Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Twisting of Pre-war Intelligence. What the Criminal Right Wing MSM wont report

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like

    Twisting of Pre-war Intelligence. What the Criminal Right Wing MSM wont report

    [B]Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
    By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
    Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005 [/B]

    [B]Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter. [/B]

    The information was provided to Bush on [U]September 21, 2001[/U] during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

    [B]One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources. [/B]

    The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. [B](Why was he so eager to link AQ with Iraq as opposed to say, Syria or Saudi Arabia or Iran?) [/B]

    Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. [B]Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to [U]Palestinian groups[/U], including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. [/B]

    [B]The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records[/B].

    [B]The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The[U] Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents. [/U][/B] {[I]Geez , I wonder why[/I]?}

    [B]Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004[/B], according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has [U]refused [/U] to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

    On November 18, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he planned to attach an amendment to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill that would require the Bush administration to give the Senate and House intelligence committees copies of PDBs for a three-year period. After Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on language for the amendment, Kennedy said he would delay final action on the matter until Congress returns in December.

    The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. [B]In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. [/B] {[I]J5E would disagree, he and Stephen Hayes know better![/I]}

    [B]"What the President was told on September 21," said one former high-level official, "was consistent with everything he has been told since-that the evidence was just not there." [/B]

    In arguing their case for war with Iraq, the president and vice president said after the September 11 attacks that Al Qaeda and Iraq had significant ties, and they cited the possibility that Iraq might share chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons with Al Qaeda for a terrorist attack against the United States.

    Democrats in Congress, as well as other critics of the Bush administration, charge that Bush and Cheney misrepresented and distorted intelligence information to bolster their case for war with Iraq. The president and vice president have insisted that they unknowingly relied on faulty and erroneous intelligence, provided mostly by the CIA.

    [B]The new information on the September 21 PDB and the subsequent CIA analysis bears on the question of what the CIA told the president and how the administration used that information as it made its case for war with Iraq. [/B]

    The central rationale for going to war against Iraq, of course, was that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons, and that he was pursuing an aggressive program to build nuclear weapons. Despite those claims, no weapons were ever discovered after the war, either by United Nations inspectors or by U.S. military authorities.

    Much of the blame for the incorrect information in statements made by the president and other senior administration officials regarding the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue has fallen on the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

    [B]In April 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report that the CIA's prewar assertion that Saddam's regime was "reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and "has chemical and biological weapons" were "overstated, or were not supported by the underlying intelligence provided to the Committee."[/B]

    The Bush administration has cited that report and similar findings by a presidential commission as evidence of massive CIA intelligence failures in assessing Iraq's unconventional-weapons capability.
    Bush and Cheney have also recently answered their critics by ascribing partisan motivations to them and saying their criticism has the effect of undermining the war effort. In a speech on November 11, the president made his strongest comments to date on the subject: "Baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Since then, he has adopted a different tone, and he said on his way home from Asia on November 21, "This is not an issue of who is a patriot or not."

    In his own speech to the American Enterprise Institute yesterday, Cheney also changed tone, saying that "disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy" and the "sign of a healthy political system." He then added: "Any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."

    [B]Although the Senate Intelligence Committee and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 commission, pointed to incorrect CIA assessments on the WMD issue, they both also said that, for the most part, the CIA and other agencies did indeed provide policy makers with accurate information regarding the lack of evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. [/B]

    [B]But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. [/B]

    [B]"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror,"[/B] President Bush said on September 25, 2002.
    The next day, Rumsfeld said, [B]"We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire … weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities."[/B]

    [B]The most explosive of allegations came from Cheney, who said that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, five months before the attacks. On December 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press: "[I]t's pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in [the Czech Republic] last April, several months before the attack."

    Cheney continued to make the charge, even after he was briefed, according to government records and officials, that both the CIA and the FBI discounted the possibility of such a meeting. [/B]

    [B]Credit card and phone records appear to demonstrate that Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time of the alleged meeting, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials. Al-Ani, the Iraqi intelligence official with whom Atta was said to have met in Prague, was later taken into custody by U.S. authorities. He not only denied the report of the meeting with Atta, but said that he was not in Prague at the time of the supposed meeting, according to published reports. [/B]

    In June 2004, the 9/11 commission concluded: "[B]There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. [/B] We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

    Regarding the alleged meeting in Prague, the commission concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

    Still, Cheney did not concede the point. "We have never been able to prove that there was a connection to 9/11," Cheney said after the commission announced it could not find significant links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. But the vice president again pointed out the existence of a Czech intelligence service report that Atta and the Iraqi agent had met in Prague. "That's never been proved. But it's never been disproved," Cheney said.

    The following month, July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in its review of the CIA's prewar intelligence: [B]"Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaeda." [/B]

    [B]One reason that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld made statements that contradicted what they were told in CIA briefings might have been that they were receiving information from another source that purported to have evidence of Al Qaeda-Iraq ties. The information came from a covert intelligence unit set up shortly after the September 11 attacks by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith. [/B]

    [B]Feith was a protégé of, and intensely loyal to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and Cheney's then-chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The secretive unit was set up because Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Libby did not believe the CIA would be able to get to the bottom of the matter of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties.[/B] The four men shared a long-standing distrust of the CIA from their earlier positions in government, and felt that the agency had failed massively by not predicting the September 11 attacks.
    At first, the Feith-directed unit primarily consisted of two men, former journalist Michael Maloof and David Wurmser, a veteran of neoconservative think tanks. They liked to refer to themselves as the "Iraqi intelligence cell" of the Pentagon. And they took pride in the fact that their office was in an out-of-the-way cipher-locked room, with "charts that rung the room from one end to the other" showing the "interconnections of various terrorist groups" with one another and, most important, with Iraq, Maloof recalled in an interview.
    They also had the heady experience of briefing Rumsfeld twice, and Feith more frequently, Maloof said. The vice president's office also showed great interest in their work. On at least three occasions, Maloof said, Samantha Ravich, then-national security adviser for terrorism to Cheney, visited their windowless offices for a briefing.

    But neither Maloof nor Wurmser had any experience or formal training in intelligence analysis. Maloof later lost his security clearance, for allegedly failing to disclose a relationship with a woman who is a foreigner, and after allegations that he leaked classified information to the press. Maloof said in the interview that he has done nothing wrong and was simply being punished for his controversial theories. Wurmser has since been named as Cheney's Middle East adviser.

    In January 2002, Maloof and Wurmser were succeeded at the intelligence unit by two Naval Reserve officers. [B]Intelligence analysis from the covert unit later served as the basis for many of the erroneous public statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others regarding the alleged ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to former and current government officials. [/B] Intense debates still rage among longtime intelligence and foreign policy professionals as to whether those who cited the information believed it, or used it as propaganda. The unit has since been disbanded.

    [B]Earlier this month, on November 14, the Pentagon's inspector general announced an investigation into whether Feith and others associated with the covert intelligence unit engaged in "unauthorized, unlawful, or inappropriate intelligence activities." [/B] In a statement, Feith said he is "confident" that investigators will conclude that his "office worked properly and in fact improved the intelligence product by asking good questions."

    [B]The Senate Intelligence Committee has also been conducting its own probe of the Pentagon unit. But as was first disclosed by The American Prospect in an article by reporter Laura Rozen, that probe had been hampered by a lack of cooperation from Feith and the Pentagon. [/B]

    Internal Pentagon records show not only that the small Pentagon unit had the ear of the highest officials in the government, but also that Rumsfeld and others considered the unit as a virtual alternative to intelligence analyses provided by the CIA.
    On July 22, 2002, as the run-up to war with Iraq was underway, one of the Naval Reserve officers detailed to the unit sent Feith an e-mail saying that he had just heard that then-Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz wanted "the Iraqi intelligence cell … to prepare an intel briefing on Iraq and links to al-Qaida for the SecDef" and that he was not to tell anyone about it.
    After that briefing was delivered, Wolfowitz sent Feith and other officials a note saying: "This was an excellent briefing. The Secretary was very impressed. He asked us to think about possible next steps to see if we can illuminate the differences between us and CIA. The goal was not to produce a consensus product, but rather to scrub one another's arguments."

    On September 16, 2002, two days before the CIA produced a major assessment of Iraq's ties to terrorism, the Naval Reserve officers conducted a briefing for Libby and Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser to President Bush.
    In a memorandum to Wolfowitz, Feith wrote: "The briefing went very well and generated further interest from Mr. Hadley and Mr. Libby." Both men, the memo went on, requested follow-up material, most notably a "chronology of Atta's travels," a reference to the discredited allegation of an Atta-Iraqi meeting in Prague.

    [B]In their presentation, the naval reserve briefers excluded the fact that the FBI and CIA had developed evidence that the alleged meeting had never taken place, and that even the Czechs had disavowed it.[/B]

    [B]The Pentagon unit also routinely second-guessed the CIA's highly classified assessments. Regarding one report titled "Iraq and al-Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky Relationship," one of the Naval Reserve officers wrote: "The report provides evidence from numerous intelligence sources over the course of a decade on interactions between Iraq and al-Qaida. In this regard, the report is excellent. Then in its interpretation of this information, CIA attempts to discredit, dismiss, or downgrade much of this reporting, resulting in inconsistent conclusions in many instances. Therefore, the CIA report should be read for content only-and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored." [/B]

    This same antipathy toward the CIA led to the events that are the basis of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity, according to several former and current senior officials.

    Ironically, the Plame affair's origins had its roots in Cheney and Libby's interest in reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger to build a nuclear weapon. After reading a Pentagon report on the matter in early February 2002, Cheney asked the CIA officer who provided him with a national security briefing each morning if he could find out about it.

    Without Cheney's knowledge, his query led to the CIA-sanctioned trip to Niger by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, to investigate the allegations. Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were most likely not true.

    Despite that conclusion, President Bush, in his State of the Union address in 2003, included the Niger allegation in making the case to go to war with Iraq. In July 2003, after the war had begun, Wilson publicly charged that the Bush administration had "twisted" the intelligence information to make the case to go to war.

    Libby and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove told reporters that Wilson's had been sent to Niger on the recommendation of his wife, Plame. In the process, the leaks led to the unmasking of Plame, the appointment of Fitzgerald, the jailing of a New York Times reporter for 85 days, and a federal grand jury indictment of Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly attempting to conceal his role in leaking Plame's name to the press.

    [B]The Plame affair was not so much a reflection of any personal animus toward Wilson or Plame, says one former senior administration official who knows most of the principals involved, but rather the direct result of long-standing antipathy toward the CIA by Cheney, Libby, and others involved. They viewed Wilson's outspoken criticism of the Bush administration as an indirect attack by the spy agency. [/B]

    [B]Those grievances were also perhaps illustrated by comments that Vice President Cheney himself wrote on one of Feith's reports detailing purported evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In barely legible handwriting, Cheney wrote in the margin of the report:
    "This is very good indeed … Encouraging … Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA." [/B]

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    1,573
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let me ask you something...If Bush had not used WMD's for his basis for this war but instead brought the case that Iraq had violated the 1991 peace treaty by not allowing UN weapons inspectors their free reign to inspect (leading to the inspectors leaving in 1998), as his basis for going to war with Iraq -well within his rights-and following up on his great speech-if youre not with us, youre against us-would you have been behind him?

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is pathetic. Anyone who has actually read the 9-11 Commision Report doesn't take this kind of thing seriously.

    This is a desparate, ridiculous attempt to smear the administration.

    You can post stories, and so can everyone else. You'll dismiss these, predictably.

    What you fail grasp, here, is something bigger than just your own limitations. The war on terror is not simply against AQ and 9-11 is not the only time terrorists have killed Americans. Saddam did have ties with AQ, but even if he didn't, that wouldn't be an issue. He had ties to terrorists - that is simply not even a debatable point. The WOT ig going to be fought against far more terrorist groups than AQ, and is a reslut of more than simply 9-11. You are trapped in the mode of pre-9-11 thinking, which treated each terrorist attack as some isolated incident. Bush's key insight is that we need to change our approach. We are taking a broad, multi-facted appreoach to this problem. Force is sued in some places (Afghanistan and Iraq) while soft power is used in others (Saudi, Arabia, the PLO, Pakistan). Iran and Syria are tough cases, to be sure. It remains to be seen what we will have to do. Iraq is but one aspect of a larger strategy.

    Yet you are still wasting time worrying about one particular terrorist group, or one particular terrorist attack, and griping about things that the 9-11 Commision and Senate Intel Committee looked into. Your shieks about things that are over with are like the whinings of a child.

    All you know is that Bush = wrong. Whatever Bush is doing, that's what we shouldn't be doing. I've asked you in the apst about your strategy for fitghing terrorism, and you gave nothing but the standard, 'We created the terrorists, so we need to learn how to be nicer to them so they dont become terrorists' nonsense that only people with pony-tails who smoke clove cigarettes and listen to Phish believe in.

    Go back to the kiddie pool - the adults are going to deal with this problem. Keep shrieking Bush Lied and posting absurd articles that only people who don't even have a basic understanding of recent history would believe.


    [url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=2[/url]

    [url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/860ydczr.asp[/url]

    [url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml[/url]

    [url]http://powerlineblog.com/archives/006934.php[/url]

    [url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/11/154020.shtml[/url]

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,878
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's completely irrelevant.

    The problems we are having in Iraq now have nothing to do with WMD's.

    We're facing suicidal-animal Muslim extremists. They were there before the war making our 'occupation' of Iraq not possible. Democrats never took this into consideration.

    Democrats were looking at opinion polls more than anything. Not the WMD intelligence and certainly not the impracticality of American forces being stationed in Iraq.

    Those who voted for the war and now regret their vote should resign immediately.

    Period.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE][B]What you fail grasp, here, is something bigger than just your own limitations. The war on terror is not simply against AQ and 9-11 is not the only time terrorists have killed Americans. Saddam did have ties with AQ, but even if he didn't, that wouldn't be an issue. He had ties to terrorists - that is simply not even a debatable point. The WOT ig going to be fought against far more terrorist groups than AQ, and is a reslut of more than simply 9-11. You are trapped in the mode of pre-9-11 thinking, which treated each terrorist attack as some isolated incident. Bush's key insight is that we need to change our approach. We are taking a broad, multi-facted appreoach to this problem. Force is sued in some places (Afghanistan and Iraq) while soft power is used in others (Saudi, Arabia, the PLO, Pakistan). Iran and Syria are tough cases, to be sure. It remains to be seen what we will have to do. Iraq is but one aspect of a larger strategy.[/B][/QUOTE]


    J5E- Once again you show how naive you are and how you have bought into the politics of fear. Pre- 9/11 thinking? What the hell is that? Let me teach you something little man. All 9/11 did was wake up Americocentric citizens to the realities that have faced the world for decades. Terrorism is nothing new. It has plagued nations such as the UK and Israel for decades. Their response is not to go to war. They realize that terrorism is a criminal act , not an act of war as our president sees it. They also see that the solution to this problem is not with military force (it took the UK a little longer to see this) but rather with ideas, sitting down with the enemy and reaching some kind of understanding. Our actions only inflame those who hate us (much of the ME) already. Those who help us also bear the brunt of terror in their own nations. Thats probably why Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Soth America have been spared by Islamic terrrisss. Americans were shocked by 9/11 , and rightfully so, because we have depended on the oceans as our best line of defense. But to think that terror is a new problem is just wrong. So while some american idiots like to use pre-9/11 thinking as a catch phrase, the reality is 9/11 should only force us to strengthen our defences and intelligence and re-examine our ME policy. It was not a calling to go to war.


    Your second problem is you keep using the blanket term terrorists. These groups are not all the same. They have different goals. The Palestinians have different goals from AQ. The current Iraqi insurgency (rebels not terrorists) are seaking to maintain Sunni power and identity in what is now a Shia and American run country. Just like all these groups have different goals, they must be approached differently.

    Finally your third problem is that you believe the WOT is an actual war. It is not. Its like the war on drugs. Yes it must be approached in a multilateral approach. But military action is not one of them. The only thing that has been accomplished by the war in Iraq thus far is to help anti-america propaganda, support the notion that America is looking to destabilize the ME (something Israel wants), and isolate us from our European allies whom we will need to combat terrorism.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE][B]I've asked you in the apst about your strategy for fitghing terrorism, and you gave nothing but the standard, 'We created the terrorists, so we need to learn how to be nicer to them so they dont become terrorists' nonsense that only people with pony-tails who smoke clove cigarettes and listen to Phish believe in.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Ha! HA!

    The only people who dont buy into my "standard" strategy are those people with mullets who drive pick-up trucks, read Guns-Ammo magazine, never foughtin a war, go to tractor pulls/monster truck shows, think pro-rasslin is real, eat chicken-fried steak, and listen to country musing while having sex with their cousin.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    J5E

    Thanks for the Stephen Hayes articles! As you know hes my favorite conspiracy theorist. Nevermind his book was based on intelligence that was discredited by the DoD

    [url]http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html[/url]

    [url]http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=248339[/url]


    As for the articles you provide. They are much of the same. Conspiracy garbage based on unconfirmed allegations, questionable sources, and Hayes' relentless push to support Pres Bush and the Iraqi war. The translations prove nothing.

    Maybe next time you can give me a link to a Hannity or Oreilly article supporting the war.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]J5E- Once again you show how naive you are and how you have bought into the politics of fear. Pre- 9/11 thinking? What the hell is that? Let me teach you something little man. All 9/11 did was wake up Americocentric citizens to the realities that have faced the world for decades. Terrorism is nothing new. It has plagued nations such as the UK and Israel for decades. Their response is not to go to war. They realize that terrorism is a criminal act , not an act of war as our president sees it. They also see that the solution to this problem is not with military force (it took the UK a little longer to see this) but rather with ideas, sitting down with the enemy and reaching some kind of understanding. Our actions only inflame those who hate us (much of the ME) already. Those who help us also bear the brunt of terror in their own nations. Thats probably why Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Soth America have been spared by Islamic terrrisss. Americans were shocked by 9/11 , and rightfully so, because we have depended on the oceans as our best line of defense. But to think that terror is a new problem is just wrong. So while some american idiots like to use pre-9/11 thinking as a catch phrase, the reality is 9/11 should only force us to strengthen our defences and intelligence and re-examine our ME policy. It was not a calling to go to war.


    Your second problem is you keep using the blanket term terrorists. These groups are not all the same. They have different goals. The Palestinians have different goals from AQ. The current Iraqi insurgency (rebels not terrorists) are seaking to maintain Sunni power and identity in what is now a Shia and American run country. Just like all these groups have different goals, they must be approached differently.

    Finally your third problem is that you believe the WOT is an actual war. It is not. Its like the war on drugs. Yes it must be approached in a multilateral approach. But military action is not one of them. The only thing that has been accomplished by the war in Iraq thus far is to help anti-america propaganda, support the notion that America is looking to destabilize the ME (something Israel wants), and isolate us from our European allies whom we will need to combat terrorism.[/QUOTE]


    This post is the clearest example to date of the fact that you and I simply cannot disagree more on this issue. You want to talk with the enemy and chat and come to "understandings." You blame everyone BUT the terrorists for their actions. I realize that this type of thinking is only taken seriously by hippies and fools. By your logic, the mere fact that terrorists exist validates all of their actions. If the US and other countries weren't mean, terrorists wouldn't exist. And, also, if we tried hard enough to understand them, terrorists would simply stop hating and killing. They only kill because everyone else is to blame - they are not part of the problem...actually, they are part of the solution. If only everyone in the world were as righteous and upstanding as OBL, there'd be no murder or war. You think the best way to avoid undesirable behavior from recurring is to reward those who participate in it. I think undesirable behavior should be punished.

    Listen up, because I am only going to type this one time: IF WE ALLOW TERRORISTS TO THINK THAT THEIR ATTACKS WILL GET THEM TO THE BARGAINING TABLE AND GIVE THEM LEVERAGE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEIR ENEMIES, THAT WILL MAKE THEM [B]MORE[/B] LIKELY TO CONTINUE TO USE TERRORISM TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS IN THE FUTURE, NOT LESS. IF YOUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE TERRORISM, REWARDING IT IS NOT A RATIONAL STRATEGY. IT IS FOLLY. A CHILD REALIZES THIS. HONESTLY - [B]CHILDREN[/B] KNOW MORE THAN YOU.

    The war on terror is nothing like the war on drugs. The fact that you are parroting something that Michael Moore says to the letter suggests to me that you are parrot. I never said terrorism is a new problem. I actually said exactly the opposite.

    Why, exactly, do we need the Europeaon allies you talk so highly of? Eastern europe is quite supportive of the USA. Germany and France are not, but those countries are not world players. Only the anachronistic structure of the UN gives them any pre-eminence, and no one takes them seriously. They have no army, a failing, stagnant economy and cannot even contain muslims who live within their borders.

    What substantive support could France and Germany possibly give us? Seriously - why do we need them? What the hell are they good for? What are they going to give us...money? Military expertise? Advice about dealing with muslims? I laugh at that notion and I laugh at you.

    My God, you are a cartoon character. We need to sit down and talk with OBL and come to an understanding. I can't even make this stuff up.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 11-26-2005 at 06:08 PM.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    J5E-

    I once thought that there was some hope with you , but after reading your last post I realize you are a lost cause. Not only do you lack a fundamental understanding of the historical approaches to terrorism and what works/what doesnt work, but you continue to repeat the same old tired BS. Youu have shown that you are not only a mental midget but you also have the sophistication of a cro-magnon when trying to understand global policy. You are the epitome of the stereotypical "ugly amurrrkin".

    [QUOTE][[QUOTE]B]You want to talk with the enemy and chat and come to "understandings." You blame everyone BUT the terrorists for their actions. I realize that this type of thinking is only taken seriously by hippies and fools. By your logic, the mere fact that terrorists exist validates all of their actions. If the US and other countries weren't mean, terrorists wouldn't exist. And, also, if we tried hard enough to understand them, terrorists would simply stop hating and killing. They only kill because everyone else is to blame - they are not part of the problem...actually, they are part of the solution. If only everyone in the world were as righteous and upstanding as OBL, there'd be no murder or war. You think the best way to avoid undesirable behavior from recurring is to reward those who participate in it. I think undesirable behavior should be punished.[/B][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

    First off I dont hold anyone other than the terrorists responsible for their actions. I am not making excuses for their dasterdly deeds, and I dont expect them to stop killing by understanding them. I never called OBL righteous or an upstanding individual. This is just your own immature shouting, looking for praise and attention. It is also you not trying to understand the complicated natur of middle east politics. There is more involved than good vs. evil. Labeling everyone who is against us a "terrrrisss" is not only wrong but childlike and counterproductive. Your thought process is typical of the stupid Amurrrrkin who has seen one too many cowboy/Rambo movies.

    [QUOTE][B] IF[B] WE ALLOW TERRORISTS TO THINK THAT THEIR ATTACKS WILL GET THEM TO THE BARGAINING TABLE AND GIVE THEM LEVERAGE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEIR ENEMIES, THAT WILL MAKE THEM MORE LIKELY TO CONTINUE TO USE TERRORISM TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS IN THE FUTURE, NOT LESS. IF YOUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE TERRORISM, REWARDING IT IS NOT A RATIONAL STRATEGY. IT IS FOLLY. A CHILD REALIZES THIS. HONESTLY - CHILDREN KNOW MORE THAN YOU.[/B][/B][/QUOTE]


    Ok boy wonder. Maybe you should take a more analytical examination of the way England and Israel have approached the terror threat. It was not until both sides sat down diplomatically and made concessions that terrorism has been reduced in both of these instances. Israel took the approach of treating each terrorist attack as an individual criminal action and responded to each attack accordingly. If you look closely , the #, frequency, and severity of terrorist attacks against Israel came down only after both sides met. Your immature thinking and rabid hatred for the ME does not allow you to see this. Find me one instance where terrorism was effectively managed using your approach of using pre-emptive military actions and toppling regimes/nation building. It simply does not work.

    [QUOTE]
    T[B]he war on terror is nothing like the war on drugs. The fact that you are parroting something that Michael Moore says to the letter suggests to me that you are parrot. I never said terrorism is a new problem. I actually said exactly the opposite.[/B][/QUOTE]

    First off, Michael Moore stole that from me. As far as being a parrot. Please! Dont make me laugh. You havent had an original thought in years!

    [QUOTE][B]Why, exactly, do we need the Europeaon allies you talk so highly of? Eastern europe is quite supportive of the USA.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Eastern Europe! You mean the coalition of the bribed! My, you really have no understanding of the world. Eastern Europe leaders would sell their wives and children to Bush for some economic aid. They are in that much despair. No Eastern European nation would help us if it wasnt for a very gracious offer of a generous economic aid package. I mean , they are even letting us use their country for these "secret torture camps" . These are the countries you want to consider as allies? Man , not only are you an idiot , but you have no sense of wrong and right.

    As for Western Europe. These are the only countries we can rely on as true allies. They have stood with us all these years. There is a reason for this. Western Europe are the only countries that are similar to us in terms of democracy, sense of justice, values etc. The USA was born out of Western European values and culture. There is no other region that is like us the way Western Europe is.

    [QUOTE][B]My God, you are a cartoon character. We need to sit down and talk with OBL and come to an understanding. I can't even make this stuff up.[/B][/QUOTE]


    Cartoon character? Hardly! I actually believe we should take a thoughtful approach to combating terrorism. What have you offered?

    Your approach is : "Lets git dem turrrrissss! Kill em all! Will get Rambo, and Armold and the green barets to hunt the turrrrissss whereever they might be. Then we go into Iraq and topple Saddam and and then we form a democracy! Yeah thats it. We will get the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds to live together in harmony and form a secular democracy which will be the model for all of the ME. Yeah then everyone will see how great democracy is and everyone will want it. Democracy will spread like a domino to Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Coast. And and everyone will see that America is responsible for this great democracy and freedom and all the ME will love us. And there will be no more terrrrrrrissssss!"

    Suuuuuuuure J5E. Man, your approach is so realistic. Jesus , you are a foreign policy/terrorist guru. You should write a book. Better yet you should be elected so you can guide us to victory!

    Im the cartoon character? Take a look at yourself. You are the little kid who saw Rambo one too many times. Your redneck brand of thinking doesnt work in the real world. Let me ask you, have you ever been outside the USA? Have you ever met and had a thoughtful discussion with any European, Arab, Latin American? Do you realize that the world actually extends beyond California and NY? With every post you make you re confirm that you lack a grasp of reality.
    Last edited by kennyo7; 11-27-2005 at 06:33 PM.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]J5E-

    I once thought that there was some hope with you , but after reading your last post I realize you are a lost cause. Not only do you lack a fundamental understanding of the historical approaches to terrorism and what works/what doesnt work, but you continue to repeat the same old tired BS. Youu have shown that you are not only a mental midget but you also have the sophistication of a cro-magnon when trying to understand global policy. You are the epitome of the stereotypical "ugly amurrrkin".



    First off I dont hold anyone other than the terrorists responsible for their actions. I am not making excuses for their dasterdly deeds, and I dont expect them to stop killing by understanding them. I never called OBL righteous or an upstanding individual. This is just your own immature shouting, looking for praise and attention. It is also you not trying to understand the complicated natur of middle east politics. There is more involved than good vs. evil. Labeling everyone who is against us a "terrrrisss" is not only wrong but childlike and counterproductive. Your thought process is typical of the stupid Amurrrrkin who has seen one too many cowboy/Rambo movies.




    Ok boy wonder. Maybe you should take a more analytical examination of the way England and Israel have approached the terror threat. It was not until both sides sat down diplomatically and made concessions that terrorism has been reduced in both of these instances. Israel took the approach of treating each terrorist attack as an individual criminal action and responded to each attack accordingly. If you look closely , the #, frequency, and severity of terrorist attacks against Israel came down only after both sides met. Your immature thinking and rabid hatred for the ME does not allow you to see this. Find me one instance where terrorism was effectively managed using your approach of using pre-emptive military actions and toppling regimes/nation building. It simply does not work.



    First off, Michael Moore stole that from me. As far as being a parrot. Please! Dont make me laugh. You havent had an original thought in years!



    Eastern Europe! You mean the coalition of the bribed! My, you really have no understanding of the world. Eastern Europe leaders would sell their wives and children to Bush for some economic aid. They are in that much despair. No Eastern European nation would help us if it wasnt for a very gracious offer of a generous economic aid package. I mean , they are even letting us use their country for these "secret torture camps" . These are the countries you want to consider as allies? Man , not only are you an idiot , but you have no sense of wrong and right.

    As for Western Europe. These are the only countries we can rely on as true allies. They have stood with us all these years. There is a reason for this. Western Europe are the only countries that are similar to us in terms of democracy, sense of justice, values etc. The USA was born out of Western European values and culture. There is no other region that is like us the way Western Europe is.




    Cartoon character? Hardly! I actually believe we should take a thoughtful approach to combating terrorism. What have you offered?

    Your approach is : "Lets git dem turrrrissss! Kill em all! Will get Rambo, and Armold and the green barets to hunt the turrrrissss whereever they might be. Then we go into Iraq and topple Saddam and and then we form a democracy! Yeah thats it. We will get the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds to live together in harmony and form a secular democracy which will be the model for all of the ME. Yeah then everyone will see how great democracy is and everyone will want it. Democracy will spread like a domino to Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Coast. And and everyone will see that America is responsible for this great democracy and freedom and all the ME will love us. And there will be no more terrrrrrrissssss!"

    Suuuuuuuure J5E. Man, your approach is so realistic. Jesus , you are a foreign policy/terrorist guru. You should write a book. Better yet you should be elected so you can guide us to victory!

    Im the cartoon character? Take a look at yourself. You are the little kid who saw Rambo one too many times. Your redneck brand of thinking doesnt work in the real world. Let me ask you, have you ever been outside the USA? Have you ever met and had a thoughtful discussion with any European, Arab, Latin American? Do you realize that the world actually extends beyond California and NY? With every post you make you re confirm that you lack a grasp of reality.[/QUOTE]

    Right, so Irsael's construction of the wall didn't help reduce terrorism there? It was all "meeting" with the Palestinians, that did it? Are you honestly trying to suggest that the fact that Israel has an overwhelming military capability is not material to this situation? Israel "met" with Arafat a bunch of times and came to many "understandings" with him. That didn't work because Arafat had no intention of negotiating in good faith. That was obvious to everyone except liberals and Europeans. They isolated him and removed him from power and that seems to help things change, and I am not even so sure that they have truly changed - we shall see. Israel's staunch committment to defending themselves and retaliating for attacks, the construction of the wall and their refusal (at Bush's behest) to continue negotiating with a person like Arafat is not something that can be dismissed...yet you act as if force has nothing to do with anything. The anti-Jew arabs know that Israel and the US have superior force. That fact influences everything. The threat of force, if credible and superior, carries with it a ton of negotiating leverage.

    When has terrorism ever worked? The terrorists want the Jews out of Israel - that's their goal. They couldn't be further from that goal - terrorism has been counterproductive in that regard. Things are WORSE now for everyday Palestinians than they were before they started using terrorism as their chief strategy. It has been a spectacular failure in that regard- Israel is stronger than ever, the Jews aren't going anywhere. Sure, terrorists can make headlines and kill a few people here and there, but towards what end? Only the weakness of folls could reward this failed strategy, by treating terrorists as legitimate negotiating parties. If we reward terrorism, it will increase in frequency. That is simply something so obvious that I honestly can't believe you'd advocate it. Groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't want a "two-state solution." If that's all they wanted, they'd have one by now. Israel just wants to be left alone and is fine with a two state solution. Rather, these terrorists seek the destruction of Israel as a jewish state. They want to kill all jews. How do you "negotiate" with someone who wants you dead and is actively working towards that goal? You can't.

    I am under no illusions that we'll "end" terrorism. It must simply be demonstrated to be a failed strategy. If peopole see that (1) terrorism is actually counter-productive towards their goals and (2) that there are consequences to being a terrorist - meaning, that we'll hunt you down and kill you, people will be less inclined to become terrorists or support terrorism as a means to getting desired results. Terrorists aren't these magical, mystical people who are above the basic laws of nature - they don't have infinte resources or infinite resolve and support. We won't end "crime" no matter how much we "understand" about human nature. That doesn't mean that we don't need cops and jails.

    You and those on your side whine and worry about how we are "creating new terrorists every day" with our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But you also say we "created" them beforehand. So, no matter what we do, we seem to be creating terrorists. Isn't that special.

    In Iraq, they tried to stop the Iraqis from voting and building their own government. They are failing at that. They control no territory, public opinon is very much against them. Muslims are starting to notice and get pissed off at the fact that the terrorists are killing other muslims. The recent bombings in Jordan have been widely denounced by the arab muslims there and in the greater ME, al Zarquawi (sp?) is losing popular support in a very big way. The terroruists are making a strategic mistake by carrying out attacks like that. They know it, too. Zarquawi even had to hastily issue a release saying, "My bad, we didn't mean to kill Muslims in Jordan..." because of this problem.

    Your intense hatred of Bush clouds your judgment, and you are unable to see things clearly. I have ripped Bush a million times and pointed out many, many mistakes they have made in this war. You are simply not objective at all. You just take the opposite position of whatever position conservatives take.

    You final attacks are actually pathetic. I have travelled extensively and have talked with many people of this world. My God, you are predictable.

    One last time - what do we get out of being an ally with a country like France? What is the positive that we get from that allegience? Money, military expertise, trade and economic benefits, their "influence and prestige"? They have nothing to offer us.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 11-27-2005 at 08:00 PM.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE][B]Right, so Irsael's construction of the wall didn't help reduce terrorism there? It was all "meeting" with the Palestinians, that did it? Are you honestly trying to suggest that the fact that Israel has an overwhelming military capability is not material to this situation? Israel "met" with Arafat a bunch of times and came to many "understandings" with him. That didn't work because Arafat had no intention of negotiating in good faith. That was obvious to everyone except liberals and Europeans. They isolated him and removed him from power and that seems to help things change, and I am not even so sure that they have truly changed - we shall see. Israel's staunch committment to defending themselves and retaliating for attacks, the construction of the wall and their refusal (at Bush's behest) to continue negotiating with a person like Arafat is not something that can be dismissed...[/B][/QUOTE]

    The wall had a small effect, thats all. It was the negotiations between the Israeli's and Palestinians and concessions in the form of land that Israel gave up that suppressed much of the suicide bombings. What you fail to acknowlege is that despite Israel having all the wealth, resources, political backing of the USA and military superiority over the Palestinians, they never once went into Palestine to invade them, kill their leaders, take control and set up a government that was to the Israeli's liking. There is no doubt that they could, but they knopw that it would create more problems for them in the form of a more hostile ME, greater recruitment tool for suicide bombers, and the creation of more militias/rebels. You can not force a people to follow your orders at gunpoint and eexpect them to change there view of you when they already dont trust you. The Israelis know it. You cant seem to grasp that point.


    By the way you were notably silent re the UK/Ireland conflict. That wasnt solved with guns or walls. It took diplomacy on both sides.

    [QUOTE][B]I am under no illusions that we'll "end" terrorism. [/B] [/QUOTE]

    Then what is your goal? What can the military be expected to accomplish? What are the measuring sticks that we are successful? Do you expect us to be in a perpetual state of war? Our military and economy can not support that.

    [QUOTE][B]If peopole see that (1) terrorism is actually counter-productive towards their goals and (2) that there are consequences to being a terrorist - meaning, that we'll hunt you down and kill you, people will be less inclined to become terrorists or support terrorism as a means to getting desired results. [/B] [/QUOTE]

    I agree terrorism is counter productive, but what options are you providing them. When a group of individuals have no money, no political clout , no military strength, and when their enemy(Israel in the case of Palestine) is supported by the worlds only superpower unconditionally (we spend by far more on Israel than any other country in foreign aid) what are the other legitimate options that you give them.


    [QUOTE][B]Terrorists aren't these magical, mystical people who are above the basic laws of nature - they don't have infinte resources or infinite resolve and support. We won't end "crime" no matter how much we "understand" about human nature.[/B][/QUOTE]

    This is where the essence of misunderstanding lies. Terrorist do have infinite resources so long as the human conditions needed to turn people to terror exist. (You dont need alot of money to carry out terror attacks. All you need is the man power. The rest is dirt cheap.) Until you understand what these conditions are (and I dont claim to fully understand them) then you are doing nothing to combat terror long term. We are not doing that !

    [QUOTE][B]Your intense hatred of Bush clouds your judgment, and you are unable to see things clearly. I have ripped Bush a million times and pointed out many, many mistakes they have made in this war. You are simply not objective at all. You just take the opposite position of whatever position conservatives take.[/B][/QUOTE]


    Blah Blah Blah Blah..... hatred for Bush

    You ripped Bush a million times???? I doubt that. You never once said anything agaiinst his foreign policy. I think you may have criticized him once or twic, but for the most part you parrott his points.

    [QUOTE][B]You final attacks are actually pathetic. I have travelled extensively and have talked with many people of this world. My God, you are predictable.[/B][/QUOTE]

    The only reason I questioned this is because your comments reflect that of a High School dropout West Virginian Hillbilly who never left the state , rather than an Ivy educated world traveler.


    [QUOTE][B]One last time - what do we get out of being an ally with a country like France? What is the positive that we get from that allegience? Money, military expertise, trade and economic benefits, their "influence and prestige"? They have nothing to offer us[/B].[/QUOTE]

    You are wrong. France and Germany could provide us with intelligence and military support. Also , had we gone to war with Western Europe, we would have had more credibility. Instead we went in with the coalition of the bribed. A bunch of ragtag nations such as Romania, Poland, Mongolia who themsellves have a questionable human rights history.

    [QUOTE]
    [B]In Iraq, they tried to stop the Iraqis from voting and building their own government. They are failing at that. They control no territory, public opinon is very much against them. Muslims are starting to notice and get pissed off at the fact that the terrorists are killing other muslims. The recent bombings in Jordan have been widely denounced by the arab muslims there and in the greater ME, al Zarquawi (sp?) is losing popular support in a very big way. The terroruists are making a strategic mistake by carrying out attacks like that. They know it, too. Zarquawi even had to hastily issue a release saying, "My bad, we didn't mean to kill Muslims in Jordan..." because of this problem.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Again , you are labeling everyone as a "terrorist". The majority of the attacks we are seeing are not from Zarquawi and foreign terror groups. Its from the Sunnis who are staging a resistance to the Shias who will kill em all as soon as we are gone. This is the start of a civil war . Iraq is not a real nation. Its 3 tribes who want to live independently and not necessarily in peace with each other. The govt in Iraq is a sham. The elections are a sham. They reflect a vote down ethnic/religious lines. It is hardly a democracy. When the constitution calls for no law to be in conflict with Islam and Shia Clerics are controlling the judiciary you have an Islamic theocracy. The current regime is carrying out torture and human rights attrocities. If you dont believe me , the Bush Lover Alawi said it yesterday. I posted the article elsewhere. Funny, no warhawks replied to it.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]J5E- Once again you show how naive you are and how you have bought into the politics of fear. Pre- 9/11 thinking? What the hell is that? Let me teach you something little man. All 9/11 did was wake up Americocentric citizens to the realities that have faced the world for decades. Terrorism is nothing new. It has plagued nations such as the UK and Israel for decades. Their response is not to go to war. They realize that terrorism is a criminal act , not an act of war as our president sees it. They also see that the solution to this problem is not with military force (it took the UK a little longer to see this) but rather with ideas, sitting down with the enemy and reaching some kind of understanding. Our actions only inflame those who hate us (much of the ME) already. Those who help us also bear the brunt of terror in their own nations. Thats probably why Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Soth America have been spared by Islamic terrrisss. Americans were shocked by 9/11 , and rightfully so, because we have depended on the oceans as our best line of defense. But to think that terror is a new problem is just wrong. So while some american idiots like to use pre-9/11 thinking as a catch phrase, the reality is 9/11 should only force us to strengthen our defences and intelligence and re-examine our ME policy. It was not a calling to go to war.


    Your second problem is you keep using the blanket term terrorists. These groups are not all the same. They have different goals. The Palestinians have different goals from AQ. The current Iraqi insurgency (rebels not terrorists) are seaking to maintain Sunni power and identity in what is now a Shia and American run country. Just like all these groups have different goals, they must be approached differently.

    Finally your third problem is that you believe the WOT is an actual war. It is not. Its like the war on drugs. Yes it must be approached in a multilateral approach. But military action is not one of them. The only thing that has been accomplished by the war in Iraq thus far is to help anti-america propaganda, support the notion that America is looking to destabilize the ME (something Israel wants), and isolate us from our European allies whom we will need to combat terrorism.[/QUOTE]

    OMG I'm just catching up in this thread and I'm once again amazed at the crap you spew forth...
    SITTING DOWN WITH THE ENEMY AND REACHING SOME KIND OF UNDERSTANDING?!?!?!?! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT, my clueless acquaintance, just shows us why you can't hold an intelligent conversation on this subject. You have absolutely NO undersatnding of the history of the ME or Islam or of current events. I'm surprised that someone was taught the nonsense you shovel out on a day to day basis by the United States Army. Actually, I find it unbelievable. Then to say further that the insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists, but rebels is also rediculous. These rebels ARE terrorists. As far as the WOT doing nothing but help the anti-America (captialize that in the future btw) propaganda... I think you and the rest of the liberals in our country have bought into that very propoganda.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]The wall had a small effect, thats all. It was the negotiations between the Israeli's and Palestinians and concessions in the form of land that Israel gave up that suppressed much of the suicide bombings. What you fail to acknowlege is that despite Israel having all the wealth, resources, political backing of the USA and military superiority over the Palestinians, they never once went into Palestine to invade them, kill their leaders, take control and set up a government that was to the Israeli's liking. There is no doubt that they could, but they knopw that it would create more problems for them in the form of a more hostile ME, greater recruitment tool for suicide bombers, and the creation of more militias/rebels. You can not force a people to follow your orders at gunpoint and eexpect them to change there view of you when they already dont trust you. The Israelis know it. You cant seem to grasp that point.


    By the way you were notably silent re the UK/Ireland conflict. That wasnt solved with guns or walls. It took diplomacy on both sides.



    Then what is your goal? What can the military be expected to accomplish? What are the measuring sticks that we are successful? Do you expect us to be in a perpetual state of war? Our military and economy can not support that.



    I agree terrorism is counter productive, but what options are you providing them. When a group of individuals have no money, no political clout , no military strength, and when their enemy(Israel in the case of Palestine) is supported by the worlds only superpower unconditionally (we spend by far more on Israel than any other country in foreign aid) what are the other legitimate options that you give them.




    This is where the essence of misunderstanding lies. Terrorist do have infinite resources so long as the human conditions needed to turn people to terror exist. (You dont need alot of money to carry out terror attacks. All you need is the man power. The rest is dirt cheap.) Until you understand what these conditions are (and I dont claim to fully understand them) then you are doing nothing to combat terror long term. We are not doing that !




    Blah Blah Blah Blah..... hatred for Bush

    You ripped Bush a million times???? I doubt that. You never once said anything agaiinst his foreign policy. I think you may have criticized him once or twic, but for the most part you parrott his points.



    The only reason I questioned this is because your comments reflect that of a High School dropout West Virginian Hillbilly who never left the state , rather than an Ivy educated world traveler.




    You are wrong. France and Germany could provide us with intelligence and military support. Also , had we gone to war with Western Europe, we would have had more credibility. Instead we went in with the coalition of the bribed. A bunch of ragtag nations such as Romania, Poland, Mongolia who themsellves have a questionable human rights history.



    Again , you are labeling everyone as a "terrorist". The majority of the attacks we are seeing are not from Zarquawi and foreign terror groups. Its from the Sunnis who are staging a resistance to the Shias who will kill em all as soon as we are gone. This is the start of a civil war . Iraq is not a real nation. Its 3 tribes who want to live independently and not necessarily in peace with each other. The govt in Iraq is a sham. The elections are a sham. They reflect a vote down ethnic/religious lines. It is hardly a democracy. When the constitution calls for no law to be in conflict with Islam and Shia Clerics are controlling the judiciary you have an Islamic theocracy. The current regime is carrying out torture and human rights attrocities. If you dont believe me , the Bush Lover Alawi said it yesterday. I posted the article elsewhere. Funny, no warhawks replied to it.[/QUOTE]

    This is actually a good post. I didn't realize the UK/Ireland thing was "solved." The IRA has "disarmed" more times than I can count. Kind of like my dad, who says quitting smoking is really easy - he's done it a dozen times!

    I think you are pooh-poohing the impact of the barrier Israel built. There are more numbers than zero and infinity. Israel's response to terrorism has been aggressive defense. Force has been a major factor. As was their refusal (finally!) to continue dealing with Arafat.

    I don't expect us to be in a perpetual state of war. Again, other numbers besides zero and infinity exist. You don't acknowledge the other aspects of the WOT, such as the baby-steps improvements than may be occurring in the greater ME with regards to public sentiment regarding terrorism. Terrorists seem to have less support in the Arab "street" these days. Who knows if it is real? I sure don't.

    I am puzzled by one aspect of your post. You say, "but what options are you providing them. When a group of individuals have no money, no political clout , no military strength, and when their enemy(Israel in the case of Palestine) is supported by the worlds only superpower unconditionally (we spend by far more on Israel than any other country in foreign aid) what are the other legitimate options that you give them."

    It would seem that you think poverty helps further terrorism. Aside from the point that many 9-11 hijackers were highly educated and not poor, you are removing (or overly de-emphasizing) the influence of Islam on terrorists. There are tons of poor people in the world - they don't all fly planes into buildings. You also lament the lack of political clout, but you ankle-bite and pooh-pooh every "advance" seemingly made in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, you say poor Middle Easterners just need money and political influence, yet you scream and hem and haw when the USA tries to give people in Iraq and Afghanistan precisely those things! The elections are shams; it's a civil war, etc. Things are undoubtedly messy, but your views are incompatible. Force is not an option. We must not interfere or impose on them, but only if we change the status quo, which creates poverty and lack of political pull, will terrorists be satiated. But, here's the tough part - how do we go about giving every day rank and file Muslim Arabs prosperity and political rights without interfering in their countries? Why no mention by you of the fact that public opinion regarding terrorism is shifting among Muslims, in Iraq and elsewhere? Why no understanding of the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, the US's actions have contributed to that?

    No matter what we do, propaganda can be used against us. Our mistakes (faulty, out-dated intel, Abu Ghraib, leaving the uprisers hanging to face Saddams wrath in 1991, disbanding the Iraq Army too early, waiting too long to suppress Fallujah, etc) compound these very, very difficult things, no doubt. We are blamed for "creating" Saddam and OBL back in the 80's. However, had we allowed the Soviets to conquer Afghanistan, Muslims could turn around and argue that the USA only intervenes to save Christians or Jews from conquest, and not Arabs. Not to mention the obvious strategic risks arising from a Soviet Union with a strong hand in an oil-rich ME. What fun that would have been to contend with. Had we let the Persians take over Iraq, perhaps we could have risked facing a far more formidable foe today than just terrorists. Had we stayed in Afghanistan after the war and helped them, perhaps we would be resented for that, or seen as occupiers, as we are now blamed for leaving, creating a void that led to the Taliban and OBL.

    Often times, the choice is between two or more courses of action, all of which carry great downsides and great risks and great unknowns. There are no guarantees in life, no matter what we do.

    It's just funny to me and others that people like you or Bitonti act as if YOU know exactly what needs to be done to combat terrorism. It often seems as though you don't really know anything, aside from the fact that whatever the US is doing is wrong.

    Regardless of your views of George Bush or Iraq, you must at least concede that Bush is thinking "long-term." You reference that in your post. Trying to help foster along representative, more democratic government, opening up their markets, trying to foster economic growth - those things seem to be the very things you lament in you "no money, no influence" line. You may disagree as to the methods, but the end goal is not that far off.

    If he truly was a war-monger, we'd be out of Iraq already. Iraq is costing him dearly, politically. The fact that he has been steadfast throughout this endeavor should give him more credibility that his intentions are sincere. If he was willing to lie about WMD and lie about everything people accuse him of to attack Iraq, if he only cared about war and conquest, don't you think he would have bailed out by now, to save his hide politically? He's evil enough to do all of these things, but inexplicably wants to stay there and work to get them up and running even though doing so almost cost him his job in 2004 and is still harming him and his party today? At some point do you begin to second-guess the "Bush is evil" theory? Disagree with his decisions and methods, fine. That's different - but he IS thinking long-term and Big Picture and isn't just trying to kill 'em all.

    Also, you label eastern Europeans as rag-tag and bribed. Yet, you don't see the supreme irony in the fact that many western European countries were quite literally being bribed by Saddam, via the UN. No mention of that unfortunate fact, from you - the conflict of interest countries like France had in their actions prior to the war. In light of this, the whole "credibility" issue falls apart. Again, historically speaking, France mattered, historically speaking, the UN mattered. It simply does not matter anymore. France has NOTHING to offer us. You are clinging to an archaic worldview in which France and Germany are huge players. A case can be made for Germany; however, France is laughably insignificant these days. They are like an aging beauty queen who still dolls herself up and thinks she can charm her way through life, not realizing that she is being ignored or laughed at.

    Are you going to selectively find Allawi credible? I could find many quotes from him that would reflect positively on this operation. Is he only credible when he has bad news? Yes, reciprocity is a huge challenge. The three tribes issue is a legitimate one, although I would contend that the elections and civil wars are not nearly as dire or clear cut as you say.

    Much remains to be seen. I don't think it is going as poorly as you do.

    Try this, at least, for a different perspective.

    (I appreciate the improved tone of your last post)

    [url]http://nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200511230824.asp[/url]
    Last edited by jets5ever; 11-29-2005 at 09:43 AM.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    J5E

    Your article from the national review does not say anything new. Just more of the same rosy picture of Iraq that the BushCo. is trying to sell to the public. Yes yes we know things are great in Iraq. They are a democrac (Ha!), they have elections (Ha! Ha!). Also he continues to tote the party line by attacking those who righfully question how Bush presented the case for war, whether he misled the people etc. Lets break down some of this article, shall we.

    [B]"So what is behind this crying game at home — when we are so close to achieving our goals abroad?"[/B]

    Really, we are so close! Man that is so delusional. Lets se, Iraq has elections in which the people are voting purely down ethnic lines, former interim PM Alawi (who was hand picked and heiled by Bush) is accusing the current government of corruption, violating human rights, and brutality that is comparable to Saddam Hussein's regime, the Iraqi constitution calls for no law to be in violation of Islamic principles (i know they also say not in violation in democratic principles, but when the conflict arises where a judgement is violating both, do you really think that a judge will pick man made western principles over the word of Mohammed, please!) , and they also call for Shia Clergy to sit on courts and serve as arbitrators in domestic disputes (how do you think THEY will judge?)

    Obviously these were our goals.... create another islamic theocracy that will mirror Iran....... hes right though, we are much closer to this!


    [QUOTE][B]— they should consider some critical questions.

    1. are the metrics of this war in the terrorists’ or our favor?
    2. Are the Iraqi security forces growing or shrinking?
    3. Are elections postponed or on schedule?
    4. Are Europe, Jordan, Lebanon, and others more or less sympathetic to a war against Islamic terrorism in Iraq?
    5. Are bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi more or less popular or secure after we removed Saddam?
    6. Is al Qaeda in a strengthened or weakened position?
    7. Is the Arab world more or less receptive to democracy in the Gulf, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank?
    8. And is the United States more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack as we go into our fifth year since September 11?[/B][/QUOTE]

    1. Lets see, we are in the process of creating a new islamic theocracy, terror attacks around the world against westerners have not declined but actually increased, AQ and the Taliban appear to have recovered in terms of leadership that was killed, OBL and Zawahiri are still on the loose, the # of Islamic terror groups have increased, anti-american sentiment in the ME/Islamic nations is as strong as ever, and in the process we have lost 2100 soldiers, 100,000 injured critically, and billions of dollars spent and rising. Yeah, id say its not in our favor.

    2. They are shrinking. We went from 3 independently functioning combat ready battalions to 1. While recruitment in the Iaqi armed forces has remained steady, the numbers of them fleeing/going AWOL has increased.

    3. So what. These elections are shams. People vote purely down ethnic /religious lines. The people vote for whoever the mullahs tell them.

    4.Neither. The people of Europe , Lebanon, and Jordan have never supported our invasion of Iraq. This has not changed.

    5.Probably less popular. But NOT because we removed Saddam. Iraq has nothing to do with AQ diminishing popularity. They have made some tactical errors in targeting fellow Muslims, mosques, and public venues that has angered some muslims. You should go out and take a large sample of Muslims/ME and see if their view of America is more or less favorable since Iraq. This is the relevant question.

    6. Hard to tell. Reports out of Afghanistan is that the Taliban has laid low and regrouped. They are making great profits off of the opium trade. And based on the increasing sophistication of their attacks in Afghanistan, id say they are getting stronger.

    7. Again , no change. Lebanon has been a democracy for years (although Syria did have a meddling role). Egypt's elections also show that Islamic fundamentalism is still strong there. The elections in SA were BS. I dont see the gulf nations, or syria, jordan, or other Arab league countriees pushing for democracy in their respective countries.

    8. We are probably just as vulnerable. Our boarders are still porous, harbors our vulnerable, intelligence not much improved. We have gone out on the offensive, but our home defense is still weak and vulnerable. Keep in mind that it was 8 1/2 years between terrorist attacks on our homeland (Jan 1993-Sept 2001). Were we more secure in 1998 than 1993 but not in 2001? this is a falsehood that the right keeps repeating. The fact that there has been nop attack on US ground in 5 years doesnt mean we are safer. This is simply not a valid argument and a false sense of security that the right is politicizing.



    The one truth he speaks about is the pathetic stance the democrats have taken through this. They should have voiced their concern about the war in 2002 instead of bowing down to the pres out of fear of having their patriotism questioned. There is nothing wrong with questioning how the drive to war in Iraq was presented to the public. It is clear Bush wanted to invade Iraq for a very long time. There is also enough speculation that he cherry picked his intelligence to convince america of the need to invade Iraq, to warant a proper investigation (despite all your posts, this has never been investigated). There is nothing wrong with questioning the president's motives. What is wrong is if an investigation reveals that Bush did mislead the country in order to go to war. That would be dispicable.
    Last edited by kennyo7; 11-29-2005 at 10:06 AM.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [B]J5E[/B]

    Try out this link:

    [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html[/url]

    Its largely about the view of the war from Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians. Professor van Creveld is the only non-American author on the US Army’s list of required reading for officers.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7][B]J5E[/B]

    Try out this link:

    [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html[/url]

    Its largely about the view of the war from Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians. Professor van Creveld is the only non-American author on the US Army’s list of required reading for officers.[/QUOTE]


    Thanks for the link. I've read it Kenny. I've read up on Crevald, and will respond in detail later on. I have a ton going on right now and don't want to write a quick, slap-dash response.

    Again, I enjoy the improved tone in both of our posts lately...this is much more enjoyable.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us