler because his autrocities don't compare, you must understand that the US and Allies had an inkling of what he was doing to the Jews and others. We knew they were being mistreated, but we didn't know of the Final Solution. If we would have, incidents like the oceanliner <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Saint_Louis' target='_blank'>Saint Louis</a> wouldn't have happened nor would our soldiers have been so surprised when they came upon the concentration camps. That's why I say we went in for other reasons (kick out a dictator, reform a region) and ended up doing other Good Things (stopping the Holocaust) without that being the original reason we went to war. If we had used "who looks like they are the most evil?" as a reason to fight, we would probably have gone after the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ja ... Atrocities' target='_blank'>Japanese</a>, not the Germans. We knew what the Japanese had done in place like <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre' target='_blank'>Nanking</a>.

But you are right in that Hitler was a conqueror and Saddam was just a tin-pot despot. But both were dictators that had destabilized their regions. Iraq just happened to be about the easiest place to go in and start cleaning house. Oh, and having troops, bases, ports and airstrips on both sides of a nuclear-seeking Iran probably doesn't hurt...

[UncleMao]

Mao, what do you think of these <a href='http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... loJTA9l6qk' target='_blank'>two</a> <a href='http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050824/wl ... NlYwN0bWE-' target='_blank'>stories</a> involving Australia?

(The first refers to the Aussie PM saying the gov't can/will enter mosques to see if they're teaching terrorism, and the second talks about an Aussie gov't official that said (paraphrasing), "if you want to live under Islamic law, get out of Oz.")

There's actually more to this in the local news. Part of this has been a community backlash driven uproar regarding a piece done on local current affairs news regarding young mid-20s muslims in Australia being interviewed about their views regarding extremism and the terror threats to Australia. Part of the piece also scrutinised Australia's recently adopted (when I say recently I mean in the last decade or two) multicultural Australia policy that replaced the previous White Australia nationalist policy (that which is a joke in itself)

Basically, those few muslims were quoted as saying when asked about muslims and playing their part in Australia national and domestic harmony: "At the end of the day, we will never integrate...". This nimrod goes on to say that all Muslims are Muslims first, then their country of residence. IE, religious loyalty first, nationality later.

This brought about a wave of protest in which many in the public arena say, in more or lesser terms, "If you are not going to be actively trying to be part of Australia's multi-cultural society, then what the fuck are you doing here, fuck off" <-- As far as that opinion goes, I wholeheartedly agree.

The problem goes much deeper than that, unfortunately. In the first article, one of the very 14 people in PM Howard's group of religious islamic advisors has recently been under fire for a set of electronic correspondence, which among other things, expressed cynical doubts regarding Al-Qaeda's links to the Sept 11 attacks and went as far to say how the West was lamenting the fact that 4000 Jews did not manage to go to work.

This is just part of the media shitstorm in Australia that proves to be a big step backward in the development of the country. More so now because the "migrants who do not integrate" issue has taken an ugly turn towards bringing out nationalist and border-racist viewpoints.

For example, a follow up story to the integration story was a piece where one suburban neighbourhood has steadily turned into an Asian enclave. Whites in those communities are not above using terms like "They don't want anything to do with us" and "All their signs are in their own language". There is some kind of naive pseudo-claim here that the white descendants of criminals have more right to be here than other migrants who have gone through the same process of more mitigated process of migrancy, some of the latter having more merit to wanting to live in a new country than the old white elitists who were basically kicked out of England.

As far as I'm concerned the media has taken a very irresponsible turn by melding to very distinct segments of people together into one hotpot of social sensationalism. In such as the "radical minority with violent leanings" has become linked with "honest hardworking people of another culture" and the whole bunch are being grouped and called "un-Australian" when they actually mean "non-White".

Let's face it. Terrorism has made it harder on a lot of peoples who are unfortunate enough to be non-White. The media is playing right into the hands of those who wish to poke dissension into the societal buildup of nations. It irks me when white people complain about specific cultural enclaves of minorities. What next? Little Italy? The Greek quarter? Unfortunately in the hierarchy of Australian migration -It's WASPs first, Greeks, Italians and Lebanese second, and Asians and others including Sri Lankans and Viets 3rd.

The "truly indigeneous" Aboriginals however, are still so hopelessly disenfranchised and out of touch with the rest of Australian modernity that its a damned joke.

In a nutshell, ship all the camel fucking bombers home. If they don't want to be part of the community then fuck off in a bodybag and stop making it hard for those of us who really want to be here.

The Commies would have handled it better. Crocodile clips, a car battery and a hole in the ground big enough for Abduuuuul.

[Black Angel]

......which among other things, expressed cynical doubts regarding Al-Qaeda's links to the Sept 11 attacks and went as far to say how the West was lamenting the fact that 4000 Jews did not manage to go to work.

Sorry to be a bit off topic:
But is that true ? I did read about it in a few places...but was under the impression that it was just a mere hoax.

A lot of the Arabs I meet question about that, and the fact that they 'found' all the incriminating evidence...in that Car- If I recall correctly I think it was a Honda...

Just a thought, but what if it really was an elaborate plan to frame one group of people ?

But having known these people all my life, I seriously doubt it...

[steampunk]

Interesting, and in many ways, positive, news regarding democracy in the MidEast:

First, from <a href='http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011509.php' target='_blank'>this blog</a> (I'd prefer to use a news source, but I can't find a translation):

A poll taken by “The Iraqi center for national development & dialog” [found:]

. . . 88% of those support holding the constitutional vote under current condition . . .

. . . 58% prefer a central government with provincial administration . . .

As for women’s rights and women’s representation in the legislature. 84% support giving women full rights and benefits as men.

Sounds like they just want to get on with voting for a Constitution and then let the political process take care of fine-tuning the law. (Okay, maybe it's not all good news - giving women the right to vote is only slightly less evil than giving them a drivers license ).

Second, the <a href='http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic ... STS-DC.XML' target='_blank'>Lebanese have rounded up three pro-Syrian (and Baathist) officials that may have had a hand in the killing of ex-Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri</a>. The killing was what led to Lebanon throwing the Syrians out of their country. Isolating Syria and removing its control of a neighboring country is definitely a 'Good Thing'.

[steampunk]

*bump*

From <a href='http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/16925.html' target='_blank'>this blog / opinion piece</a>, there's a decent roundup of opinion about "winning" the "War on Terror", especially in Iraq. The reason I quote the blog, is that it builds upon an op-ed in the NY Times. For those of you non-Americans, let me explain that the NY Times is about the closest thing to an offical Democratic party newspaper we have. It would be akin to Pravda extolling the virtues of capitalism and democracy.

The simple fact is that many jihadis believe the war in Iraq is not going well. Too many Muslims are being killed. Images of that slaughter, conveyed by satellite television and the Internet throughout the Muslim world, are eroding global support for the jihadi cause. There are strong indications from jihadi Web sites and online journals, confirmed by conversations I have had while doing research among Salafis, or scriptural literalists, that the suicide attacks are turning many Muslims against the jihadis altogether.

...

The vast majority of Muslims and even Islamists recoil from the daily pictures of Sunni mass murder of Shia in Iraq. Even Al Qaeda's number two understands as much and "in a letter made public last week, Al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, cautioned Mr. Zarqawi against particularly gruesome executions and attacks on Iraqi civilians for fear of their negative impact on the global jihadi cause." It also encouraged Sunni leaders to cut  a deal about the constitution.

Note that this is simply one author's argument based on what people are reading and seeing and talking about. I'd prefer to see hard data, like percentage of people voting for the new constitution or a poll talking about Muslim support of terror tactics. But I think this goes to my point that the strategic aim of the "War on Terror", namely to root them out on their home turf and turn their breeding grounds into democratic & capitalistic societies, is sound.

[UncleMao]

New constitution vs. New bombings?

How would you rate the war now?

[The DeAdLy SuPeRMaN]

I'll start off saying that I don't agree with the war in Iraq. I think it was one more mistake made by Bush and congress, but this topic is about him/them, so I'll try to stay on topic. I think we should have reevaluated who we consider allies and enemies, because some of our so-called 'allies' fund terror.

But about the 'war' itself, I went "All efforts so far have done little or nothing." because the war will probably inspire more people to become terrorists, but it will also kill and deter terrorists, so it balances out.

I also disagree with Black Angel.

Double Standards? You are one dumb motha fucker.

Your intelligence and your eloquence in the power of your arguments truly amaze me !!

Well, at least he's arguing. That reply really had no rebuttal.

Name me ONE double standard that the US has imposed upon another country in the middle east! Just one. (Dumbasses always misuse the asian eco treaty argument as a point for their own; and even then we didnt' impose our own policy on other countries, just opted out of a new eco treaty - STOP JUST REPEATING WHATEVER THE FUCK THE KIDS AT THE GREEN PEACE RALLIES ARE SAYING)

I couldn't care for those green peace fucks, you see my post even hint of mentioning them ???

That part was just an insult, because green peace are psycho-hippies.

'interfering' with internal matters of other, less developed, and unstable countries is the right of any superpower and should continue to be.

Then you brawl and whimper and cry why the the rest of the fucking world hates your guts ??
Wow I finally met one of them sit for brains neo-imperials...glory be , now my day is complete.

On one hand, I can see why countries get pissed when we interfere. We shouldn't always 'bully' other nations as we have done and still do.

But on the other hand, I agree with Dere, not only is it a right, it's a responsibility of a superpower to 'interfere'. Yes, the USA 'interferes' with smaller countries, but we also 'interfere' to give them supplies, food, and military support.

What you do in your country is your business and thats fine. But if what you're doing in your country is going to harm the citizens of mine or our breathren, even to the xth degree, then by damn your business just became my business. Rural war lords are a dangerous thing and anytime they continue to act inhumanly, they must be eliminated.

You should have thought of that before you Armed/trained and funded them, no ?

You act like arming and training resistance/rebel forces in a country is something new. We've been doing it for centuries.

And despite the tone of my post, I'm very against war. I think it's stupid and senseless. I wish I could go over and talk sense into the fundamentalists, and make them see how stupid their cause is, but thats exactly the problem. Fundamentalism lacks reason, logic, and rationality.

I mean, how reasonable can someone be if they're hacking off innocent people's heads with machetes?

[Phife]

The war is still going on. Terrorism is still real.

So who's winning. No one. End of story.

[steampunk]

New constitution vs. New bombings?

How would you rate the war now?

You know my general thoughts, Mao. As much as I hate W's domestic ineptitude (okay, reforming SS is a good idea - I just don't like his plan), I think his foreign policy is spot on. Depose dictators in key areas, help the populace rebuild their country, and institute democracy isn't too bad of an idea. It seemed to work for the wops, nips, and krauts after dubya-dubya-eye-eye. Everyone, even those against the war, point to poor economies and a feeling of political helplessness as the reasons so many young men become terrorists.

<a href='http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/' target='_blank'>Michael Yon</a> is an independent journalist who makes many good points and is right in the middle of Iraq. He's not sitting in the Green Zone reporting from a hotel - he's with the troops and the Iraqis on a daily basis. As he says <a href='http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/10/ ... rs_24.html' target='_blank'>in this report</a>:

Next morning, the Army said there had been 19 attacks on polling sites throughout Iraq. In January there had been 108 attacks on polling sites. There had been about 300 total attacks during the January election day, and the Army said there had been 89 total attacks in Iraq during this voting day.

A decrease from 108 to 19 attacks, when comparing the January and October voting, a five-fold decrease, seems like progress to me. And the large voter turnout in Iraq makes me ashamed for my own nation's dismal exercise in citizenship. They stand in lines for hours, with the possibility of being blown up, while we can't be bothered to zip in for five minutes on our latte-laden drive to work.

And on a broader front, the recent world-outrage directed at Syria is heartwarming. I'd love to see some of this outrage displayed towards Saudi, but we live in the real world, and politics have to reflect this. But as I said earlier, the first-ever elections in places like Saudi and Egypt were great to see. Seeing Saudi women stand in line dressed like Britney Spears would be better, but that'll take time.

It's saddening to see the London and Bali II bombings, but then again, Indonesia is incredibly soft on terrorists and London has taken multiculturism to an illogical extreme. We'll most likely see another terrorist attack in the States, but we haven't since 11 September 2001. Maybe the proof is in the pudding?

Quite a few folks have taken the anti-war side of this argument, which I can appreciate. (Some parts of me would like to see absolute isolationism, where the US pulls back to her own borders - not just our troops but also quits the UN and discontinues all foreign aid). But, unsurprisingly, I haven't seen any quantitative proof from the anti-war side to show we aren't gaining our strategic goals. (And tactical setbacks and anecdotal evidence aren't what I'm asking for). If someone argues the anti-side, I'd like them to provide some proof that terrorist funding has increased, or the terrorist tactics have improved, or ... something! An impassioned argument is one thing, but sound reasoning supported by facts is quite another. Hell, even if they can't supply facts, I'd love to see the anti-war side give a multi-point plan on exactly how they would counter the terrorists directly while reducing the breeding of new terrorists. You're going to garner world support? Okay, how? You're going to build "world consensus"? Okay, how? Something besides, "Bush is an idiot," please.

I agree that war is a terrible thing. But I don't believe it is the most terrible thing.

[steampunk]

Ooh, more <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 ... 08,00.html' target='_blank'>good news from the UK paper The Guardian</a>.

Abu Theeb is the leader of a band of Sunni insurgents that preys on US targets north of Baghdad. Last week he openly defied al-Qaida in Iraq by actively supporting the referendum. . .

[description of Abu Theeb, a Sunni insurgent, working out plans to protect a polling station.]

The stakes were high for Abu Theeb and his men. Al-Qaida forces in Iraq - forces that are, at least on paper, allies of the Sunni insurgents - had vowed to kill anyone who took part in the referendum. But in the Sunni areas of Iraq, the people and the local Iraqi insurgents among them had a different view: they were eager to vote. There was a widespread sense of regret about the boycotting of the last elections, which left the parliament in Baghdad dominated by Shia and Kurdish parties - and left the Sunnis, who held the power in Saddam's Iraq, out in the cold. The Sunnis wanted to take part in last week's referendum; they wanted a "no" vote on the draft constitution.

This left Abu Theeb, a man who has devoted himself and his resources to fighting the Americans, in a curious position. His battle on polling day would be to secure a safe and smooth voting for his people - in a referendum organised by the enemy. In doing so he would be going up against the al-Qaida forces, and risking a split in the insurgency in Iraq.

As I said earlier:

o  Polls in Muslim countries are showing that, while still popular, al-Qaeda and terrorism are becoming less popular than they were before. . .

o  How the terrorists are turning on their fellow Muslims . . .  Hell, they're now bombing and killing the Sunnis(!), because the Sunnis are going back to the table.  Just a few days ago, two Sunni government officials were killed.  It sure looks like they hate to see any kind of recognition of a legitimate, based-on-the-will-of-the-people government in Iraq.

OMG, what will Haji-the-Terrorist do once Iraq isn't a safe haven? Oh teh n0ez!!1!one!

-----------

Edit of I-didn't-see-this-until-now, from <a href='http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/a ... 51027.aspx' target='_blank'>stategypage.com</a>:

There’s an interesting pattern developing in Moslem media, especially the satellite news networks like al Jazeera; they are featuring more stories about Islamic terrorist attacks killing innocent Moslem civilians. Moslem journalists have an interesting, largely symbiotic, relationship with Islamic terrorists. They need each other. The terrorists need the favorable exposure in order to encourage people to join (especially for suicide missions), give money and provide support for actual operations (a place to hide, information).

. . . the Moslem media is less and less willing to be an apologist for al Qaeda, at least when it comes to killing Moslem civilians. Al Qaeda still gets favorable coverage when they kill infidels, but the murder of Moslems can no longer be ignored.

Jeez, when will this good news end? I mean, who are these ass-hat leaders many of us elected to make forceful decision, go after the root cause of a problem, and stick with it until the end?

[UncleMao]

Wow. Force feeing ideology down a goat eater's throat does work!

Well for now, apparently.

As far as Bush being vindicated for his invasion with good ole pal, Tony, I'll hold off judgment till I see something more concrete. I didn't agree with the 2 country coalition invasion of Iraq, and as far as that's concerned. I still don't.