Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[KarenAM]

Where to start with this one: Vietnam. (It's not an island) Maybe we could have bombed Hanoi. It was off limits though, you know, politics of the war. Have you ever seriously looked at the frag list from Nam? The number of targets that was off limits borders on ridiculous. Vietnam was guerilla jungle warfare. We never fought it that way. We kept trying to take conventional war to an enemy that didn't want to play by the rules. Sound familiar? We also fought what we called a "limited" campaign. It was limited by the politicians. Certain targets and tactics were declared off limits due to fears of involving China.

I am gungho about not backing out. I can't volunteer because I'm 38 years old. I'm also a vet. I was in Panama and Desert Storm. I was gung ho about us finishing Panama, which we did, and gung ho about finishing Desert Storm, which we didn't. I was the first in my unit to volunteer for Desert Shield, and I stayed voluntarily until Desert Storm was over. I would have volunteered to stay longer if we had decided to go to Baghdad and finish the job. I've done my service in the military. Have you?

You say they hate us because we bully? Are we a bigger bully than Saddam? Than Bin Laden? Than Milosovich? Than Noriega? Than Mohammed Farrah Idid? Yes, we throw our weight around at times. Given the track records of those that I just mentioned, I think that's a good thing. We have enemies because we stomp out tyranny and terrorism. You missed my point in all of that though. I wasn't speaking of why we have enemies. I was speaking of why those enemies feel like they can attack us. We show weakness before these enemies by tucking tail and running when things get tough. The backing down only makes them bolder. It culminated with 9-11. The one thing they universally respect is strength. At the most critical times, we have failed to show strength. We get attacked, we cut and run. They see that as weakness, and start planning their next attack. If you don't see that, then you are choosing to ignore it. It is a cycle that goes all the way back to the 1970's.

We did bomb Hanoi. We won every major battle we fought in Vietnam. Our soldiers were better. So how would we have won the war? What would have constituted victory? I've heard the "we weren't allowed to win" thing my whole adult life, from vets and non-vets, but none of them have ever told me what would have constituted victory in Vietnam. If you can't define victory, you can't have it.

I greatly respect your service in Panama and Iraq, Wildcard, but please, please don't go down the road of claiming that the only way to have a credible argument in these sorts of discussions is to be a vet. I have a congenital physical disability that would preclude my serving, and to imply or claim that those of us who cannot serve our country as you have have less value as citizens than those of you who are vets is patently unfair. I'd like to think I can still be as American as you despite not having been as healthy.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I've been told this before, and it hurts.

As to who is the bigger bully, I would argue that this is not the point. It is who is precieved as being the bigger bully that matters to those who decide to commit violence. I have and will argue long and hard that America has done more for the world than any other nation. I am proud of our generosity and our willingness to send aid even to those places where we are hated. But if we are percieved as a bully because this administration protects the Iraqi oil ministry while allowing several Iraqi cultural insititutions to go up in flames, all that generosity fades in the minds of those we are trying to help, and the next generation of terrorists is born.

Arabs respect strength, it is true. They also respect fair dealings and respect those who respect their culture. We have shown in this conflict that we do not respect their culture, their history, or even their religion. I am an American, and I know that most Americans are decent, kind people who really want to help make the world a better place. We also want to be safe, and we're afraid right now. But unless we get an administration that actually has a plan for Iraq that involves more than just blowing up angry Iraqis, it will not matter to al-Qaeda or anyone else whether we stayed the course or cut and ran. They will still attack us, destroying both the Arab world and our own, in the end.

 

[raphy]

I still haven't figured out exactly what WildcardKY counts as 'staying the course' ....

From your last post, you definitely sound like you're suggesting we should intimidate the arab terrorists with our display of military strength so they won't even dare to attack us anymore?

Is that what you mean? Is that how you'd define 'victory'?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

We did bomb Hanoi. We won every major battle we fought in Vietnam. Our soldiers were better. So how would we have won the war? What would have constituted victory? I've heard the "we weren't allowed to win" thing my whole adult life, from vets and non-vets, but none of them have ever told me what would have constituted victory in Vietnam. If you can't define victory, you can't have it.

I greatly respect your service in Panama and Iraq, Wildcard, but please, please don't go down the road of claiming that the only way to have a credible argument in these sorts of discussions is to be a vet. I have a congenital physical disability that would preclude my serving, and to imply or claim that those of us who cannot serve our country as you have have less value as citizens than those of you who are vets is patently unfair. I'd like to think I can still be as American as you despite not having been as healthy.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I've been told this before, and it hurts.

As to who is the bigger bully, I would argue that this is not the point. It is who is precieved as being the bigger bully that matters to those who decide to commit violence. I have and will argue long and hard that America has done more for the world than any other nation. I am proud of our generosity and our willingness to send aid even to those places where we are hated. But if we are percieved as a bully because this administration protects the Iraqi oil ministry while allowing several Iraqi cultural insititutions to go up in flames, all that generosity fades in the minds of those we are trying to help, and the next generation of terrorists is born.

Arabs respect strength, it is true. They also respect fair dealings and respect those who respect their culture. We have shown in this conflict that we do not respect their culture, their history, or even their religion. I am an American, and I know that most Americans are decent, kind people who really want to help make the world a better place. We also want to be safe, and we're afraid right now. But unless we get an administration that actually has a plan for Iraq that involves more than just blowing up angry Iraqis, it will not matter to al-Qaeda or anyone else whether we stayed the course or cut and ran. They will still attack us, destroying both the Arab world and our own, in the end.

Victory in Vietnam would be the Government of South Vietnam surviving and in place today. We did bomb Hanoi at times, but it was rare, and only when authorized. Operation Linebacker 2 began in 1968. It was defined as "unrestricted bombing of military targets in North Vietnam and Hanoi". That statement in itself says that at any other given time, bombing was restricted in N. Viet. and Hanoi. LB 2 was a retaliation against the N. Vietnamese for leaving the peace talks. In other words, we were looking for a way out, and they walked away from us so we hit them harder. Hitting them harder is only possible if you weren't putting your all into it to begin with.

I didn't know that you have a disability, and meant no insult towards the disability by what I said. My words were a response to your statement telling me that if I'm so gung ho I need to volunteer to go. I wasn't meaning to infer that only vets can make a credible argument either. Vets can offer a uniques perspective, but that doesn't mean that others can't have a credible argument as well. I apologize if I gave that impression. It wasn't my intention.

I disagree that Arabs place a great amount of respect on fair dealings based on what I've seen. During the time I spent over there it seems like the only two things they respected were strength and their religion. It seems that any governmental type that tries to deal fairly with their people get overthrown. The Shah was ousted. Saddam held on until we threw him out. The Royal family of Saudi can be pretty ruthless as well. One thing that keeps the Saudi's more calm is the unbelievable amount of money in that country. If Saudi had a lot of poverty I think there would be a different government. The only reason Kuwait is still a country is because of us. Syria and Turkey have pretty oppressive governments by what we view as a democracy. When we first went into Iraq, the people hailed us. The great American liberators. I truly believe they did this not because of some overwhelming desire for true democracy and freedom, but because of our overwhelming strength in defeating the Army of Saddam. That's what they respect. Now that we don't appear as strong with the way things are going in Iraq now, Iraqi support for the US is dwindling. With every successful attack on American troops, more Iraqi's seem to denounce America. A big part of that is respect for the strength of those attacking us.

I do agree that they have a respect for those that respect their religion.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I agree with Wildcard. We’ve got a big cultural gap to breach in dealing with the Iraqis. There’s a lot of misunderstanding on both sides.

My neighbors across the alley are Iraqi, though they call themselves “Assyrian” for public consumption (They’re Christian. Don’t ask me what sect.) Their kids are my sons best friends, and if you like I can probably come back with a list of dirty words in Iraqi.

Their grandfather was jailed by Saddam for a while. I don’t know the details, but I was very surprised when I went over there some years ago (after ’91 but before 9/11) and saw their grandmother kept a big picture of the S-man on the wall in her bedroom. I didn’t ask them about that, that would have been rude (she didn’t speak English anyhow), but I figure it must be out of some kind of respect. Just like a lot of us have pictures of Christ on the wall. You don’t always agree with what He does to you, but He’s still The Man.

Anyhow, she threw the picture out some years ago. They’re good people though.

---dr.M.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I still haven't figured out exactly what WildcardKY counts as 'staying the course' ....

From your last post, you definitely sound like you're suggesting we should intimidate the arab terrorists with our display of military strength so they won't even dare to attack us anymore?

Is that what you mean? Is that how you'd define 'victory'?

I count staying the course as finishing what we've started. Not to be looking for the quickest and easiest way out. We've got people saying that we should pull the troops out now and bring them home. We have removed a government in a very volatile country. We need to stay long to get a new government in place. Get the infrastructure in place. Get the people well on their way to learning how to live as a free human being. That is a learned process. People have to be taught how to live free if they've been repressed all their lives. We need to have the determination, and commit the necessary people and resources to rid the country of those that don't want this process to occur. We need to be the unquestioned strongest force in that country, and not just in a military manner. We stayed the course in Germany and Japan. It took a decade, but Germany and Japan were ready to stand on their own when we pulled out as the controlling power.

We shouldn't intimidate the Arab terrorists with a display of our military strength. We should go after them with our military strength. Hunt them down and destroy them. Keep them on the run and always in the defensive mode. Those people have chosen to make fear and death their calling cards for other people. We need to give them what they've been dishing out to others for so long. Either they die, or flee Iraq. That is how I would define victory over the terrorists in Iraq.

Victory in the whole Iraqi campaign can't be defined by one bullet statement. Eliminating the terrorist element in Iraq but leaving behind an impoverished nation with a shaky gov't wouldn't be a complete victory. Likewise leaving a stable government but a large group of terrorists wouldn't be a complete victory either. There are many things that would need to happen to call something a complete victory. That's always the way it is with war. WW2 wasn't a victory the day Germany fell. There were still other objectives that had to be met. Once all objectives were met, then complete victory could be declared. The same is true for Iraq, there is more than one simple objective.

 

[shereads]

CHALABI'S TURN IN THE DUNGEON?

The conniving bastard is still on our payroll, but his career with the Pentagon may be on the wane.

16 members of his so-called Iraqi National Congress have been arrested and files seized from Chalabi's office. Financial irregularities? Really? If you can't trust a man like this, who can you trust?

Evidently, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz trusted him with the lives and our money when they urged his hiring by the Defense Department despite the fact that he had been (a) convicted of bank fraud in absentia by Jordan after fleeing to the USA; (b) rejected as an intelligence source when he offered his services to the Clinton White House, because the CIA called him untrustworthy; and (c) booted by the State Department in 2000 for unspecified reasons.

No word yet on whether he'll be asked to give back any of the $340,000/month we've been paying him since he was moved to the Pentagon's budget to relieve embarrassment to the Defense Department following the WMD fiasco.

Chalabi, you may recall, was the source of the majority of the false information about WMD and about the enthusiasm with which the U.S. would be welcomed as interim governors of Iraq.

 

[shereads]

I can't resist pointing out to those who have accused John Kerry and other Democrats of being anti-military because they haven't voted in favor of every budget increase requested by the Pentagon:

Maybe a little scrutiny of the defense budget is warranted, if supporting Ahmad Chalabi in grand style is typical of the way they spend even a fraction of their $390 billion/year.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

We shouldn't intimidate the Arab terrorists with a display of our military strength. We should go after them with our military strength. Hunt them down and destroy them. Keep them on the run and always in the defensive mode. Those people have chosen to make fear and death their calling cards for other people. We need to give them what they've been dishing out to others for so long. Either they die, or flee Iraq. That is how I would define victory over the terrorists in Iraq.

See, I don't think it works like that. I don't think that there a finite number of terrorists and once we get rid of them we'll be home free. I think this whole terrorist thing is very loosey-goosey. Remember all the Iraqis who were jumping around and cheering in Falluja when they killed those 4 guys and strung them up? Were they terrorists? Probably not. Were they potential terrorists? I'd say most definitely. So it's not a goodguy/badguy kind of thing.

I think it's kind of a "Look, the Americans broke into my house by mistake and tossed my stuff and scared the shit out of my mother and humiliated me. My cousin knows a guy who knows a guy who can get a bomb. Me and Adnan are going to plant that fucker by the side of the road and get us some payback." And they do it.
The next day they're back at work, knowing nothing, perfectly respectable citizens.

That's how it worked in Nam and it seemed to be a pretty successful way to run a low-level conflict. I imagine the same thing happens in Iraq.

Which is also why I don't think capturing Bin Ladin will do anything to stop terrorism. I don't think Al Qaeda ia a real organization the way we think of organizations. Any maniac with a bomb can blow something up and claim he's with Al Qaeda, and how do we know if he is or not? It's not like we can call them up and ask, and from what I understand they're no longer claiming responsibility like they used to.

So like I said, this is not a military problem, and I don't think there's a military solution.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

We stayed the course in Germany and Japan. It took a decade, but Germany and Japan were ready to stand on their own when we pulled out as the controlling power.

Wild, it doesn't make a lick of sense to compare Germany and Japan to Iraq.

Japan and Germany were each dominated by a single ideology. Iraq has dozens. Additionally, there were no opportunistic next-door neighbors waiting to invade Germany or Japan. Without a strong military of its own, Iraq will be Iran's front porch as soon as we leave. How well do you want to arm them?

 

[starwiz01]

I am finding this whole argument rather interesting. It is never been a black and white issue no matter who is running. For I have always thought that no matter what figurehead you put in the white house, it is those bums up on capital hill that have most of the power to do anything for or against this country. I agree that these last 4 years have been a roller coaster, but then again I haven't seen the things in this country looking as good since Reagan was in the white house. But then again I am truely woried that if Kerry does get elected, that some of the plans he has in mind will go into effect. Which will hurt the industry I work for, It has always been a matter of looking at who may be the lesser of evils. and who has had the been the best representative of the people.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Wild, it doesn't make a lick of sense to compare Germany and Japan to Iraq.

Japan and Germany were each dominated by a single ideology. Iraq has dozens. Additionally, there were no opportunistic next-door neighbors waiting to invade Germany or Japan. Without a strong military of its own, Iraq will be Iran's front porch as soon as we leave. How well do you want to arm them?

A look at Germany might be instructive. They did have a hungry neighbor on the border, or more corectly on the line that separated the two germanies. We ended up basically being the West German army for a long time after the war. But German citizens weren't killing out solders over there.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Wildkard,

We shouldn't intimidate the Arab terrorists with a display of our military strength. We should go after them with our military strength. Hunt them down and destroy them. Keep them on the run and always in the defensive mode. Those people have chosen to make fear and death their calling cards for other people. We need to give them what they've been dishing out to others for so long. Either they die, or flee Iraq. That is how I would define victory over the terrorists in Iraq.

This assumes that the terrorists so called are like rats in a store full of cheeses.

It's a wrong view for the reasons mab gave, and others.

Terrorists are more like the 'bad boys and girls' that a substitute teacher finds in a new class. If she too brutally goes after them, the class has sympathy for THEM, and new 'bad kids' are created.

Your statement was made by the French 'paras' when they tried to pacify Algeria. They DID succeed in finding some terrorist networks, even bosses. In the process, marked by torture, killing of civilians and so on, they created new recruits, and sympathy for the victims of torture and killing. And the Algerian revolution ('anti colonial struggle, ' as they called it) proceeded to a successful end--as defined by Algeria.

 

[shereads]

A look at Germany might be instructive. They did have a hungry neighbor on the border, or more corectly on the line that separated the two germanies. We ended up basically being the West German army for a long time after the war. But German citizens weren't killing out solders over there.

-Colly

Good point.

We did give Felujah back to Saddam's army, just recently. Maybe that's Rummy's Plan B.

 

[shereads]

I agree that these last 4 years have been a roller coaster, but then again I haven't seen the things in this country looking as good since Reagan was in the white house.

Say WHAT? You're kidding, right?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Wild, it doesn't make a lick of sense to compare Germany and Japan to Iraq.

Japan and Germany were each dominated by a single ideology. Iraq has dozens. Additionally, there were no opportunistic next-door neighbors waiting to invade Germany or Japan. Without a strong military of its own, Iraq will be Iran's front porch as soon as we leave. How well do you want to arm them?

I use Japan and Germany as an illustration of how to see things through. Agreed that Japan and Germany don't compare to Iraq in ideaology (sp?) but the end result does bear many similarities in how to deal with a country once the sitting givernment is removed.

Once WW2 was over, both countries were in shambles. Instead of pulling all of our troops home, we stayed in each country to rebuild the shambles in to a democratic society. It took about 10 years for each of the two to become a fully functional country again. During that time we did the things necessary to rebuild infrastructure, set up schools, hospitals, rebuild what was destroyed. We gave the people a purpose, we slowly got them into the mindset of being a free people. We protected them from their enemies. As someone else said, we were the W. German army. We also protected Japan from China and the Soviets. Remember the Soviets tried to claim part of the Japanese Islands as theirs. Some sort of old border dispute that the Soviets tried to capitalize on after the fall of Japan. The people lived in relative safety while they rebuilt and learned to be free.

That's where I draw the comparison. We must be willing to do the same in Iraq. We have a more difficult task, because some of the civilians don't want us there are still willing to fight. The end result must still be the same. We can't just cut and run and leave the people of a country with no government hanging in the breeze.

 

[shereads]

I am finding this whole argument rather interesting. It is never been a black and white issue no matter who is running. For I have always thought that no matter what figurehead you put in the white house, it is those bums up on capital hill that have most of the power to do anything for or against this country. I agree that these last 4 years have been a roller coaster, but then again I haven't seen the things in this country looking as good since Reagan was in the white house. But then again I am truely woried that if Kerry does get elected, that some of the plans he has in mind will go into effect. Which will hurt the industry I work for, It has always been a matter of looking at who may be the lesser of evils. and who has had the been the best representative of the people.

I hesitate to ask which people are being represented.

The long-term unemployed who just lost their last-ditch attempt to stay off of welfare and keep their homes?

The veterans and military families whose benefits have been quietly reduced?

The ranchers in Wyoming who supported Bush, and can't get the time of day from what he's left of the Environmental Protection Agency now that gas extraction is poisoniing their water supply and grazing lands?

The children who will be paying for the Bush deficit when they have children of their own?

Other than your own industry, which evidently has at least one full-time employee left, and the top 1% of taxpayers, who is better off than they've been since Reagan was in office?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

See, I don't think it works like that. I don't think that there a finite number of terrorists and once we get rid of them we'll be home free. I think this whole terrorist thing is very loosey-goosey. Remember all the Iraqis who were jumping around and cheering in Falluja when they killed those 4 guys and strung them up? Were they terrorists? Probably not. Were they potential terrorists? I'd say most definitely. So it's not a goodguy/badguy kind of thing.

I think it's kind of a "Look, the Americans broke into my house by mistake and tossed my stuff and scared the shit out of my mother and humiliated me. My cousin knows a guy who knows a guy who can get a bomb. Me and Adnan are going to plant that fucker by the side of the road and get us some payback." And they do it.
The next day they're back at work, knowing nothing, perfectly respectable citizens.

That's how it worked in Nam and it seemed to be a pretty successful way to run a low-level conflict. I imagine the same thing happens in Iraq.

Which is also why I don't think capturing Bin Ladin will do anything to stop terrorism. I don't think Al Qaeda ia a real organization the way we think of organizations. Any maniac with a bomb can blow something up and claim he's with Al Qaeda, and how do we know if he is or not? It's not like we can call them up and ask, and from what I understand they're no longer claiming responsibility like they used to.

So like I said, this is not a military problem, and I don't think there's a military solution.

---dr.M.

I agree with a whole lot of that. I think there are a finite number of "dedicated" terrorists. They recruit some of the potential terrorists that you refer to. I think that by going hard after the dedicated, full time terrorists, you put them on the run. In doing this, you also dissuade the potential terrorists.

Think of Mississippi and racism. There was a hard core group of racists. They were willing to kill for their beliefs. Unencumbered by any persecution from the gov't for years, they were able to recruit and build their numbers. The potential racists saw no potential harm in joining the Klan and being part of the larger group. The racists ruled with an iron fist and got rid of anyone that stood up to them. Then the government decided to eradicate them in the late 50's/early 60's. Through a determined effort of the government, the racists were relentlessly pursued and brought to justice. As they were taken down, the potential racists disappeared real quick. They didn't want anything to do with Klan or their ways. The price was simply too high. The relentless pursuit of the zealots is what broke the cycle in Mississippi. I think the same would be true for Iraq.

 

[shereads]

That's where I draw the comparison. We must be willing to do the same in Iraq. We have a more difficult task, because some of the civilians don't want us there are still willing to fight. The end result must still be the same. We can't just cut and run and leave the people of a country with no government hanging in the breeze.

Wild, I agree with you that we owe them some stability before we leave. But I can't see any comparison with what worked before. The main reason isn't that there are competing ideologies in Iraq, but that they're all in competition with ours in that the U.S. is seen as the enemy of Islam - and unfortunately, every time we get shot at and shoot back we make ourselves less and less welcome. The Japanese culture required that they treat us with respect because their emperor had surrendered. I don't know whether there was any armed resistance in Germany, but I do know that the majority of Germans and the majority of the occupyiing U.S. army shared a religion. Neither of these applies in Iraq. We had no business being there to begin with for those very reasons. Now that we're there, we're more hated than when we arrived because of all the screw-ups that result from poor planning.

If there's a way out of this, it's an international coalition. I know you hate Kerry, but who is more likely to persuade other countries and the U.S. to help us out in Iraq? If you were France or Germany or Lower East Croatiastanibad would you take Bush's word for anything regarding Iraq - to the extent of trusting your soldiers' lives to a structure he insists on keeping charge of?

 

[shereads]

I agree with a whole lot of that. I think there are a finite number of "dedicated" terrorists. They recruit some of the potential terrorists that you refer to. I think that by going hard after the dedicated, full time terrorists, you put them on the run. In doing this, you also dissuade the potential terrorists.

Think of Mississippi and racism. There was a hard core group of racists. They were willing to kill for their beliefs. Unencumbered by any persecution from the gov't for years, they were able to recruit and build their numbers. The potential racists saw no potential harm in joining the Klan and being part of the larger group. The racists ruled with an iron fist and got rid of anyone that stood up to them. Then the government decided to eradicate them in the late 50's/early 60's. Through a determined effort of the government, the racists were relentlessly pursued and brought to justice. As they were taken down, the potential racists disappeared real quick. They didn't want anything to do with Klan or their ways. The price was simply too high. The relentless pursuit of the zealots is what broke the cycle in Mississippi. I think the same would be true for Iraq.

When a black church was bombed in Missisippi, we didn't bomb Kentucky in return. We didn't even bomb Mississippi. If we had, you'd have had an uprising of people who had nothing to do with the white supremacists, but could be persuaded to see the U.S. government as the more dangerous enemy.

In fact, had enough ordinary citizens found their homes in rubble and their neighbor's kid missing a leg, courtesy of the U.S. government, you'd have had a lot of people calling the KKK "the lesser of two evils." You'd have had another civil war on your hands.

 

[shereads]

I count staying the course as finishing what we've started. Not to be looking Either they die, or flee Iraq. That is how I would define victory over the terrorists in Iraq.

You're forgetting one critical point: there weren't any anti-U.S. terrorists in Iraq until we disbanded the Iraqi military. The people shooting at us now and setting firebombs in our vehicles are resistance fighters and terrorists from outside, who couldn't get in before.

We've manufactured an enemy in Iraq. We still have to deal with the enemy who bombed the World Trade Center and now we're making more.

Next?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

You're forgetting one critical point: there weren't any anti-U.S. terrorists in Iraq until we disbanded the Iraqi military. The people shooting at us now and setting firebombs in our vehicles are resistance fighters and terrorists from outside, who couldn't get in before.

We've manufactured an enemy in Iraq. We still have to deal with the enemy who bombed the World Trade Center and now we're making more.

Next?

I firmly believe that Saddam was helping AQ and other terrorist groups. Saddam was offering $25k to the families of any suicide bomber that attacked Israel. We have always been an ally of Israel, therefore we were targets as well.

Also remember that this is a war on terrorism. Not simply a war on those behind 9-11. That path was made clear in the address to congress right after 9-11. "If you harbor or support terrorists, you are a terrorist as well". That was unilaterally agreed on by both parties. I would consider $25k to a suicide bomber supporting terrorism.

I agree that Kerry would be more able to build an international coalition than Bush. Bush got fed up and thumbed his nose at the UN. He dissuaded some possible allies in this fight by doing it. What I do doubt is the ability or willingness of the UN to do almost anything in matters like this. In my opinion the UN is impotent at most things. They do a good job in humanitarian aid and disaster relief causes once military action has passed or simply in the event of a natural disaster. Other than that........impotent. The UN voted Libya on to the human rights council. That's a glaring example of ineptness. When it comes to anything of a military nature, the UN might as well not exist. The UN passed well over 100 resolutions against Iraq from 92-03. Many of these resolutions contained the threat/promise of action if criteria wasn't met. Saddam laughed the whole time and kept defying the resolutions. The 9 year, 100+ ignored resolutions by Iraq make a pretty good case for the impotence of the UN in matters like this.

I'm not saying Bush was right for thumbing his nose at the UN, but I can somewhat understand the frustration behind it.

Check your PM's in a little while. I want to get your opinion on something that's bugging the hell out of me, but I don't hear anyone talking about. I'll start writing the PM now.

 

[raphy]

I count staying the course as finishing what we've started. Not to be looking for the quickest and easiest way out. We've got people saying that we should pull the troops out now and bring them home. We have removed a government in a very volatile country. We need to stay long to get a new government in place. Get the infrastructure in place. Get the people well on their way to learning how to live as a free human being. That is a learned process. People have to be taught how to live free if they've been repressed all their lives. We need to have the determination, and commit the necessary people and resources to rid the country of those that don't want this process to occur. We need to be the unquestioned strongest force in that country, and not just in a military manner. We stayed the course in Germany and Japan. It took a decade, but Germany and Japan were ready to stand on their own when we pulled out as the controlling power.

I'm staying out of this particular facet of the argument for now. I haven't made up my mind on it. I don't want to leave a nest of vipers with more hate for us than they had before we went in, but at the same time, I don't particularly like to see our boys and girls get slaughtered needlessly. So I'm out of this argument for now.

I was simply asking what you thought victory conditions would consist of

We shouldn't intimidate the Arab terrorists with a display of our military strength. We should go after them with our military strength. Hunt them down and destroy them. Keep them on the run and always in the defensive mode. Those people have chosen to make fear and death their calling cards for other people. We need to give them what they've been dishing out to others for so long. Either they die, or flee Iraq. That is how I would define victory over the terrorists in Iraq.

Pure replied to this pretty effectively, but here's my own two pennies, for what they're worth:

Fighting an ideology is much harder than fighting a country. When you're fighting a country, your enemies are clearly defined. They're the guys that wear the opposite uniforms to you and your allies. Germans in WW2 wore german uniforms. Brits wore British uniforms. We shot at the people wearing German uniforms and didn't shoot at the people wearing British ones.

Fighting an ideology is much tougher though, for a number of reasons:

a) Ideologies don't come with personal banners. You can't point at two men in the street and say 'That one's my friend and the other one wants to kill me if he gets the chance' - So actually *finding* your targets is pretty damn tough. Terrorists aren't nice enough to line up on the battlefield and say 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough' - Not like the Germans were in WW2

b) Hate begets hate. The hate that existed in WW2 was, for the most part, founded by actions during that war. "I saw that german kill my buddy, I hate germans and I'm going to kill them all." Arab terrorists hated the Great American Infidel a long time before we set foot even in Kuwait.

c) WW2 was political. (I'm not saying that GW's reasons for going to war weren't political here, bear with me) - Hitler didn't want to rid the world of Americans, he wanted to conquer them, the same way that he conquered France. Terrorists don't have that kind of political agenda. Hitler surrenders, the German army stands down. You kill a terrorist leader and a bunch of others stand up in his place to 'fight the good fight'

d) There is no 'en mass' body of opponents to fight against. As pure said, the French learnt this in Algeria. And like I said earlier, it's like trying to nail jello to the wall, or clutch sand in your hand. You get some of it, but the rest of it slips through your fingers - And because hate begets hate, for each terrorist you kill, you make two more that hate you even more.

The US has the power to take every single middle eastern country. You could declare war on every single one of them and win. Get all of their governments to surrender. But that won't stop the terrorists.

Victory in the whole Iraqi campaign can't be defined by one bullet statement. Eliminating the terrorist element in Iraq but leaving behind an impoverished nation with a shaky gov't wouldn't be a complete victory. Likewise leaving a stable government but a large group of terrorists wouldn't be a complete victory either. There are many things that would need to happen to call something a complete victory. That's always the way it is with war. WW2 wasn't a victory the day Germany fell. There were still other objectives that had to be met. Once all objectives were met, then complete victory could be declared. The same is true for Iraq, there is more than one simple objective.

I certainly agree with that.

I certainly don't have the answer, WildcardKY - I distinctly recall having this same discussion with another ex-vet on a totally different board.

So no, I don't have the answer to the 'arab problem' .. The utopian solution, of course, would be for them not to hate us at all......

I just don't know what violence can achieve, except for breeding more violence, in this situation.

 

[shereads]

I firmly believe that Saddam was helping AQ and other terrorist groups. Saddam was offering $25k to the families of any suicide bomber that attacked Israel. We have always been an ally of Israel, therefore we were targets as well.

Also remember that this is a war on terrorism. Not simply a war on those behind 9-11. That path was made clear in the address to congress right after 9-11. "If you harbor or support terrorists, you are a terrorist as well". That was unilaterally agreed on by both parties. I would consider $25k to a suicide bomber supporting terrorism.

We had a responsibility to find Osama Bin Laden before the trail grew cold, and instead we gave him what he wanted: a massive recruitment commercial shot in Iraq and aired on television all over the world, 7 days a week. That's not fighting terrorism. That's making it worse.

If there were ties to Al Queda that were credible, wouldn't we have been shown them a dozen times with visual aids by now? There would have been no need for a WMD story if there had been a link beteen Saddam and Al Queda. The world would have been sympathetic to an attack on Iraq if that had been the case, as they were when we went into Afghanistan.

[color=dark red]Don't diss the UN too vehemently without reading the first post at the "Why Saddam Didn't Deserve Your Vote" thread. I didn't know until I found that link - an archive of declassified documents released in 2003 - that the U.S., Britain and France tried to kill a UN resolution condemning Saddam for using chemical weapons against Iran. We didn't want him to be embarrassed that way while we were continuing to do business with him. It would have been embarrassing in a couple of ways, especially if he'd decided to talk on a world stage about his business dealings with us: we were officially neutral and selling no military supplies to either side in his war with Iran; we had internal memos indicate we believed he would begin a nuclear weapons development program, but in the same memo we continued to supply his Defense Department with "non-military" heavy trucks, helicopters, etc.

Should we wonder why he laughed when the UN tried to intimidate him? He knew he had us by the warheads.[/color]

We can't go in as NATO because the Islamic world sees NATO as a tool of the U.S., and the point is to put a presence there that calms the fear of a U.S. takeover. The United Nations can play a role in the world, if its major players - including us - stop playing games and recognize the seriousness of this point in history. [/QUOTE]

 

[KarenAM]

Victory in Vietnam would be the Government of South Vietnam surviving and in place today. We did bomb Hanoi at times, but it was rare, and only when authorized. Operation Linebacker 2 began in 1968. It was defined as "unrestricted bombing of military targets in North Vietnam and Hanoi". That statement in itself says that at any other given time, bombing was restricted in N. Viet. and Hanoi. LB 2 was a retaliation against the N. Vietnamese for leaving the peace talks. In other words, we were looking for a way out, and they walked away from us so we hit them harder. Hitting them harder is only possible if you weren't putting your all into it to begin with.

I didn't know that you have a disability, and meant no insult towards the disability by what I said. My words were a response to your statement telling me that if I'm so gung ho I need to volunteer to go. I wasn't meaning to infer that only vets can make a credible argument either. Vets can offer a uniques perspective, but that doesn't mean that others can't have a credible argument as well. I apologize if I gave that impression. It wasn't my intention.

I disagree that Arabs place a great amount of respect on fair dealings based on what I've seen. During the time I spent over there it seems like the only two things they respected were strength and their religion. It seems that any governmental type that tries to deal fairly with their people get overthrown. The Shah was ousted. Saddam held on until we threw him out. The Royal family of Saudi can be pretty ruthless as well. One thing that keeps the Saudi's more calm is the unbelievable amount of money in that country. If Saudi had a lot of poverty I think there would be a different government. The only reason Kuwait is still a country is because of us. Syria and Turkey have pretty oppressive governments by what we view as a democracy. When we first went into Iraq, the people hailed us. The great American liberators. I truly believe they did this not because of some overwhelming desire for true democracy and freedom, but because of our overwhelming strength in defeating the Army of Saddam. That's what they respect. Now that we don't appear as strong with the way things are going in Iraq now, Iraqi support for the US is dwindling. With every successful attack on American troops, more Iraqi's seem to denounce America. A big part of that is respect for the strength of those attacking us.

I do agree that they have a respect for those that respect their religion.

Thanks, Wildcard. While it wasn't me who said you should go if you are so gung-ho, your sentiment regarding my opinions is appreciated. While you and I disagree greatly about these issues, your perspective is valuable.

As to Vietnam, my recollection of events is that the government of South Vietnam tended to be oppressive and corrupt, so I don't think that its continued existence would necissarily have been good for us. Our long-term interests have rarely if ever turned out to be well served by backing dictators and military juntas.

As to the last, I note that of the countries you listed, only Turkey (which is not Arab) is not openly repressive. The Shah was a bungler who wanted to reinstate the old Persian monarchy without its good points. Saddam was, well, Saddam. Syria is a repressive dictatorship, as is Saudi Arabia. Kuwait is also. We should think long and hard before backing any of these governments.

And all have managed to achieve their high levels of oppression with Soviet, European, or American weapons. Without this firepower Saddam would have been nothing more than a local punk who would never have been able to maintain his power. Ditto for the others.

Our experience with Arabs seems to have been different, Wildcard, but this I think is quite certain: the Arab world is going through a period of vast social upheaval. Arabs, whether Muslim or Christian, have a strong sense of social justice (largely because of their religions). I believe that our presence in Iraq has been so badly bungled that the damage to our reputation as being socially just is, in the short term, too great for us to accomplish our goals there, and by remaining we are merely making the situation worse. We cannot dominate them indefinatly, and we cannot convince them that our motives are good. The complete lack of post-war planning doomed this war from the outset.

 

[shereads]

I know it's too late to be saying this, but it has to do with who you vote for in November, so I'm saying it anyway.

The most courageous thing this country could have done after 9/ll would have been to resist the urge to use our military might against what was not a military enemy. To have spent our billions securing our airports and seaports and borders, and to have quietly spent our other billions on a sophisticated, SECRET criminal investigation. Without dropping a single bomb on anyone who wasn't believed to be hiding Osama bin Laden in his basement, or one of his chief associates.

It would have been a frustrating couple of years, but you have to know that with the cooperation of all the countries who offered their sympathy after 9/ll, including Jodan and Egypt and Pakistan and Turkey, and with some quiet, behind-the-scenes pressure applied to Syria and others, we'd have one day been able to achieve the only meaningful victory: announcing that the organizers of Al Queda were in U.S. custody; or offering proof of their deaths.

We wouldn't have eliminated terrorism, but we'd have scattered Al Queda and achieved justice for the victims of the mass murder that took place on 9/ll. That's what it was. Not an attack on us by an army, but a murder plotted by a few hate-filled men who convinced others to do sacrifice themselves. There should have been a criminal investigation. Even if it had cost every bit as much as we've spent on the war, we wouldn't have added to the body count, wouldn't have kept the entire country traumatized with daily mentions of the War on Terror, and most importantly we wouldn't have publicized Osama's cause.

There would have been zero shock and awe. Just an intelligent and ultimately satisfying answer to the bombing of the Cole and the 9/ll bombings. After that, the world would have gone on as it was, with the one exception that the U.S. would have become as aware of terrorism as Europe and the rest of the world.

Terrorism is a crime, like rape and murder and arson. It will be with us as long as there are angry and envious people. We can't win a "war" on it and starting one was a stupid move.