Soldiers face murder in Iraq

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Soldiers tortured, one probably beheaded
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2098724&page=2

"We give the good news … to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said the claim, which appeared on an Islamic militant Web site where insurgent groups regularly post statements and videos.

"With God Almighty's blessing, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer carried out the verdict of the Islamic court" calling for the soldiers' slaying, the statement said.

The statement said the soldiers were "slaughtered," suggesting that al-Muhajer beheaded them. The Arabic word used in the statement, "nahr," is used for the slaughtering of sheep by cutting the throat and has been used in past statements to refer to beheadings.


U.S. Investigates GIs' 'Barbaric' Slayings in Iraq
LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bodies21jun21,0,2625235.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

"We have good news coming straight from the battlefield to the nation of Islam," the statement reads. "We satisfy your wrath by executing the sentence of God — which is slaughter — on those two crusader infidel prisoners."

[ziggytrix]

Oh, well this changes everything. They need to dismis all charges against those poor soldiers who may have committed war crimes while defending this great nation. After all, the only option over there is to murder people or get murdered, am I right?

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d64/mike21_us/eagle.jpg
neva 4get

[Ant10708]

ok...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

After all, the only option over there is to murder people or get murdered, am I right?

Well hey, somebody just figured out what happens during war.

I like this new and improved Ziggy, it could work!

[ziggytrix]

Fuck you if you think random killing is ever justified. :)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't, nor am I am big fan of suicide bombings, beheadings, throat slitting, or any other kinds of executions.

This is why I don't make excuses for Islamic* terrorists. :)

[ziggytrix]

but making excuses for dishonorable conduct among our troops is A-OK!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

No, see, I understand how things work now.

Atrocities committed by U.S. troops= reflective of all our troops, as well as the actions of our leadership, especially evil Republicans in the White House.

Atrocities committed by radical Islamic extremists= reflective of all our troops, as well as the actions of our leadership, especially evil Republicans in the White House.

And uh, imperialism and globalization and Christianity and stuff, too.

[mburbank]

Okay, that's just crap Kev. I appreciattte you've developed an enoprmous chip on your shoulder due to the Bad hippies and lefty Bloggers that scared you in a gas station restroom somewhere, but they ain't me, Ziggy, or any of the people here with brains.

You want to fight the Bad hippies and bloggers because it's easy. Who here (and this is where we are, this is I-mock, not one of thse terrifying lefty blogs you read, and I, by the way do not) said that individual attrocities committed by individual us soldiers is refelctive of the army?

I'll go out on a limb and say that there's some degree of trickle down when the secretary of defense so obviously couldn't give a crap, the Presidents lawyers call the geneva conventions quaint and the justice department turns out to have no conrete evidence against Jose Padilla that would stand up in court after three years of holding him in a navy brig without charge. But Just because I think this fish rots from the head down doesn't mean I think the vast majority of soldiers are doing anything but what they think is their job, and doing it the best they can.

That being said, no matter how awful it may be that an alleged soldier got their alleged head allegedly cut off doesn't make him a non combatant, and an allegedly little girl and an allegedly old man in an alleged wheel chair allegedly executed with alleged bullets to their alleged heads aren't combatants.

Violent, uneccesary death is awful, and is only just barely moderated by soldiers signing up for the possability. Children don't.

Me personally? I think the difference between cutting the head off someone even if you think, even if you hope they aren't soldiers is just so many degrees of morality away from dropping a bomb on a building you think might have a bad guy in it and just not caring if it's full of other people, or dropping a bomb from the air and not really knowing who's getting turned into hamburger.

I think there's an attitude, shared by most americans of both parties, that what we do in war is civilzed and almost dainty compared to the unwashed barbarians.

Yes, on the whole Ilsamic extremists are way nastier than Americans. They want to enslave and control and destroy in ways only the most extreme Americans want to, and thank God our cultural standards don't allow for it. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty of killing people, we will always kill more and more effectively for the simple reason we can afford to. We will never, ever kill someone by cutting their head of, because that's declasse. No one should fuck with us. We might just go off an invade some uninvolved country.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Okay, that's just crap Kev. I appreciattte you've developed an enoprmous chip on your shoulder due to the Bad hippies and lefty Bloggers that scared you in a gas station restroom somewhere, but they ain't me, Ziggy, or any of the people here with brains.

Nah, see I have no problem with the Geggys and the ranxers of the world. They may be wrong, and they may be nuts, but at least they have the balls to say what they really believe. I can respect that.

My main problem is with "Liberals" and "progressives" who can't come out and say it. I have a problem with "Liberals" and "progressives" who only seem to worry about human rights violations when it's America and Israel who are supposedly committing them. I have a problem with "Liberals" and "progressives" who can't figure out that we do have a clear enemy, and all of the relativist games they play won't change that.

Geggy will come out and actually say that this war is about oil and imperialism, whereas some "Liberals" and "progressives" will only call it a 'attempted Empire' or 'stab at hegemony'.


Who here said that individual attrocities committed by individual us soldiers is refelctive of the army?

I'll go out on a limb and say that there's some degree of trickle down when the secretary of defense so obviously couldn't give a crap, the Presidents lawyers call the geneva conventions quaint and the justice department turns out to have no conrete evidence against Jose Padilla that would stand up in court after three years of holding him in a navy brig without charge. But Just because I think this fish rots from the head down doesn't mean I think the vast majority of soldiers are doing anything but what they think is their job, and doing it the best they can.

What you do is far worse than simply saying all of our troops are complicit in, well, whatever it is you think they're complicit in.

No, in your version of the story only some of our soldiers are entirely evil, and the rest are just stupid doops who are too dumb to distinguish between right and wrong. I mean, Don Rumsfeld might be ordering bad things, but he can't be there ordering everybody around. So what's the ratio? Is it that the military is 30% evil and 70% retarded? Maybe it's more like 40%/60%??? You tell me.

the Presidents lawyers call the geneva conventions quaint and the justice department turns out to have no conrete evidence against Jose Padilla that would stand up in court after three years of holding him in a navy brig without charge.

And FDR inturned innocent Asian Americans, and Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. That doesn't make it right, but it also didn't make us any less at war with very real enemies.

Considering the anarchis nature of terrorist cells, our government could be doing far worse right now. That doesn't mean Gitmo is right, or the NSA spy program is right, or whatevr else. But I thin you're seriously lacking in perspective.

That being said, no matter how awful it may be that an alleged soldier got their alleged head allegedly cut off doesn't make him a non combatant, and an allegedly little girl and an allegedly old man in an alleged wheel chair allegedly executed with alleged bullets to their alleged heads aren't combatants.

YEAH, LET'S NOT ASSUME HE GOT HIS HEAD CHOPPED OFF, GUYS. IT MAY JUST HAVE BEEN THAT THEY SLIT HIS THROAT, OR SIMPLY PLACED A BULLET IN HIS HEAD.

There's a huge difference in the absurd comparison you've just made. if our soldiers are doing things that are illegal, unethical, or against the code of conduct these men and women swear to, than they are flat out violating policy. This is why they're being investigated (unless you believe Ziggy, who thinks all of the recent charges are to appease the media and cover up the military's bloodlust for children and cripples).

As for our enemies, this is their M.O. They can't confront us head on (as you elaborated upon below), so they plant roadside bombs, they blow up mosques, and they kidnap journalists, aid workers, and soldiers.

One side criminalizes the targeting of innocent life, and the other glorifies it.


I think there's an attitude, shared by most americans of both parties, that what we do in war is civilzed and almost dainty compared to the unwashed barbarians.

And I'm glad you count yourself in the minority opinion that can't see the difference.

But when it comes down to the nitty gritty of killing people, we will always kill more and more effectively for the simple reason we can afford to. We will never, ever kill someone by cutting their head of, because that's declasse. No one should fuck with us.

And? Hey, they may be bad, but we can kill more efficiently, which really means something.

I don't think you've shared anything terribly enlightening here. If Al Qaeda could challenge our weaponry, well I'm sure they would. This is why they revert to guerilla warfare and barbarism, because they can't drop all of those baby killing bombs like we do.


We might just go off an invade some uninvolved country.

Or worse yet, we might do that, and then allow the isolationists and partisans in our country to abandon that country once we've already invaded. I think Bob Taft would love you, Max. No international engagement is ever justified unless it yields rapid and immediate benefits for America.

oh, right, right, we should be stopping genocide in Darfur instead (check out which party was more vocal on that issue b/f it became sexy to equate troop levels in Iraq with Darfur). Maybe we should withdraw, and "focus on the war on terror", whatever that means. Well hey, we should cry on and on about catching Bin Laden, but when we actually get Zarqawi (arguably a far more dangerous terrorist than Osama), let's downplay its significance. I mean, we never EVER should've invaded Iraq, but I'm NOT saying Iraq was better under Saddam. And hey, I know Islamic* extremists are bad, but we kill far better than they do or something.

I think it once again comes down to a fundamental problem, Max. You and Ziggy would rather see a Bush and co. loss than an American victory. Anything that is good is merely consequential, and anything that's bad is REALLY, REALLY bad.

But I forgot, the reason you and Ziggy rush to post about our blood thirsty troops is b/c we need transparency, and we need to hold our OWN tax supported soldiers to a higher standard. i mean, what our enemies do is irrelevant, because well, uh, we can kill better than they can.

[mburbank]

Kevin, I cannot figure out for the life of me why you need a strawman, and even more I'm puzzled why you want me to be that strawman. It wasn't clear to me until now that I am the bad hippie that frightens you.

1.) I agree. We have a clear enemey. They are significant, though small in number, and I beleieve we will never decrease their numbers by making traditional war, as we are doing in Iraq. I think we end up creating more terrorsim by occupying and 'colateral damage' then we defeat. You want to argue that, argue it. Hooting "THERE'S BAD GUYS! KILL 'EM!" isn't an argument. I don't disagree there is a legiotimate enemy out there. I think that the way we are fighting them is barbaric and counterproductive. In the future, please don't accuse me of thinking we don't have an enemy.

2.) For the billionth time. My particular objection to the evil we do as opposed to the evil others do is that I help pay fr the evil we do. As an american I feel it is my patriotic duty to disagree most vocally with the evil done in my name, as opposed to the evil done in Allahs name, or Sadaams name, or Bin Laden's name, etc, all of which is evil, but not evil I directly fund. For the record, I believe wanton killing is bad, no matter who does it. It's the evil I choose to write about. It's a free fuckin' country.

My children are fighting. I have to go now.

[El Blanco]

Max, I have to disagree with you that we are using only tradional means in Iraq. Our military is spending just as much time and effort rebuilding the area and trying to improve the lives of the average Iraqi as they are getting into gun battles with insurgants.

Its really a disservice to try and paint them going in and blasting everything in sght.

[mburbank]

I haven't finsiehd yelling at Kev, yet, Eye Tai.

But I don't mean to say I think we're only using traditional scorched earth type shit in Iraq. I'm saying that where we do (and we do do it) it's counterproductive as well as barbaric and sinful which war always is. I think war should be at very least productive.

I think the evil ratio in the military is very small, thanks. I think the insanity level is probably very high. I think war always encourages insanity, and I think when you wage war the way Rummy does, you maximize the craziness. What's your point here? I think the percentage of retardation is exactly as great as the the national retardage percentage, but retardation at the food court and wall mart aren't that big a deal, and retardation with big ass weapons is dicey.

FDR was at war with nations. Lincoln was at war with half the United States. That doesn't excuse them violating the constitution, and I'd argue that those acts didn't help them win their wars. I think the interment of japanese was a horrid idea that set a horrid precedent. This isn't WWII or the Civil War and W isn't FDR or Lincoln. This is a substandard leader in an ill defined war, and I would say that makes his line crossing even worse and more dagerous than the line crossing of greater men in worse circumstances, but slightly more forgiveable, in that Lincoln and FDR knew better. Again, I don't see your point. And if you hate relativism so much (and I do not) stop being a relatavist. By your lights, Lincoln and FDR have absolutely zero to do with W because they already happened.

"our government could be doing far worse right now."

hat's a really powerful moral argument there, Kev. That's what I told the cop when I got brought up on assault charges, I said "What the fuck, officer, I coulda killed the guy and ate him."

"YEAH, LET'S NOT ASSUME HE GOT HIS HEAD CHOPPED OFF, GUYS. IT MAY JUST HAVE BEEN THAT THEY SLIT HIS THROAT, OR SIMPLY PLACED A BULLET IN HIS HEAD."

Kevin, you doof. The use of the word alleged like eighty times was a reference to your reprimanding me becuase I didn't offer a presumption of innocence to the crew in Haditha, and you were right. The main point being, if one doesn't yet know all the facts one ooughntn't to act as if they do. By the way, I'm totaly prepared to believe that these guys were kidnapped and tortured to death, but I was also prepared to believe that Pat Tillamn died fighting the enemy, Jessica Lynch was a war hero instead of an unconcious victim, etc. etc. It's all fucking horrible, every horrible pointless death over there. I'm realtive that way.

Kevin. The official investigation notes that prior to Times article, the investigation was crap. We will never know if it would have stayed crap, but I think theres some reason to suspect it might have. If you beleieve that the pentagon doesn't try to sweep nasty shit under the rug on a regular basis, I think you are a rube. Appease the media? Cover up bloddlust? Nothing so complicated, dramatic or grandiose. Avoid bad PR. Reflexively, habitually. I think that's uglier, personally.

"As for our enemies, this is their M.O. They can't confront us head on (as you elaborated upon below), so they plant roadside bombs, they blow up mosques, and they kidnap journalists, aid workers, and soldiers. "

Yes. BUT I'M NOT ON THE OTHER SIDE!

"One side criminalizes the targeting of innocent life, and the other glorifies it."

Not exactly. One side criminalizes the deliberate targeting of innocent life. The accidental taking of innocent life is seen as an unpleasant biproduct that some policies try to avoid and others embrace with open arms. We use weapons we know for a fact are maximal killing machines like cluster bombs, we actively try to fuck up land mine treaties. They glorify the taking of human life, were casual about it. AND THIS IS MY COUNTRY!

I have things that need doing. I'll yell at youy more later.

[ziggytrix]

unless you believe Ziggy, who thinks all of the recent charges are to appease the media and cover up the military's bloodlust for children and cripples


I said that? Really? I mean, I AM curious if a response to public comparisons of the latest so-called "American atrocity" to the My Lai massacre isn't at least some part of the motivation for the investigations, but I hardly think ANY event in the realm of human politics has such a clean, identifiable causality. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists. They think you can find one person who is in control, and directing everything, but that's not how it works. In truth, even a simple seeming situation is much more complicated than is pragmatic to believe.



Well hey, we should cry on and on about catching Bin Laden, but when we actually get Zarqawi (arguably a far more dangerous terrorist than Osama), let's downplay its significance.

I assume this is sarcasm, but it's become very hard to tell with you lately. Wasn't this your response to my saying it was a good day for Iraq when Zarqaqi died?

I dunno, is there an overwhelming amount of evidence that Zarqawi really had much control over things, or was it more like he saw a riot, stepped in front, and called it a parade....?

So, yeah. Maybe it was great we got him, maybe it was no big deal? I'm not sure what your take is on it. I'm still undecided about it, myself. But I thought it was really interesting that he was allegedly ratted out by Sunnis who were sick of him telling them they needed to kill Shiites.


I think it once again comes down to a fundamental problem, Max. You and Ziggy would rather see a Bush and co. loss than an American victory.

I'm glad you know me so well. You should register a character called "The REAL Ziggy" and you can take over posting for me in this forum. I hope you will do this, cuz I'd love to be able to spend more time in the Gaming forum.

But you are a bit off there. My distaste for arrogant "my side is ALWAYS right" lines of thought does not actually equate to wishing ill upon our country, and I think it's jsut the smallest bit absurd that you believe that. But seriously, if you wanna take over posting for me in this forum, I can overlook a few minor inconsistencies. Let's do this thing!


But I forgot, the reason you and Ziggy rush to post about our blood thirsty troops is b/c we need transparency, and we need to hold our OWN tax supported soldiers to a higher standard. i mean, what our enemies do is irrelevant, because well, uh, we can kill better than they can.

The reason I rushed to post about this is because I heard it on the radio, and I thought that perhaps these charges would have a some sort of significant impact on the war effort. What impact that will be remains to be seen, but in the meantime I thought we might have some interesting discussion about it here. I guess that was a dumb thing to think!

In my opinion (to which I believe I'm still entitled) what our enemies do is exactly as relevant as what we do. Deliberately targetting and killing innocents for whatever reason is terrible. Our enemies doing it certainly does not justify our doing of it, IF that's even happening (which I hope it isn't, but hope in one hand, right?) If you cannot understand this, then let's talk about relativism some more...

I don't claim to have the solutions or to know of anyone able to do a better job of this than our President, but even if there's absolutely nothing I can do about it, I'd prefer to at least think about it, rather than just bury my head in the sand and say "well these things just happen in war".

I guess what the real problem with trying to talk to you is that I don't "have the balls to say what I really believe". So, knowing you think that, I guess I just wasted my time typing all of that, and I could have just typed "LOLWTFBBQ" 50 times for all you cared. :(

But maybe, just MAYBE, my beliefs are not etched in stone, unchangeable by any force, and since I cannot clearly state in black and white what I believe, I must be playing "relativist games". Is that it? Am I getting warmer?

Throw me a bone, cuz every time I start to think I have you figured out, I realize I'm WAY off.

[Preechr]

Having had some unexpectedly rough treatment from Kevin myself, I think I generally concur with your sentiments here. He's mean now.

[mburbank]

"You and Ziggy would rather see a Bush and co. loss than an American victory."

Kev, that line puts you in Abccdx territory, and very close to Vinth territory. That's just bizarre, and I can only assume it' the Niquil talking. I'm not going to speculate what's in your heart, I'll stick to your politics. After all, it's not as if anything you've posted suggest that you'd rather see every single Iraqi dead than admit your faith in our battle against evil doers was misplaced. That would be a real leap, don't you think?

If you mean by 'American victory' the establishment of a working democracy and peace in the region, I would far, far, far, far, far rather see that than a Bush company loss. If you can't believe that, thats your lookout. What would it take to convince you? If I totally stopped posting about any objection I might have to American conduct, would you beleive me then?

Sure, I loathe Bush, and I believe he's damaging the country, but I care way more about the death toll and the human suffering more than my personal dislike for this administration no matter how intense, and more even than my fear for my country, which is significant. I don't think Ziggy has said that, or me, or anyone. You're really becoming a kind of tremulous old Victorian Lady, Kev.

While I won't offer to stop posting here, I totally agree with Zig. You seem to have moved to a point where your interior Max is more real to you than anything I have to say.

"Bwooo-ah, BwoooooooOOOO-AH! I'd rather see the earth decimated by nuclear fire than say Bush can tie his own tie!! I'M A SCARY HIPPY!!"

Happy?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Max, you can call me Vinth, or an old woman, or abc, or a niquil junkie, whatever you gotta do. I understand that you'll need to do this in absence of a real argument, so go for it.

And Preechr, you know you love the rough stuff.


I agree. We have a clear enemey. They are significant, though small in number, and I beleieve we will never decrease their numbers by making traditional war, as we are doing in Iraq

I believe Blanco covered this already, but the way we are fighting this war is far from "traditional". Would we have men and women on the ground to the extent that we do, going town to town and village to village, if we were fighting in a "traditional" fashion? I mean, we could pull a General Clarke and simply sit back and launch missiles at the country. We could level half the country, that'd probably fix our problems pretty quickly, no!!?

Also, you yourself said they are small in number. I think you're right about that, relative to the size and population of the greater muslim world. So what would a war on terror look like to you, Max? Ziggy, feel free to chime in here with your thoughts, too.

I think the Bush plan has been pretty clear, and it actually makes more sense than some random WOT that looks more like a "criminal investigation" (which a lot of liberals are fond of saying). Terrorism as a tactic, and terrorist cells being the way they are, are indeed not very "traditional", you're right about that, Max. However, the countries that have funded these activities (yes, this includes Saddam's Iraq), as well as the countries that continue to breed intolerance, hatred, sexism, and racism towards Jews, Christians, and the West in general are actually VERY statist, and very traditional. Iraq compensated the families of suicide bombers in Israel. The very specific reasons we were dragged into war there were wrong, which is why I still despise this administration for it. But to argue that Iraq had absolutely NO role in the current makeup of the modern Middle East is absurd. To say that this war is just against a few guys in a group called Al Qaeda misses the point and the real problem, and I think this is where we part on the matter.


For the billionth time. My particular objection to the evil we do as opposed to the evil others do is that I help pay fr the evil we do. As an american I feel it is my patriotic duty to disagree most vocally with the evil done in my name, as opposed to the evil done in Allahs name, or Sadaams name, or Bin Laden's name, etc, all of which is evil, but not evil I directly fund. For the record, I believe wanton killing is bad, no matter who does it.

And I respect your consistency, however I again think you're in need of some perspective. You yourself said it, we are at war. We have a very real enemy. However they don't seem to be large enugh for you to take this as a serious war (which I'll get to in a moment).

This isn't two equals having a duel at sunset over a chick. This isn't "wanton". We are fighting people who want to see us destroyed. We are fighting people who want to oppress women, destroy Jews, Christians, and just about anybody else who disagrees with them.

The loss of innocent life is horrible, unfortunate, and sad. The intentional taking of innocent life is barbaric, and if any of our troops are guilty of it, we need to punish them and make sure that every soldier knows it's absolutely unacceptable (I opposed execution for personal reasons, but the law is the law). Churchill had a great quote, which for the life of me I can't remember, but it was about the clashing of a civilized nation with a barbaric one. The former inevitably gets drawn into the behavior of the latter, and while it's ugly, and sad, and should be avoided when possible and punished when caught, it is the reality of this kind of war.

That's right, the intentional taking of innocent life is barbaric. This is why we need to defeat our enemies, because this is a measure that they see as effective. It allows them to kidnap and make idle threats, it also allows them to turn muslim against muslim. There won't be any investigation, media scrutiny, or court martial for the terrorists who blew up the dome of the al-Askari shrine, for example. Like the torture and execution of those two soldiers, I'm guessing they will only celebrate it.


It's the evil I choose to write about. It's a free fuckin' country.

Weak.

I think war should be at very least productive.

I know, I mean, what good does it do the Iraqis to not be living under Saddam any longer??? And all of this never-before-seen stuff, like Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds working in the same room to patch together a republic??? That stuff is dime a dozen in the Middle East, and certaily not a sign of progress in my book, no Sir.

:perspective


This isn't WWII or the Civil War and W isn't FDR or Lincoln. This is a substandard leader in an ill defined war, and I would say that makes his line crossing even worse and more dagerous than the line crossing of greater men in worse circumstances, but slightly more forgiveable, in that Lincoln and FDR knew better. Again, I don't see your point.

Bingo. Now I know, I know, I know.....you really REALLY do believe we have a real enemy here, ad they are significant and stuff, but this isn't really like any of those wars, right?

Call me Samuel Huntington, but I think we are on the verge of a great war. We are already involved in a great clash of societies, and the way we go about (that's right, America) handling it could have lasting implications for years and years to come.

This is yet another example Max of where I believe your lack of perspective and hatred for Bush has blinded you. WW II was six years, not including of course the fighting that had been going on between the Chinese and the Japanese years prior to that. That's also excluding the military buildup in Germany, and the rise of fascism in Europe.

We're fighting another kind of fascism IMO. I think it's still in the cooking stages, and to look back at WW II now and cry about how this is sooooo not that is sort of stupid. Again, I'm thinkingof the "p" word.

This isn't the same as WW II. Thank God for that. And thank God that President Bush isn't alowing isolationists and political opponents to prevent us from dealing with this threat now rather than later, much like they did to FDR.

On a side note, your thing about FDR and Bush was kind of funny, considering FDR was probably the closest thing we've had to an imperial president. So I agree, Bush certainly isn't like FDR.

"our government could be doing far worse right now."

hat's a really powerful moral argument there, Kev. That's what I told the cop when I got brought up on assault charges, I said "What the fuck, officer, I coulda killed the guy and ate him."

Yeah, but see the clever little thing you did there was you cut my comment in half. Let's review it in its entirety:

Considering the anarchic (corrected my typo) nature of terrorist cells, our government could be doing far worse right now. That doesn't mean Gitmo is right, or the NSA spy program is right, or whatevr else. But I think you're seriously lacking in perspective.

My point here was that since we aren't fighting nation states, and we can't necessarily fight in a traditional fashion, the government could have cause to take VERY extreme domestic measures, far worse than taking telephone records, listening to our phone calls, and reviewing our bank records. They would have the justification, and you know what? The American people would support it, just as they've supported all of the aforementioned things.

This puts you (and me, frankly) in a minority of Americans who don't believe these encroachments on liberty are worth the security. Most Americans seem to disagree with us. I would like it if they just went to the FISA court, but I digress....

The official investigation notes that prior to Times article, the investigation was crap. We will never know if it would have stayed crap, but I think theres some reason to suspect it might have. If you beleieve that the pentagon doesn't try to sweep nasty shit under the rug on a regular basis, I think you are a rube. Appease the media? Cover up bloddlust? Nothing so complicated, dramatic or grandiose. Avoid bad PR. Reflexively, habitually. I think that's uglier, personally.

Hmm, I recall you saying the initial investigation was wrong, but then I asked you to support that and you didn't. Something about how the roadside bomb fit into the picture......? Maybe you could work on that.

As for the general practice of the Pentagon, I dunno. I think you're probably right. Is that right? No. Does it make us the bad guys? No.

"One side criminalizes the targeting of innocent life, and the other glorifies it."

Not exactly. One side criminalizes the deliberate targeting of innocent life. The accidental taking of innocent life is seen as an unpleasant biproduct that some policies try to avoid and others embrace with open arms. We use weapons we know for a fact are maximal killing machines like cluster bombs, we actively try to fuck up land mine treaties. They glorify the taking of human life, were casual about it. AND THIS IS MY COUNTRY!

AND YOUR COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH A "VERY REAL ENEMY", MAX!

PERSPECTIVE!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

But you are a bit off there. My distaste for arrogant "my side is ALWAYS right" lines of thought does not actually equate to wishing ill upon our country, and I think it's jsut the smallest bit absurd that you believe that.

Refresh my memory, aren't you the one who constantly compares a suicide bobingin Iraq to a rare abortion clinic bombing in, I dunno, South Dakota???

I think your specific problem Ziggy is that you're paralyzed by history and what you perceive to be the great satan's role in this war. At least max acknowledges that we have a "very real enemy" in all of this. I'm not so sure about you, b/c every time it's mentioned that the terrorism we face is closely linked with radical Islam*, and Islamic nations*, and the Middle East*, and Arabs*, and basically Islam* as a whole, you seem to get a little uptight and start reminding us of the crusades ang gee guys, not all muslims are bad.

We know Ziggy, we know. Now let's have a grownup conversation about it.


In my opinion (to which I believe I'm still entitled) what our enemies do is exactly as relevant as what we do. Deliberately targetting and killing innocents for whatever reason is terrible. Our enemies doing it certainly does not justify our doing of it, IF that's even happening (which I hope it isn't, but hope in one hand, right?)

There's a sharp distinction between what we do and what thay do. What we MAY have done is criminal, and violates our laws, our mores, and our code of conduct.

This is the rule book they play by. I don't mean this as to say we should overlook the bad things our troops do, but once again.....perspective. We are at war, at war with a "very real enemy"!

Those two wars I mentioned with Max, ya know the ones that are nothing like this one and were far more important? Well we killed a lot of innocent people in one of them, and certainly didn't spare them in the Civil War.

Tell me, does Dresden make us wrong for fighting the fight we did?

[Preechr]

Honestly, the biggest problem I have with the public debate on American "War Crimes" is that it looks just a little too similar to the public debates on everything else we've been having lately. Yellowcake, War for Oil, Plamegate, retired Generals, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo... the list goes on and on... All of these SCANDALS wind up being, more than anything else, political muckraking.

That the "War Hero" Murtha is at the forefront here makes me nauseous. Murtha is a creep, and his "War Hero" status makes John Kerry look like Rosie the Riveter... as nobody could make Kerry look like Jessica Lynch, much less Audie Murphy.

Slamming Marines in the brig and clapping them in shackles goes WAY beyond the spectacle "endured" by the dust mote of the Plame family. I have had my fill of Democrat pseudo-scandal, and this fits the pattern of the immediate past much to closely for me to avoid suspicions that there is no more scandal here than has been in any of the other efforts to cast the war, and thus the Bush Administration, in a negative light.

If I am wrong, fine. Prosecute anyone guilty of war crimes and move on to win the war on the high road. If I am right, then Murtha needs to be sitting in a brig somewhere, alongside whatever Democrat hacks came up with this plan. If I am right, and it turns out that these soldiers acted within the code of military conduct, then I want investigations into the Democratic Party and the media.

War is a serious business. People die. I feel I can be a libertarian and still object to "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech" when it is abused in such a way. We have laws against lying that results in theft of property or loss of life, and I see no reason to extend the press or any politician any more liberty in a time of war (ESPECIALLY in a time of war) than the liberties they enjoy in peacetime.

If a political party campaigned for an election on the basis that we should burn all gays or ship all the blacks back to Africa in hopes the race dies of AIDS, the violence that would stir would be unnacceptable... If the wholesale media is involved in such a thing, then it should be judged to have violated the contract it holds with the society that supports it. I feel this sort of political attack, if it proves to be unfounded in reality, is just that disgusting.

[ziggytrix]

Slamming Marines in the brig and clapping them in shackles goes WAY beyond the spectacle "endured" by the dust mote of the Plame family. I have had my fill of Democrat pseudo-scandal, and this fits the pattern of the immediate past much to closely for me to avoid suspicions that there is no more scandal here than has been in any of the other efforts to cast the war, and thus the Bush Administration, in a negative light.


You make a valid point, but unless I'm horriibly mistaken, the bulk of these charges were brought up by the US Marine Corps and the US Army, not by Democrats or by the liberal media.

Which is why I'm curious why there's been what has been described as a "sudden spate of investigations and charges". Is it representative of a top-level crackdown on military misconduct, is there just extra media attention and this has been going on from the beginning, or are more and more troops reaching a breaking point?

[ziggytrix]

Refresh my memory, aren't you the one who constantly compares a suicide bobingin Iraq to a rare abortion clinic bombing in, I dunno, South Dakota???


Ugh. I barely even want to respond to this, if that's all you get from my posts. But no, I think you've missed the point every time you've read something I've written because you apparently have some sort of strange filter built up in your mind to translate "what I say" into "what I really mean". The ONLY point in that comparison is that fanaticism (be it Islamic, fringe Christian, or even secular) in and of itself is as dangerous as a wildfire.


I think your specific problem Ziggy is that you're paralyzed by history and what you perceive to be the great satan's role in this war. At least max acknowledges that we have a "very real enemy" in all of this. I'm not so sure about you, b/c every time it's mentioned that the terrorism we face is closely linked with radical Islam*, and Islamic nations*, and the Middle East*, and Arabs*, and basically Islam* as a whole, you seem to get a little uptight and start reminding us of the crusades ang gee guys, not all muslims are bad.

So wait a minute. You have a problem with me wishing to keep a clear distinction between "radical Islam" and "basically Islam as a whole"? You can stop with all the asterisks, by the way. I really don't need you to say "I swear I'm not a bigot" every time you say something that seems even a bit bigoted.

But I'd hardly say I'm paralyzed by anything here. I still go to work every day. I enjoy my spare time, and generally try to stay out of political bullshit self-gratifying banter such as this, but this forum is an old habit that is hard to break.


We know Ziggy, we know. Now let's have a grownup conversation about it.

What an immature way to call someone immature! Kudos on the (un?)intentional irony there.


There's a sharp distinction between what we do and what thay do. What we MAY have done is criminal, and violates our laws, our mores, and our code of conduct.

This is the rule book they play by. I don't mean this as to say we should overlook the bad things our troops do, but once again.....perspective. We are at war, at war with a "very real enemy"!

Those two wars I mentioned with Max, ya know the ones that are nothing like this one and were far more important? Well we killed a lot of innocent people in one of them, and certainly didn't spare them in the Civil War.

Tell me, does Dresden make us wrong for fighting the fight we did?

I can't even tell what the fuck you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say the Dresdens and Hiroshimas and My Lais are just a necessary part of warfare and I should just get the fuck over it?

Also, why do you keep saying we are "at war with a very real enemy"? We are at war with ideologies here at home, but our troops are really at war with serveral factions of insurgent fighters, not all of whom are motivated purely by "Islamic extremism" let alone "basically Islam as a whole". I don't suppose you would consider that fully understanding their motivations better allows us to eradicate them? Cuz that's my take on it. Our enemy is not "every Muslim kid who might some day become a terrorist." Our enemy in Iraq is composed of many discreet factions, both domestic and foreign. I would think if you've read up on the events leading to Zarqawi's death, you might agree that the lack of true unity in these groups can be to our advantage.

Also, I can't be arsed at this point to find your exact quote, but you asked what this war should look like earlier. My guess, and it's only a guess, since I'm hardly aware of all the details, but this war should be invisible. Like 95% black ops. You dismantle terroist organizations with superior intel and targetted killings. Of course, I don't like those things, but speaking purely pragmatically, I think unconventional enemies warrant unconventional warfare. That last thing you wanna give a guerrilla fighter with a RPG is a tank to shoot at. Now does running that sort of campaign also require 100,000 boots on the ground? I don't know, but I wouldn't think so.

[ziggytrix]

But no, I think you've missed the point every time you've read something I've written because you apparently have some sort of strange filter built up in your mind to translate "what I say" into "what I really mean".

Last post on this for a while, I swear, but I just wanted to add that I'm fully aware I am guilty of doing this when reading either Kevin or ABCD's posts. I really enjoy hypocrisy, you see.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

if that's all you get from my posts. But no, I think you've missed the point every time you've read something I've written because you apparently have some sort of strange filter built up in your mind to translate "what I say" into "what I really mean".

Let's look at what you've really said then. This was in response to my statement that terrorism is deeply rooted in modern Islam:

" That just seems so wishy-washy.

"I'm not saying every Muslim is a terrorist, but if there weren't any Muslims, there wouldn't be any Muslim terrorists *wink wink nudge nudge* I'm not a bigot at all!"

There are prevailing themes and links, and to try and lay it all at Islam is shortsighted, ignorant, and maybe just a tad disingenuous, though it is incredibly easy and convenient to think of it in those terms.

If you're wondering what else there is to blame, try power. Plain and simple. Religion may be a tool, but power is the goal. Zarqawi was just a thug in a Jordanian prison until he met a cleric who showed him a better route to power. Before he died, he was urging Sunnis to step up the fight against Shiites. Can you tell me where in the Koran it says you're supposed to judge or kill other Muslims, or is this conflict maybe not really about Islam at all?"

See, this is why I made the "immature" comment below, primarily because you can't deal with Islam's relationship to modern terrorism.

Nobody, NOBODY, not me, abc, or anybody, has ever said that all of Islam is to blame for terrorism. But when Al Qaeda in Iraq took credit fr torturing and executing those two soldiers, who did they sayit was for???

The "*" is very necessary while talking to you, not because I'm disguising my own bigotry (which I don't believe I am, but whatever), but rather your inability to ook the problem in the eye.

i'll say it again-- nobody here has said that all Muslims are evil or responsible for terrorism. However, much as your good friend abc has already mentioned, Islam could use a good old protestant reformation. (which, btw, I truly believe we're seeing in some circles and nations).


I can't even tell what the fuck you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say the Dresdens and Hiroshimas and My Lais are just a necessary part of warfare and I should just get the fuck over it?

Per....nevermind.

I'm asking that you take an oath of loyalty.


Also, why do you keep saying we are "at war with a very real enemy"? We are at war with ideologies here at home, but our troops are really at war with serveral factions of insurgent fighters, not all of whom are motivated purely by "Islamic extremism" let alone "basically Islam as a whole".

Really? Well what is their cause, Ziggy??? Is it nationalism??? I honestly wish that were the case. Is it "Pan-arabism"??? What is motivating other muslims from Yemen, Syria, and Algeria to leave their homes and go to Iraq???

Why is it that the insurgents target mosques??? Why, again, is it that these insurgents kill in the name of Allah instead of iraq, or Arabism, or whatever..?

"Or maybe this isn't about Islam blah blah blah...."


but this war should be invisible. Like 95% black ops. You dismantle terroist organizations with superior intel and targetted killings.

Really? And who would you kill in these blackops, Ziggy? Would uou just go after people who say they are a part of "Al Qaeda," and call it a day???

Al Qaeda is a product of the problem. Focusing on "black ops" that would "dismantle terrorist organizations" would be good, but would it end jihadism*, Ziggy?

[El Blanco]

Ziggy's rtight about the black ops. We should just have Charlie Sheen and Michael Bein parachute in with their cloaks of invisibility and kill all of the terrorists with the intel that magically appeared in their possession.

Never mind what happens when the insurgents make a very public display by holing up in a mosque and blasting away at passer-bys or suicide bombing a market place.

We really don't need a very visible presence to show the Iraqi people we are there and working to protect them. And "black ops" make great defenses when gunmen pop up out of seemingly nowhere. Because intel is a perfect science and our people are omniscient.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Blanco, the entire war on terrorism is like an episode of Law & Order. if we busted Bin Laden, the whole thing would fold, and we could move on to the next global problem that has nothing to do with Islam*.

[ziggytrix]

Really? Well what is their cause, Ziggy??? Is it nationalism??? I honestly wish that were the case. Is it "Pan-arabism"??? What is motivating other muslims from Yemen, Syria, and Algeria to leave their homes and go to Iraq???



Heh, I already answered this question, and in the text you quoted! I would argue that their leaderships are equal parts power mad and religiously rabid. See, you bolded the wrong line from my post. You should have bolded "If you're wondering what else there is to blame, try power. Plain and simple. Religion may be a tool, but power is the goal.". Please note I wasn't trying to say that was their ONLY motivation, but simply a part fo the picture.

Excluding the desperate scum who think they see a gravy train to get in on, the foreign fighters are quite clearly there in the name of radical Islam, no doubt about that, but you seem to be unaware or unbelieving of their estimate of being roughly 4 to 10% (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html) of the insurgency. Of the local insurgents there are a number of motives from political to personal to religious. As convenient as it is to label the entire situation a religious conflict, it isn't the whole picture. The enemy is only human, after all.


Why is it that the insurgents target mosques??? Why, again, is it that these insurgents kill in the name of Allah instead of iraq, or Arabism, or whatever..?


You tell me. I'm all for asking why, but I don't know all the answers. You apparently do though, so please share. Is the answer you're looking for "because they are Islamists"?


Really? And who would you kill in these blackops, Ziggy? Would uou just go after people who say they are a part of "Al Qaeda," and call it a day???


Well, my framework would not have entailed troops fighting a groundwar against people who've booby-trapped the ground. It would primarily involve extremely well-funded infiltration of terrorist networks within one's own nation and within ally nations. It would also involve clandestine assassination of those who preach for killing (deliciously ironic, I think) in the name of extremist ideoloogies. For all I know, nationbuilding in Iraq may be a good way to suppress radical Islam. I don't think it is, but I'm not in charge, and so I don't especially care. But it's all speculative at this point because we're already in Iraq.


Al Qaeda is a product of the problem. Focusing on "black ops" that would "dismantle terrorist organizations" would be good, but would it end jihadism*, Ziggy?

What would, then?




note to Blanco: i was talking about an alternative to invading Iraq as a method for staging the Global War on Terror, not as a solution to the current Iraq mess, but thanks for caring enough to check the context! :)

[Abcdxxxx]

You can stop with all the asterisks, by the way. I really don't need you to say "I swear I'm not a bigot" every time you say something that seems even a bit bigoted.

Cool, but I really do need you to start using an aestrisks instead then. I DO need you to say you acknowledge the Islamic connection to Al Qaeda, and the Jihadist* terrorists*, or even that Al Qaeda* exist, and that yes we do know who They* are. Fuckit, you should be using an aestrisk at the end of every one of your posts just to remind us that you used Fawaz Gerges as a reference point to define these people. Have you even read a Fawaz Gerges book, or did you just see him on Oprah once?

Anyway, thanks for admitting you're a hypocrite...now just admit you're talking out of your ass*.

[ziggytrix]

Thanks for responding to that point! Actually, I heard him on the Diane Rehm show. He makes a more convincing argument than you do. :)

[El Blanco]

note to Blanco: i was talking about an alternative to invading Iraq as a method for staging the Global War on Terror, not as a solution to the current Iraq mess, but thanks for caring enough to check the context! Happy

No, it pretty much applies to anywhere our military is hunting these assholes. Just replace "Iraqi" (that I only used once) with whichever country these fucks are operating out of.

If they decide to fortify themselves in a mountain village, we're going to need shit like aerial bombing and artillery to get them out.

So you're 95% black ops for a global campaign is some Jerry Bruckheimer inspired bullshit.

[Abcdxxxx]

something tells me if i was trying to convince you to believe a bunch of conspiracist, contrarian, anti-american theories which paint al qaeda as nearly fictional, fumbling inept pawns with little influence or capability - i wouldn't have much problem.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You should have bolded "If you're wondering what else there is to blame, try power. Plain and simple. Religion may be a tool, but power is the goal.". Please note I wasn't trying to say that was their ONLY motivation, but simply a part fo the picture.

How bold of you, Ziggy! Next you'll be informing us that this whole thing is about certain people who have a disagreement with other people. Maybe this is all about human beings on the planet Earth.

Could you be a little bit more obtuse, you haven't stripped the discussion of all its value yet!

Of the local insurgents there are a number of motives from political to personal to religious. As convenient as it is to label the entire situation a religious conflict, it isn't the whole picture. The enemy is only human, after all.

Sweet Jesus, so is religion, kitten. I mean, it's not like we're saying Allah himself is picking sides here. Everything we're talking about is of human construct, but thanks anyway for the update.

Ziggy, who is arguably the most powerful rebel leader in Iraq? Ziggy, when Zarqawi put together his insurgent group, why did he take on the name "Al Qaeda"??? Ziggy, why is it so important if we hope for peace and stability that we have Grand Ayatollah Sistani on our side???

You can try to strip this conversation of its religious significance all you like, maybe it'll appease the p.c. in you. But you do the entire conversation a disservice in the process.


Why is it that the insurgents target mosques??? Why, again, is it that these insurgents kill in the name of Allah instead of iraq, or Arabism, or whatever..?


You tell me. I'm all for asking why, but I don't know all the answers. You apparently do though, so please share. Is the answer you're looking for "because they are Islamists"?

A CLASSIC Ziggy argument. "Hey, I don't like what you're saying, but you mst know it all, so whatever."

I've told you what I think, and you disagree. I believe the problem is that Islam has fallen into a regressive rut so to speak, and it has allowed if not fostered the situation we have today. Are there other factors? Sure, but it doesn't change this fundamental problem.

Alternative theories?


It would primarily involve extremely well-funded infiltration of terrorist networks within one's own nation and within ally nations. It would also involve clandestine assassination of those who preach for killing (deliciously ironic, I think) in the name of extremist ideoloogies.

Really? So rather than taking ou the regimes that finance terrorism, you'd assassinate the extremists who preach hate on the streets of London??? How would that roll with Tony?


Al Qaeda is a product of the problem. Focusing on "black ops" that would "dismantle terrorist organizations" would be good, but would it end jihadism*, Ziggy?

What would, then?

What we're doing. I'd like to see more big stick/speak softly stuff involved, and I think we could liberalize Iran in better ways than with bombs. i think another super idea would have been to clean up our mess in Afghanistan (a wise invasion) before we jumped to Iraq (a not so wise invasion).

[ziggytrix]

If they decide to fortify themselves in a mountain village, we're going to need shit like aerial bombing and artillery to get them out.

So you're 95% black ops for a global campaign is some Jerry Bruckheimer inspired bullshit.

OK, you seem to be harboring this misconception that I'm talking about sending magic nijas into the mountains to kill the bosses.

Far from it. I'm referring specifically to destroying terror cells in urban enviroments. Please recall the question I was responding to was " what would a war on terror look like to you?" If they wanna hole up in a mountain in BFE, we can leave em be or drop 100 megaton bombs on em. Either would be cheaper than driving tanks and stationing soldiers in Middle Eastern cities. Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.

heh, I guess abc's last post wasn't too far-fetched then, huh?

[ziggytrix]

How bold of you, Ziggy! Next you'll be informing us that this whole thing is about certain people who have a disagreement with other people. Maybe this is all about human beings on the planet Earth.

Could you be a little bit more obtuse, you haven't stripped the discussion of all its value yet!



You call this abomination of a clusterfuck a 'discussion'? Could YOU be any more obtuse?!

How many fucking times do I have to say that religion IS a PART of the issue, but not the whole of the issue. How does calling for analysis of other factors "strip the discussion of value"?



Ziggy, who is arguably the most powerful rebel leader in Iraq? Ziggy, when Zarqawi put together his insurgent group, why did he take on the name "Al Qaeda"??? Ziggy, why is it so important if we hope for peace and stability that we have Grand Ayatollah Sistani on our side???

What is your point?


You can try to strip this conversation of its religious significance all you like, maybe it'll appease the p.c. in you. But you do the entire conversation a disservice in the process.

What the fuck are you talking about? I've not once said religion is insignifcant to the issue, retard.



A CLASSIC Ziggy argument. "Hey, I don't like what you're saying, but you mst know it all, so whatever."

No, you obnoxious blowhard. That is NOT my argument, but thank you for putting those words in my mouth, they taste like candy! My arguement is that all of that is fucking irrelevant to what I was saying, because establishing a religious context for the conflict IN NO WAY removes ALL OTHER CONTEXTS. Look, I'll shut up if you can answer this one question with anything but an affirmative: Is it possible that religiously similar factions might not share the same goals, and to that end when they look at us, they will not necessarily say the enemy of my enemy is my friend?



I've told you what I think, and you disagree. I believe the problem is that Islam has fallen into a regressive rut so to speak, and it has allowed if not fostered the situation we have today. Are there other factors? Sure, but it doesn't change this fundamental problem.

Alternative theories?

I don't entirely disagree, but the issues of poverty, lack of opportunity for self-determination, and good old-fashioned local politics account for a good third of the conflict over there. If tomorrow every man, woman, and child woke up to a vision of God telling them that everything any human ever thought about religion was wrong, there would STILL be fighting over there, if over nothing more than who gets to build their houses where.


Really? So rather than taking ou the regimes that finance terrorism, you'd assassinate the extremists who preach hate on the streets of London??? How would that roll with Tony?

Well, Tony would have to be in on it, obviously. Like I said, I don't even like the idea, but I do think it would be more cost-effective. As for regimes that finance terror, again, I do not think tanks and artillery shells are the most cost effective way to deal with them. But it hardly matters what one voter thinks about the spending patterns of the Pentagon, now does it?


Al Qaeda is a product of the problem. Focusing on "black ops" that would "dismantle terrorist organizations" would be good, but would it end jihadism*, Ziggy?

What would, then?

What we're doing. I'd like to see more big stick/speak softly stuff involved, and I think we could liberalize Iran in better ways than with bombs. i think another super idea would have been to clean up our mess in Afghanistan (a wise invasion) before we jumped to Iraq (a not so wise invasion).

Now why you gotta be a civil and rational in the closer? Now I feel bad for calling you a retard (but not so bad as to edit it! :P)

[ziggytrix]

Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.

heh, I guess abc's last post wasn't too far-fetched then, huh?

Right, because I'm not at this instant cowering under my bed afraid that Al Qaeda is gonna blow up the USA tomorrow, I'm obvisouly convinced that their existence is a government conspiricy!!

Because it certainly couldn't mean that I just think the amount of money spent on a military campaign against a mountain village would provide more national defense for the buck if spent on domestic counterterrorism efforts!


And now to test a theory!

OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ!

(just pretend that said something jihadists about blowing up abortion clinics in the name of the Bush family or whatever it is you feel like I really meant)

[El Blanco]

If they decide to fortify themselves in a mountain village, we're going to need shit like aerial bombing and artillery to get them out.

So you're 95% black ops for a global campaign is some Jerry Bruckheimer inspired bullshit.

OK, you seem to be harboring this misconception that I'm talking about sending magic nijas into the mountains to kill the bosses.


No, I think you have a totally unrealistic view of how warfare is conducted.


Far from it. I'm referring specifically to destroying terror cells in urban enviroments.

Great that makes two of us.

The problem is a lot of this mission is reactionary. The terrorists have to make the first move. SEALs and Deltas simply can't respond in an adequate fashion.

Please recall the question I was responding to was " what would a war on terror look like to you?" If they wanna hole up in a mountain in BFE, we can leave em be or drop 100 megaton bombs on em.

And send in ground troops to confirm the deaths.

Either would be cheaper than driving tanks and stationing soldiers in Middle Eastern cities.

So just bomb the ever loving shit out of these places and leave?

Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.

short term memory problems?

[Abcdxxxx]

Because it certainly couldn't mean that I just think the amount of money spent on a military campaign against a mountain village would provide more national defense for the buck if spent on domestic counterterrorism efforts!


That would have sounded a lot more logical had you not already aligned yourself with the Fawaz Gerges types* that compare counterterrorism to the war on drugs. Furthermore, anything short of putting the ACLU in charge of homeland security would make you feel so uncomfortable, and full of white guilt, we'd have to start arresting Mormons*, and sectioning off Guantanomo by an ethnic qouta. Besides, in the next breath, you're the same guy who reminds us that you can't fight a war against terror when you don't even know who the enemy is. So which is it? Do we survey every Mosque in the country, or do we target the Zarqawi's individually? Which is better for your White* guilt?

[mburbank]

Kev;

Anyone who implies I have only insults and no arguments, and then procees to address my arguments for more than a dozen paragraphs has nothing to teach me about 'taking perspective'.

Each of the things you see as name calling, are in fact, assesments of your own arguments via comparison.

When you attempt to delve into the true content of my soul as opposed to what I've actually written, you are pulling an Abcdhsbzx.

When you teeter on the edge of a 'You're with us or your with the terrorists' you are perilously close to Vinthism. Incidentally, that's also the territory you are in when you focus on my name calling, which as I am explaining now is far more than simply name calling. If I said you were 'a la Vinth', a 'cunt', that would be absurd and without content. However, when I say you are-

A tremulous, Victorian, Woman, I am refering to your sense of cultural superiority coupled with a level of anger that rises well above the discussion and reeks of 'How dare You'-ism, a word I have just coined. I could just as well have said you act as if you have the vapors. I am not unfamilliar with the vapors. I get them myself when I contemplate the rape our current administration is making on the constitution. I am not out of sympathy with the vapors, but as one who knows them, you sir, have them.

I shall now return to your lengthy response and see what other tweaks call for response.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Thanks, sweetheart.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't entirely disagree, but the issues of poverty, lack of opportunity for self-determination, and good old-fashioned local politics account for a good third of the conflict over there.

I can agree with this, however it doesn't change the core problem.

Throughout history, any rotten movement or ideology could probably have been linked to economics, poverty, defeat, nationalism, whatever.

We weren't fighting "Germany's national insecurities and growing anti-semitism" during WW II. We were fighting fascism.

Economics, poverty, ignorance, education, corruption, authoritarianism, monarchism, etc. etc.

All of these things I'm willing to concede might play some kind of role in the overall problem. That doesn't however change the fact that many of these things have allowed for, or are otherwise the result of, radical Islamic inculcation.

[ziggytrix]

OK, you seem to be harboring this misconception that I'm talking about sending magic nijas into the mountains to kill the bosses.


No, I think you have a totally unrealistic view of how warfare is conducted.


Far from it. I'm referring specifically to destroying terror cells in urban enviroments.

Great that makes two of us.

The problem is a lot of this mission is reactionary. The terrorists have to make the first move. SEALs and Deltas simply can't respond in an adequate fashion.


Now where did you get the idea that I was talking about SEALs and Deltas? Please refer back to my "i'm not talking about magic ninjas" comment. If any existing government agency would be responsible for this sort of warfare, I would think it would be the CIA, but most likely it would require a new agency.


Please recall the question I was responding to was " what would a war on terror look like to you?" If they wanna hole up in a mountain in BFE, we can leave em be or drop 100 megaton bombs on em.

And send in ground troops to confirm the deaths.

Is satellite intel insufficient?

Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.

short term memory problems?

Have you been cowering under your bed the past 5 years? I've been living my day to day life exactly the same way as I was before September 11, 2001.


ABC, I'm not resonding to your "points", because you are so comfortable redefining my arguments, so you should be perfectly comfortable making up replies for me. Fuck off.

[mburbank]

"We could level half the country, that'd probably fix our problems pretty quickly, no!!? "

No. In my opinion, levelling select pieces of the country isn't working either. I believe Iraq, (a sovereign country we no longer occupy, officially) has suggested a timetable for the withdrawl of US troops and Amnesty for insurgents not tied directly to terrorist acts. I haven't had time to read much on what that might mean, but it does suggest there may be alternatives besides our current... lets say semi-traditional involvement, since you seem to think by traditional I mean strictly air war, which, traditionally I don't think we've used against an insurgency. In vietnam for instance (and I mean no comparison at the moment beyond style of fighting) we had troops on the ground, we had a hearts and minds campaign, and understandable difficulty telling who was the enemy and wo wasn't. I hope those sound enough like arguments to you., I shouldn't want to give you the 'out' of claiming all I have to offer are insults, you Wolfawitzawannabee.

"So what would a war on terror look like to you, Max? "
As I've said multiple times, and as you argue against almost immediately, It would look like a very large multinational police effort. It would of course also incorporate economic and political efforst as well. Saudi Arabia might be induced to fund less terrorism, for instance, if we stopped selling them weapons systems and dancing through the flowers holding their hands, etc.

"(which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."

Thank goodness you do not fall pray, as I so often do, of demonising and lumping together political blocks. I shall endeavor to match you and be more charitable when refering to 'conservatives', many of whom are fond of dismantaling our system tri-partite system of government. Oh, damn! I did it again.

" However, the countries that have funded these activities (yes, this includes Saddam's Iraq), as well as the countries that continue to breed intolerance, hatred, sexism, and racism towards Jews, Christians, and the West in general are actually VERY statist, and very traditional."

MMmm. Excellent point. I'm sure this moral, anti-real politic explains our invasion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and why when we discovered who ran the worlds nuclear blackmarket, we demanded his extradition to the Hague. Well, at very least harsh punishment. I mean house arrest. Anyway, Paksitan says he's under house arrest, and why would our allies lie to us? Your... argument, here, Kev, would hold water if it's relationship with our foreign ppolicy were more than coincidental. Are you perhaps suggesting we develop a foriegn policy with these goals? Traditional warfare against states that support terrorsim? Maybe I'm not clear on what it is you're trying to say here.

"But to argue that Iraq had absolutely NO role in the current makeup of the modern Middle East is absurd."

I hate it when I argue things without knowing it. Here's the argument I wanted to make. Since those are NOT the reasons we went to war there what chance do you think we have of making things better with the strategy and leadership that developed the false reason in the first place? And, now that we are in Iraq, do you see this is helping or hindering any chance we might have had or have of working on some of the other countries in the region that had a much larger role in the current make-up of the middle east. I think it's kind of weakened our hand with Iraq.

I feel as if your argument is:

"Yes, I agree, we went with bad reasons and we could have gone to better places, but now we're here lets just keep doing what we're doing and maybe it will morph into a being about good reasons and everybody there will forget about the bad reasons."

I don't favor that course, but I do think it's an arguable way of looking at the situation, and even has laudable, desireable, altruistic goals. I also think it would require a massive commitment and massive sacrafices well beyond anything either party has placed on the table. You say the Bush plan has looked 'pretty clear'. I'd say if his goals for the WOT are anything like yours, they are a muddy disaster. He needs a LOT more money and it can't come from borrowing. He may well need a draft. He needs a fully funded, decent health care system for returning servicemen and women and an agressive anti-corruption campaign so we aren't throwing away the money we have. I don't want the WOT you do Kev, but if Bush does, he's not being very realistic about what it would take.

" To say that this war is just against a few guys in a group called Al Qaeda misses the point and the real problem, and I think this is where we part on the matter. "

I think you are underestimating my view of the problem, but essentially, yes, this is where we part ways. I do not think military force, particularly occupation, addresses the problem of terrorsim in speciffic and rabid fundamentalism in general.

"This isn't two equals having a duel at sunset over a chick. This isn't "wanton". We are fighting people who want to see us destroyed. We are fighting people who want to oppress women, destroy Jews, Christians, and just about anybody else who disagrees with them. "

Yes, but the way we are fighting them is the way Chenney hunts quail.
We spray buckshot and we may well get the evil doer bird or birds, but we get a whole hell of a lot of other quail in the buckshot spray as well. And then those quail get really, really, mad, and the lots of quail who used to be somewhat anti-semitic and made their women quail dress in bags, which is admittedly bad, start to think the martyred evil doer quail made a lot more sense before our clumsy, hamfisted VP started shooting. I do not think this is about two equals. I think it's about one country, one stateless movement and one fuck of a lot of bystanders getting killed by both sides. I'm quite sure it's not a duel. Do you think it's Batman Vs. the Joker, or might your view be nuanced enough that to imply absurd metaphors is insulting. If so, I apologize for the Batman line and the Chenney metaphor. I'd hate to think that just because I disagree with you I'd boil your ideas down to nonsense, like, say, two guys dueling.

"The loss of innocent life is horrible, unfortunate, and sad. The intentional taking of innocent life is barbaric, "

Those are good deffinitions. I agree with both of them. How do you deffine a callous disregard for innocent life? I think a callous disregard of innocent life is a really, really, really big part of war. When a country uses cluster bombs, land mines, white phosphorus, I believe this shows a callous disregard for innocent life, and when a countries citizens don't scream bloody blue murder that also shows a callous disregard for innocent life. The collective screaming of voting american citizens might impact some of these policies. The collective screaming of American voters will probably not influence the practices of beheaders. I'm sorry that comes off as "blame America first" to you. I see it as conservation of screaming.

You call my conservation of screaming 'weak'. Admittedly, a fabulous argument, and is it any wonder I resort to name calling in the face of such erudite reasoning?

"I know, I mean, what good does it do the Iraqis to not be living under Saddam any longer???"

I'm not certain, since I have never lived under either Sadaam or their current straits. It is my opinion from what I've read and thought about, that their lives were not that great in either scenario. I'm sure your certainty that their lives now are three whole question marks better arises from something pure enough that you have no cause to even wonder if we've brought more misery than was there to begin with. If there was only one question mark, it might be something worth at least thinking about, but three? I have obviously come up against a law of physics, one of Rumsfelds 'known knowns'. I can only assume that your certainty at a distance compared to my uncertainty at the same distnce, stems from your superior character.

"I know, I mean, what good does it do the Iraqis to not be living under Saddam any longer??? And all of this never-before-seen stuff, like Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds working in the same room to patch together a republic???"

We are now up to 9 question marks in total, so I must be mad to even question you, but it's in my nature. I would say that since all the things you note took place and continue to take place in the presence of our vigorous military presence, we do not know if this is progress. If something lasting comes out of it in the end, yes. If it can only even struggle along while we surround it with blazing guns, then no, Kevin. In my opinion, that would not be progress, especially concidering the amount of bodies it takes to fuel the experiment. I would say you may be right. But despite your punctuation frenzy!!! I do not cede that as a given!!! And that, too, is where we part ways!!!

":perspective "

You may see it as perspective. I see a certain arrogance there.

"Call me Samuel Huntington, but I think we are on the verge of a great war. "

I think we are too, Samuel, but I think we are there because too many on both sides find that idea engaging, romantic and religous. I think a great war is what the terrorists, the fundamentalists, Jihadist, dead enders, etc. desire most of all, and I think we have agreed to theri playbook since the moment we went to war with a country W wanted to settle scores with instead of pursuing a more thoughtful honest policy. I think there is still time to put there playbook down and spend all our energy finding a way to avoid a great war. In worst case scenarios on either side of this divide; I believe civilzation could almost certainly survive some serious horrors. I do not believe that civilization could withstand another Great War. I hope and pray for a middle way.

"This isn't the same as WW II. Thank God for that. And thank God that President Bush isn't alowing isolationists and political opponents to prevent us from dealing with this threat now rather than later, much like they did to FDR. "

See, that's where I think you're blinded, Kev, by your idea that this is a pre WWII situation. You think we are 'dealing with this threat now'. I think we are throwing money and bodies down a rathole, almost totally ignoring actual homeland security and sticking our heads in the sand over rising sea levels which could make a Billion people refugees. THAT's the kind of shit that can cause Great Wars. I think there may be some ground between being an isolationist and thinking invasions and occupations are swell policy. Are anti-war and isolationist synonamous to you? I always thought there were other ways to work for change in other countries, I didn't realize if I thought all out war was a costly mistake that made me an isolationist.

"So I agree, Bush certainly isn't like FDR. "

Oh, well done sir! I agree , Imperial presidency (which as you know is the thing I find least attractive about FDR and I don't think it was a neccesary component of what made him a good president) is the only arena it's fair to compare them in. I do so wish we had a time machine so the brilliant stategic mind and compassionate social soul could have lead us through our darkest moments.

"YOUR COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH A "VERY REAL ENEMY", MAX!

PERSPECTIVE!"

You have convinced me sir! I still have objections to my countries conduct, but I now see there is no need to mention them, or that if I absolutely feel must, I make very sure there is an equal measure of complaint against our enemies! See you on the other side of IGW, the Inevitable Great War!!!

[mburbank]

"Blanco, the entire war on terrorism is like an episode of Law & Order. if we busted Bin Laden, the whole thing would fold, and we could move on to the next global problem that has nothing to do with Islam*."

See, THAT's a perfect example of Vinthism, exccept he did it in a far more natural and thus charming fashion.

Step one, adress a comment via a third party who assumedly agrees with you. It shows solidarity on the one hand, and contempt on the other.

Step two, boil your opponents argument down to an oversimplified, risable nugget.

Step two, let the implication lie that there is no ground at all between that obviously ludicrous nugget and your own position.



And Preech, with all do respect, I think your huzzah an freedom of speech and press was el nutso! Each iota of freedom you take from press or people is an iota you add to entrenched powers ability to muzzle it's opponents and work it's will in secrecy. No one of any party or political stripe (even, dare I say it, a liberatarian!) could resist that sort of temptation.

Freedom of speech and press are unwieldy, messy, frequently and easily abused and manipulated but as imperfect as they are they are a potential hedge against tyranny, and the only one I can think of that does not inlcude the use of firepower.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

As I've said multiple times, and as you argue against almost immediately, It would look like a very large multinational police effort. It would of course also incorporate economic and political efforst as well. Saudi Arabia might be induced to fund less terrorism, for instance, if we stopped selling them weapons systems and dancing through the flowers holding their hands, etc.

Really? What might compell Saudi Arabia to stop being the largest purveyor (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5426633) of hatred ad intolerance in the world???

I also struggle to see how the selling of weapons systems leads to the direct funding of radical Islamic organizations. I mean, i know you're certainly no relativist, but you'll have to connect the dots on that one for me. As I'm sure you're quick to point out, we're the biggest seller of arms in the world. We sell them to a lot of countries who manage to not finance terrorism, so yeah, clue me in here.



"(which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."

Thank goodness you do not fall pray, as I so often do, of demonising and lumping together political blocks.

Cute, let's try to have an honest conversation though and post my full statement, k? Super:

"I think the Bush plan has been pretty clear, and it actually makes more sense than some random WOT that looks more like a "criminal investigation" (which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."

As I've said multiple times, and as you argue against almost immediately, It would look like a very large multinational police effort.

So the next time you're going to accuse me of being too general, try not being so predictable.

And since we're on that topic, let's look at your global Carmen San Diego version of the WOT.

What the hell does a "police effort" look like? Are you on the same page as Ziggy, who seems to think that bumping off random people will stop radial Islam?

okay, so you support economic actions, too. Does that mean sanctions? You do realize that we had sanctions on Iraq for years, and it certainly didn't democratize Iraq. it did however provide Saddam with the means to demonize us and blame all of their suffering on us. Is that how you'd combat Islamic extremism, Max?


I'm sure this moral, anti-real politic explains our invasion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and why when we discovered who ran the worlds nuclear blackmarket, we demanded his extradition to the Hague. Well, at very least harsh punishment. I mean house arrest. Anyway, Paksitan says he's under house arrest, and why would our allies lie to us? Your... argument, here, Kev, would hold water if it's relationship with our foreign ppolicy were more than coincidental. Are you perhaps suggesting we develop a foriegn policy with these goals? Traditional warfare against states that support terrorsim? Maybe I'm not clear on what it is you're trying to say here.

No, no, you're absolutely right. We should invade Saudi Arabia, only the site of the most holy religious site in the islamic world. We should also invade pakistan, a nation with a 97% muslim population.

Going after the nations that support terrorism doesn't mean you act retarded. We should be pressing Saudi Arabia harder, which is why I'v frequently said this war can be fought better. That being said, President Bush never said the best solution was to invade every muslim nation. The Saudi regime has made steps in the right direction, but the fact that they still have so far to go only proves how far the Middle East in general has to go.

Women are running for office and voting in Kuwait for the first time ever. Lebanese citizens are demanding that Syrian intervention in their affairs cease. Afghanistan and iraq have held the first democratic elections in the history of their respective nations. I know you can't acknowledge these successes, mainly due to your Bush blinders, but these are monumental things that are directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states.


I feel as if your argument is:

"Yes, I agree, we went with bad reasons and we could have gone to better places, but now we're here lets just keep doing what we're doing and maybe it will morph into a being about good reasons and everybody there will forget about the bad reasons."

That isn't quite my argument, which I've stated many times, so no need to repeat myself.

And who said they were bad reasons? The reaons we were provided were erronious, flawed, and poorly gathered. That doesn't mean the "real" reasons we invaded Iraq weren't in our own national interest. maybe that's not "realpolitik" enough for you Mr. Kissinger, but you can make a pretty solid argument both politically and militarily that it made sense to topple Iraq, because they were the weakest of the supposed "axis", and they were presumed to be the Arab nation with the largest middle class. This factors into the development of democracy, which was certainly a consideration in invading them.

I'd say if his goals for the WOT are anything like yours, they are a muddy disaster. He needs a LOT more money and it can't come from borrowing. He may well need a draft. He needs a fully funded, decent health care system for returning servicemen and women and an agressive anti-corruption campaign so we aren't throwing away the money we have. I don't want the WOT you do Kev, but if Bush does, he's not being very realistic about what it would take.

Well maybe you can sell me on your "police effort" approach. I'm fairly certain if we just got Bin Laden all of this would end, book 'em, Danno!

A draft isn't necessarily a bad idea. He should roll back his tax cuts and raise taxes, demand some national sacrifice here at home, invest in a broad scientific initiative here at home (call it like a "Manhattan Project") to get us on alternative and renewable fuels by 2025.

Be a little bit bolder, stop being so beholden to energy interests, among other things. But for the love of God, let's hope he doesn't pretend like you that radical islam isn't the real problem we are facing by pretending this is just some "criminal matter."


I do not think military force, particularly occupation, addresses the problem of terrorsim in speciffic and rabid fundamentalism in general.

Right, and it's a good thing that's not all we're doing.

it's not quite a "police effort", but it's cose.



"I know, I mean, what good does it do the Iraqis to not be living under Saddam any longer???"

I'm not certain, since I have never lived under either Sadaam or their current straits. It is my opinion from what I've read and thought about, that their lives were not that great in either scenario. I'm sure your certainty that their lives now are three whole question marks better arises from something pure enough that you have no cause to even wonder if we've brought more misery than was there to begin with.

No, see I support you holding these doubts. I think you should keep saying it, because it will only sound more and more ridiculous with every passing month and year. i mean, heck, can you really know how bad it was there? You didn't live there, this is all second hand, maybe it was great!

Can you honestly not set your Bush hatred aside for a moment and objectively look at the obvious, exponential improvement in Iraq?

I would say that since all the things you note took place and continue to take place in the presence of our vigorous military presence, we do not know if this is progress. If something lasting comes out of it in the end, yes. If it can only even struggle along while we surround it with blazing guns, then no


According to the Brookings Institute (http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf):

* Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.

* Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.

* On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Electrical output is almost at the pre-war level of 3,958 megawatts. April's production was 3,600 megawatts. In May of 2003, production was only 500 megawatts. The goal is to reach 6,000 megawatts, and was originally expected to be met in 2004.

* The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60%, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40%.

* The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.

* As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq.

* Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.

* In May of 2003, Iraqi Security Forces were estimated at between 7,000-9,000. They numbered 250,500 in March of this year.

* As of January 2006, 64% of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction.

* Also as of January 2006, 77% said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

Even if Iraq doesn't become America's 51st state, even if they struggle for another 20 years to build a functioning republic, we will STILL have enacted clear and definite progressive change in Iraq. We removed an evil man from power, one who tortured his people and threatened his bordering neighbors with force.



but I think we are there because too many on both sides find that idea engaging, romantic and religous. I think a great war is what the terrorists, the fundamentalists, Jihadist, dead enders, etc. desire most of all, and I think we have agreed to theri playbook since the moment we went to war with a country W wanted to settle scores with instead of pursuing a more thoughtful honest policy.

"HELP ME! I'M MELTING IN MY OWN WHITE, LIBERAL GUILT,AND I CAN'T RESIST MY INITIAL IMPULSE TO ALWAYS BLAME MY OWN COUNTRY FOR EVERYTHING! AHH!!"

Despite all of the talk, radical muslims do NOT want a real war. It's a war, if truly provoked, that I believe would awaken sleeping gians in places like Europe and Asia. Hell, I almost wish it would happen so that we weren't fighting this fight by ourselves.

They was us to retreat from their world, Max. If they could, I have no doubt that they'd wipe us all out with the push of a button. But they can't do it, so the best they can hope for is retreat. They count on folks like you to inflate the power of the insurgency, to blame all innocent life lost on us, and to constantly scream about how our own soldiers are only ruining Iraq.

Japan is going to reduce their troop levels, and other nations have done the same. This is precisely what the extremists want in Iraq, and maybe you can help them get it! Go go go! You're entitled to your free speech, Max!


I think we are throwing money and bodies down a rathole, almost totally ignoring actual homeland security and sticking our heads in the sand over rising sea levels which could make a Billion people refugees. THAT's the kind of shit that can cause Great Wars.

Oh sweet Jesus. Max, can your ideal government multi-task? Can they handle fighting a war against our enemies, while also protecting the enviroment? Mine can.

maybe a "police effort" would also stop global warming, I dunno.


Are anti-war and isolationist synonamous to you? I always thought there were other ways to work for change in other countries, I didn't realize if I thought all out war was a costly mistake that made me an isolationist.

They are the flipside of the same coin. I mean, why do you think progressive Republicans, old guard republicans, and Left-wing Democrats could both team up against war in the early 20th century?

Retreating from the world has never served us well, Max. We can't afford to do it now.

[Ant10708]

I havn't changed my day to day living much since 9/11 but being a New Yorker I'd definately say that a bunch of radicals in a mountain with some bank in their pockets do terrorize me. They did more damage to the country I live in(and more specifically to the state) then any other group or country during my lifetime.



Would this be the same multinational police force stopping drug trafficing, people smuggling, spread child pornography etc. etc. or would this be the one that was suppose to make sure that genocide never happened again?

Bin laden said once that our biggest weakness was never being able to stay the fight since Vietnam.

To be fair to Ziggy. If Clinton followed the plan of selective assassination Bin Laden would of been dead in the 90s. But Clinton's fear of upsetting the Islamic world prevented him from not once not twice but three times passing on the oppurtunity to kill and or capture bin laden. But this is according to the History channel and according to Geggy the History Channel is involved in the 9/11 conspriacy.

Fun Fact: Bush did not cause the world's hatred for America.

[Ant10708]

Is it really so crazy to compare counter terrorism efforts to the wasted money on the war on drugs? I don't think all the money in the world could prevent terrorism on our country. I think the best counter terrorism tactic is just information sharing(and maybe knowing who is entering our country but thats just fantasy thinking) not some simulated anthrax attack where the real conditions of panic and mayhem are not seen or to my knowledge even factored into the pratices.

You spend money to put in metal cockpit doors. They will use another method of terror. I think if we stopped relieveing all our fucking arabic translaters from the military over the 'don't ask don't tell' policy, it would be much more effective agaisnt terrorism than metal cockpit doors.

I know nothing about the guy who orginally made the comparison except from what you guys said in this thread. I do think he is crazy if he inferred al queda was near fictional.

Question: Weren't democrats all about nation building in the 90s?

[Preechr]

And Preech, with all do respect, I think your huzzah an freedom of speech and press was el nutso! Each iota of freedom you take from press or people is an iota you add to entrenched powers ability to muzzle it's opponents and work it's will in secrecy. No one of any party or political stripe (even, dare I say it, a liberatarian!) could resist that sort of temptation.

Freedom of speech and press are unwieldy, messy, frequently and easily abused and manipulated but as imperfect as they are they are a potential hedge against tyranny, and the only one I can think of that does not inlcude the use of firepower.

I'm just jumping on the bandwagon. Individual Freedoms and Liberties are restricted wholesale thanks to war, but God forbid we share the burden with the holy press. They be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, just like Cynthia McKinney. I'm pretty sure some sort of public obligation exists alongside their First Amendment protections, and since part of our public is living and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, I think it's fair to question how well the obligation the press has to serve the public is serving our soldiers.

I doubt seriously the First Amendment was designed to serve as a zone of immunity against sedition. There's a big difference between watchdog and activist, but the First has been abused to the point that, in my humble opinion, the press has frankly become WAY too politically powerful.

[mburbank]

Kevin, you are a puzzlement.

"What might compell Saudi Arabia to stop being the largest purveyor of hatred ad intolerance in the world???"

A the dreaded question mark storm, which implies that I have made not just a questionable statement, but one that is mind boggling, unheard of, possibly even outside the laws of space and time. The USA and particularly the Bush presiencies are deeply emeshed with the Saudi Royal family. No conspiracy theory, just bidness. Saudi Arabia obviously values our alliance. Whhile you may find the idea that might give us some leverare debatable, but I hardly think it's outlandish enough to warrant so many question marks. You act as if I said we could reduce their contribution to terrorism by dressing as fish and eating coloring books. eel free to disagreee, but stop slapping your hands against your face like a E-Cauly McKulkin. They LIKE buying our weapons. we make the best ones. They want them. What if we tied the sales of those weapons systems to changes in their text books and support of 'charities'? It might not work, but it could be funny to try. Instead our foreign policy is to pretend the Saudi Royal family has nothing at al to do with state sponsored terrorism. Of course, we could just invade them and introduce democracy. That sometimes works, too.

"Cute, let's try to have an honest conversation though and post my full statement, k? Super:

"I think the Bush plan has been pretty clear, and it actually makes more sense than some random WOT that looks more like a "criminal investigation" (which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."


I'm not sure how posting the full statement changes anything. My objection was to your idea of 'liberals' and the implication that associtting the word 'Liberal' with something somehow automatically discredits it. Something I've noted a lot of 'chowderheads' are fond of doing.

"So the next time you're going to accuse me of being too general, try not being so predictable."

Sorry, I'm not getting you. You said I hadn't answered your question, I pointed out I had. It must be something stylistic your objecting to but I don't follow you.

"And since we're on that topic, let's look at your global Carmen San Diego version of the WOT."

I don't have a global anything, Johnny Condecension. Tell you what, why don't you look at 'your' global Stratego version, 'kay'?

"What the hell does a "police effort" look like? Are you on the same page as Ziggy, who seems to think that bumping off random people will stop radial Islam? "

No, I like his magic Ninja approach. You're right, theres no such thing as a police effort. There's no FBI, there's no CIA, there are no special forces, and if we ever acknowledge international law I'm sure that would vanish as well. That's why when the Libyans destroyed the plane over Lockerbee the only option we had was to invade Libya and introduce Democracy, Just as we did in Somalia after the Cole. Yes, yes, I know they are a mess, you can save up your question marks. What we have now is also a mess and it has a larger body count. IF it all works out in the end and does not lead directly to your Great War, I promise to admit you were right. I don't mind that you think I'm wrong, but I find your insistence that any other line of thought is bizarre to the point of stupification troubling. Such entrenchment in one so young!

"okay, so you support economic actions, too. Does that mean sanctions? You do realize that we had sanctions on Iraq for years, and it certainly didn't democratize Iraq. it did however provide Saddam with the means to demonize us and blame all of their suffering on us. Is that how you'd combat Islamic extremism, Max?"

Yes. Sanctions are horrible, but less horrible than war. AND they contained Iraq pretty well. Do you think sanctions gave the Iraqis more reason to think we were demons than invasion and occupation and Ahbu Garib? No, it did not 'democratize Iraq'. I don't think this has either. I know you think that the act of voting alone is Democracy, but if what you vote for is powerless, paralyzed and unable to function without a foreign army, it isn't democracy. Maybe it will become one, n'shallah. I don't think you can bring people democracy at gun point, I don't think we should be in the forceable distribution of Democracy business, and I don't even think that's what we're doing. At very best it might happen as a bi-product. Going there was a mistake and we are staying there because we cannot figure a way out that the administration can live with. I think you are much closer to the mark talking about preparing for a Great War than when you talk about spreading Democracy. When the great war comes, do we want Democracies in the midle ast who's people might legitimately choose to stand against us?

"We should invade Saudi Arabia, only the site of the most holy religious site in the islamic world. We should also invade pakistan, a nation with a 97% muslim population. "

No, we shouldn't invade and occupy anyone unless their is absolutely no option and if there is absolutely no option we should have an exit strategy.

"President Bush never said the best solution was to invade every muslim nation."

No, he said we should invade Iraq, he said we had no choice, and at best he was totally wrong about why and at worst he was lying. I know we don't have a time machine and we can't undo what we did, but while you say you don't like Bush et al, you think it's good we're their and what we've brought is an unquestionable improvement. Should we only 'improve' the nations we can get away with on account of their lack of holy sites? Personally, I think we've used up all our free invasion cards.

" The Saudi regime has made steps in the right direction, but the fact that they still have so far to go only proves how far the Middle East in general has to go."

And SO... we use sanctions, leverage, and police actions (which we are doing in Iran right now, so don't say there's no such thing). And no, it does not bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. THAT's what the War on Terror looks like to me. Slow, dogged, unsatisfying, sometimes inaffective, not at all sexy country song patriotic. They keep their women in bags, they teeter on the edge of slavery with their guest worker program, they are totally not a democracy, and yet we have decided there are ways to fight terror without invading them. Now I think we should pressure them a lot more, hold them a lot more accountable, but we can do it without invading. I also think we could do it without inviting them to Crawford and Kennybunkport.

"I know you can't acknowledge these successes, mainly due to your Bush blinders, but these are monumental things that are directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states. "

I acknowledge this progress. I think though you absolute certainty that these things are 'directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states. ' while certainly arguable, is something you take as a matter of faith. I would challenge you to support it without saying "Isn't it totally obvious??????"

I'm not going to quote your whole next paragraph in the interests of space, but let me see if I can paraphrase it without sarcasm or jokes. W and company lied to us about the real reason for invading Iraq. The secret reason they chose Iraq was to topple a middle eastern country they thought they could bring democracy to.

Tell me if that's approximately what you are saying, and I'll get my huge bag of question marks ready. I don't want to waste them if that isn't what you are saying.

"Can you honestly not set your Bush hatred aside for a moment and objectively look at the obvious, exponential improvement in Iraq?"

Can you honestly not think anyone could object to the war apart from hating W? Because wether you believe it of me or not, a LOT of people who voted for W and believed in him don't like the war, don't think it's an "obvious, Exponential improvement in Iraq" and if they hate W now, it's because of the war. Fine, Kev, the only reason I disagree with your unasailable, impeccable direct knowledge of truth is my tragic flaw, my SCARY LIBERAL BUSH HATRED. But what about everybody else? I know, a stupid caveman like me, ruled as I am by my primitive passions can't think good, and if I could think good, I would certainly agree with you. But I bet smarterer people with less raging hatreds than mine also might think, possibly, that we have not improved the lives of the Iraqi people. I bet some of them are good folks nd not just blind, liberal, Bush Haters.

All the brookings institute stuff is interesting. Each of those points can be discussed and debated. To me some of those things don't accurately measure much. GDP is up, but what about access to things to buy with your money, and what about prices? Scales of political freedoms are meaningless in the absence of the ability to practice those freedoms. The Iraqi parliment could make Gay Marriage legal. It's a start, but it's paper. I'm not arguing that no good is being done in Iraq and that our soldiers are Orcs. I just think expecting a think tank to tell you what living in Ira is like via statistics only says so much. I think for instance, the cable recently written by our own ambassador is also a valid picture.

"Even if Iraq doesn't become America's 51st state, even if they struggle for another 20 years to build a functioning republic, we will STILL have enacted clear and definite progressive change in Iraq"

How can you possibly know that in twenty years Iraq might not be a democracy (or some other form of decent government) without our intervention? Not every country in human history that has undergone progressive growth required an invasion and occupation.

"We removed an evil man from power, one who tortured his people and threatened his bordering neighbors with force. "

Absolutely. And I hope that the balance in the end is on the side of good. If 20 years from now we have Iraqi democracy, it may well have been worth it. How about if Iraq spirals into civil war, drags neighboring countries in and is ground zero for your Great War? 'Cause that could be the outcome of our actions, too. Bush the edler pointed out a lot of solid reasons for not invading Iraq when he had the chance, and then we had a lot of the world backing us up. Maybe the Father was wrong and the Son was right. But it isn't bizarre to think the reverse. And I hates 'em both, Kev. I hate Barb even more.

""HELP ME! I'M MELTING IN MY OWN WHITE, LIBERAL GUILT,AND I CAN'T RESIST MY INITIAL IMPULSE TO ALWAYS BLAME MY OWN COUNTRY FOR EVERYTHING! AHH!!"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "I'm Kev and I'm so blinded by my own arrogance and superiority that I'm certain anyone who thinks different must be some kind of congenital idiot and if only they would stop taking their stupid liberal pills they have the same opinion as me because MY opinion is the physical truth." Again, my apologies for being such a lesser being. I could ascribe your beliefs to jingoist war lust and race hatred, but I think you're more complex than that. That's why I continue to respect you even when you get the vapors.

"Despite all of the talk, radical muslims do NOT want a real war."

With your superhuman ability to peer directly into the sould of message board posters, political and religous forces and entire countries, it's a wonder the Justice League hasn't invited you to join.

"It's a war, if truly provoked, that I believe would awaken sleeping gians in places like Europe and Asia. Hell, I almost wish it would happen so that we weren't fighting this fight by ourselves. "

Almost, Kev? I'm not a soul peerer, but I'd say you're treating that 'almost' line like a runner itching to steal Second. Tell me, if the Great War comes, will you fight in it, or would you prefer to be one of those guys in suits with other priorities? I myself would really like to see us work harder on NOT having that war. I know, I'm an isolationist and the only way I can prove I'm not is to kill some people.

"They count on folks like you to inflate the power of the insurgency, to blame all innocent life lost on us, and to constantly scream about how our own soldiers are only ruining Iraq. "

OH NO!! I'M IN LEAGUE WITH THE TERRORISTS! I'M THEIR UNWITTING, LIBERAL DUPE!!

I don't know, I think they still count on W more than they count on me. Why, I bet not one single guy was radicalized on account of my quarrel with my countries foreign policy, and I bet our invasion of Iraq created, like, at least five new terrorists. So our foreign policy is at east five times more to blame than me. Just so you know, Kev, I don't think you radicalized anybody either. I disagree with you, but I do not think your view is a product of being duped by the terrorists, or even the administration. I think you have a supple, lovely, atheletic young brain, and while you are somewhat overestimate the truthiness of your own ideas, you came to them all by yourself. I, sadly, am too passionate to do that. Passionate, blind and liberal. Kudos to you sir.

"Japan is going to reduce their troop levels, and other nations have done the same."

I bet it's because all those Nations are blinded by their hatred of Bush. Otherwise they'd be Kevinists.

"This is precisely what the extremists want in Iraq, and maybe you can help them get it! Go go go! You're entitled to your free speech, Max!"

You know, Kev, you've given me pause, there. Maybe we should reaximine our commitment to free speech. It may be that by allowing folks like me that freedom, we are slowing down our distribution of democracy to others. I think we should change it so the constitution says 'you are entitled to freedom of speech as long as Kevin doesn't think it aids terrorists.' That way, maybe people would show their respect for speech by shutting up.

"Max, can your ideal government multi-task? Can they handle fighting a war against our enemies, while also protecting the enviroment? Mine can. "

I don't have an ideal government, and if recent history is any judge the best government I'm going to get is one that sucks somewhat less than this one. Maybe the next administration will be able to multi-task, but this one isn't. You're off in La-La land dreaming about all the good shit we could do if we had a dream government. I'm angry about the things our current government is fucking up, and I think being concerned about those fuck ups could be constructive in getting a better administration.

"maybe a "police effort" would also stop global warming, I dunno."

That's kind of dumb and apropos of nothing. Gee, there, Kev, maybe we could invade global warming and occupy it, a hyuk a hyuck.

"Retreating from the world has never served us well, Max."

So, that's the full range of your politcial thought? Binary politics. Avoiding war = isolationist = retreat, OR enaged = war. Can't your ideal government multi task? Your ideal government has no chance whatsoever of threading the needle, the only way to address the problem of Islamic extremism is to go to war because not going to war is Isolationsim is retreat? I'm praying that whoever sits in the hotseat next can do it. 'Cause I don't think anyone is coming home from the next Great War.

[ziggytrix]

What the hell does a "police effort" look like? Are you on the same page as Ziggy, who seems to think that bumping off random people will stop radial Islam?

That is a gross oversimplification of what I proposed as a theoretical alternative to using the traditional army to "stop radical Islam."

You seem to think highly visible men with guns is the best way to fight this guerilla style fighters. I'm merely suggesting that might not be the case. And it the broader scope of crushing the ideaology behind the enemy fighters, I'm certain our traditional army is not the most effective tool. Maybe it'll get the job done. Going in guns blazing then building forts certainly is the most "American" way to try to get the job done. Maybe it'll even work. That'd be swell, since it's what we're doing.

[Abcdxxxx]

The US army made several huge the mistakes, but one of the biggest was the failure to cap off borders. The initial war against Iraq has been over for some time...the current resistance against the US or whatever it is we're seeing now does not represent Iraqi's. I get the feeling that's lost on some of you.

[ziggytrix]

So you disagree with the assment that only 10% at most of the resistance is comprised of foreign fighters? Or you think that since the insurgency doesn't represent ALL Iraqis, then they don't represent any of them? Where's the logic in that?

Or would you assert that were the foreign fighters to be removed from the picture, the Iraqi resistance would crumble? You could make that argument, but you'd need to back it up with something of substance.

I agree that not sealing off the borders has worsened the situation, but how exactly do you propose sealing off 2281 miles of border? That's a hell of a project. Too bad you don't work for the Pentagon, I'm sure you could have showed them how to do it. :(

[Abcdxxxx]

I said the resistance does not represent the Iraqi's.

What's most relevant is who is strategizing, arming, and aiding these groups. This is not a new wave of Republican Gaurd. It's largely foriegn interest.

[mburbank]

I have no idea if that's true or not, but I don't think it has mmuch to do with wether or not the reistance represents Iraqis. Of course it represents some of them. Yes, if you were able to cut off all their funding and intercept all their weapons, you might well be able to crush them (and that might be very good) but THAT doesn't change representation either.

Representation is about what people want. You can argue about percentages, but a block of the Iraqi people want us out of the country badly enough to kill us. Take away their money and weapons and they'll still want us out.

That doesn't make me like them, or agree with them, or support them, or commit treason by mentioning them, I just think it's absurd to pretend they aren't there.

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm not arguing percentages, or even arguing that this movement will collapse without foriegn fighters, or aid .... that was your simpleton friend's assumptions.

I am arguing that it's far more complex then "Iraqis aren't happy the US invaded, so this is how they're responding". This is not the response of the Iraqi people. It's Iran getting involved, it's Syria getting involved, it's rogue terror groups setting up shop and recruiting, it's Iraqis needing employment joining up, it's religious extremists fighting for comepletely unrelated reasons, it's the US government trying to fund opposition groups, it's the Iraqi government trying to fund their own opposition groups to keep a handle on things - and wether or not real life Iraqis are following the pied piper and joining up with these mlitia groups does not make it indicative of an "Iraqi response". The style of attacks, the ideologies, the weaponry involved, the funding, and so on, are not representative.

[Abcdxxxx]

let's try it this way...

do you really think religious radicals, Al Qaeda, and Baathists represent the interests of the Iraqi people? You haven't been making a distinction, which is sort of odd considering how obsessed you are with making the distinction between Islam and Islamic terrorism (which by the way, despite it's name, and use of Koranic worship, has nothing to do with Islam).

[ziggytrix]

I'm not arguing percentages, or even arguing that this movement will collapse without foriegn fighters, or aid .... that was your simpleton friend's assumptions.

Hey ABCD, quick English question: how long have "questions" and "assumptions" been synonyms?

You did not make a clear statement. Maybe you think brevity when stating opinions about things with which you have no direct experience (please correct me if you've personally polled the Iraqis or have a direct line to an omniscient observer) equates to substance, but I do not. I could point you to polls that say 2/3 of the Iraqi population say they oppose the US presence. It'd be nice to see some references or at least some numbers you could back up for a statement as ambiguous as the resistance "is largely foreign interest" but whatever, we're supposed to do our own research to back up your opinions, is that it?

So let's agree for the moment that the statement "the current resistance against the US or whatever it is we're seeing now does not represent Iraqi's" is wholly factual, which I would say you cannot possibly know for fact, but since you say it is so, only a simpleton would take issue with it. Fine, let's pretend for the moment you do, in fact, have the ability to look into the hearts of a nascent nation and know what they want, even when they don't agree about what they want. I am envious of your supernatural talents. Were you born with this power, or did you just huff a lot of solvents in your youth?


So what about my other question? How do you expect the United States Armed Forces to seal off 2281 miles of border in foreign lands? We haven't even been able to seal off 1951 miles of our own Southern border. Was that not a legitimate question? If that in not a legitimate question, then why do you think it was not done?



I am arguing that it's far more complex then "Iraqis aren't happy the US invaded, so this is how they're responding". This is not the response of the Iraqi people. It's Iran getting involved, it's Syria getting involved, it's rogue terror groups setting up shop and recruiting, it's Iraqis needing employment joining up, it's religious extremists fighting for comepletely unrelated reasons, it's the US government trying to fund opposition groups, it's the Iraqi government trying to fund their own opposition groups to keep a handle on things

I'd agree with this premise that the ever so ambigious "it" is far more complex, but assuming by "it" you mean to describe the insurgency in Iraq, I don't think you've really added anything new to the "conversation" there, except maybe the point that the US and Iraq governments are directly funding insurgents.... that's a fairly interesting thing you just said, and certainly new to the discussion here.



do you really think religious radicals, Al Qaeda, and Baathists represent the interests of the Iraqi people? You haven't been making a distinction

I could argue that the Iraqi people lack the unity to have their interests represented by anyone. But that's not helpful. Why is it necessary to state that a guy with a bomb strapped to him doesn't represent the interests of the market he's blowing up? Fucking hell, you ask for substance and then you complain about THAT?!

[Abcdxxxx]

I could point you to polls that say 2/3 of the Iraqi population say they oppose the US presence.

Please do. Then point out where it says their opinions on the US presence correspond to their opinions on the insurgency.

[ziggytrix]

point out where it says their opinions on the US presence correspond to their opinions on the insurgency.

Why is it necessary to state that a guy with a bomb strapped to him doesn't represent the interests of the market he's blowing up?

It's kind of a no-brainer, and doesn't really address the issue that the insurgency* does represent the interests of specific Iraqis* or foreigners* or whomever. Clearly it's not in the best interests of the Iraqi people*.

This is a stupid semantics debate. :(

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm sure you think so. It's not semantics at all. Here is a chance for you to fight generalities and actually be accurate for once and you're too busy playing with the red pen up your ass.

Aren't you always arguing that a small minority of Muslims support terror, along with radical ideaologies? ...because if so, isn’t it a bit contradictory to then also argue that Iraq in it’s entirety, overwhelmingly supports this same movement?!?!?!?!? You're suggesting that the number of foriegn fighters, or the opinion polls about US policy are relevant proof of Iraq's own support for what you have credited as being their own insurgency.

So when you say stupid shit like this:


Why is it necessary to state that a guy with a bomb strapped to him doesn't represent the interests of the market he's blowing up? Fucking hell, you ask for substance and then you complain about THAT?!

The question really is, why do you keep attributing the aggression to the victims of this same movement? Why are you arguing that a civil war of ideologically opposed groups can be imposed on "the Iraqis" and think it's a-ok as long as you're discussing anti-US sentiment? As if that's what the insurgency is strictly about. If it fits your own anti-Government agenda, then you think it's okay to run with it.

You did not make a clear statement. Maybe you think brevity when stating opinions about things with which you have no direct experience (please correct me if you've personally polled the Iraqis or have a direct line to an omniscient observer) equates to substance, but I do not.

So I think this is you arguing that the insurgency in all varieties does in fact represent the interests of Iraqi people? Be clear. Yes, or no.

[mburbank]

"?!?!?!?!?"

[ziggytrix]

The question really is, why do you keep attributing the aggression to the victims of this same movement? Why are you arguing that a civil war of ideologically opposed groups can be imposed on "the Iraqis" and think it's a-ok as long as you're discussing anti-US sentiment? As if that's what the insurgency is strictly about. If it fits your own anti-Government agenda, then you think it's okay to run with it.


I apologize for the lack of a proper response here, but between the lines where you state that I am arguing things that I am NOT trying to argue and the lines where I just don't understand what the hell you're trying to say, I'm at a loss. :( Seriously. Sorry.



You did not make a clear statement. Maybe you think brevity when stating opinions about things with which you have no direct experience (please correct me if you've personally polled the Iraqis or have a direct line to an omniscient observer) equates to substance, but I do not.

So I think this is you arguing that the insurgency in all varieties does in fact represent the interests of Iraqi people? Be clear. Yes, or no.[/qoute]

I'm glad you're actually asking me to clarify a point that you question. Communication over the internet is a clumsy art at best.

The answer is "no" - as we're clear on the distinction between "the Iraqi people" and "some Iraqi people". I've said that several times now. I only objected to the implication that the insurgency either only represents the interests of Iraqis or else it is exclusively foreign interests. As you quite clearly stated after my objection that it is a hell of a lot more compllcated than that. Hence my last objection that this has spiralled into a pointless semantics argument.

[Abcdxxxx]

Ziggy + cognitive dissonance sitting in a tree.

Don't worry. You sound smart. And contrarian. Really contrarian. Much improved from your "fuck you" days! Junior year's gonna be the best, huh guys?!

[mburbank]

Just out of curiosity, and I'm sure you've stated this before but somehow I missed it, abdcefg, but what are your bona fides on all things Middle Eastern? I've yet to discern in any post the faintest scintila of doubt or a caveat that maybe there are things going on you don't know.

Are you of Middle Eastern origin? Do you have a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies? Do you have friends in various governments? Are you perhaps, actually Paul Wolfowitz? How is it your opinion has become so so so so so so so so much more informed than anyone elses here?

I know how you know so much more than I do, as Kev pointed out to me, I am blinded by my Bush hatred. But how did you get so knowledgeable?

[Abcdxxxx]

There's a reason my posts are limited to certain subjects. You should try it! Look, talk about something you really know about. Talk from an informed opinion. Educate yourself. That way, this stuff isn't some abstract question akin to "what is art". That way you don't say stupid shit like "How can you seal off Iraq's borders? It's 2281miles of border" and expect an answer that's not patronizing.

[ziggytrix]

or to expect an answer at all...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The USA and particularly the Bush presiencies are deeply emeshed with the Saudi Royal family. No conspiracy theory, just bidness.

And the implication here is what? Every president since FDR (with a few bumps in the road, like Truman) has at least seen the strategic value in staying tight with, if not fully embracing the Sa'ud family. The relationship hasn't been a give and take piggy bank like you'd like to think, and they were a valuable partner during the Cold War. To imply that all of this has to do with Bush family business ties is erronious and daffy.


Saudi Arabia obviously values our alliance. Whhile you may find the idea that might give us some leverare debatable, but I hardly think it's outlandish enough to warrant so many question marks.

You overestimate the leverage we have there. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia hasn't been strictly about oil consumption, but that's a big part of it. Well now there's a couple other big kids on the block, namely India and China. They are going to buy a shit ton of oil, and they probably don't care so much about the democratic makeup of the middle east. They are in fact the ones who are all about bidness. While America is starting to talk more seriously about energy alternatives, These countries are talking crude, baby. If you want to understand why it has been slow-going in Saudi Arabia, don't look West, look East.

They LIKE buying our weapons. we make the best ones. They want them. What if we tied the sales of those weapons systems to changes in their text books and support of 'charities'? It might not work, but it could be funny to try.

What makes you believe this hasn't happened? Why is the Saudi foreign minister in friggin Houston this week talking about SA being a democracy within ten years? Condi (and before her Powell) have been working overtime in the middle east.

Also, this goes back to the previous point. Those weapons? They're going to get them. So would you rather we keep selling them and maintain that leverage, or do we curse them out and watch them walk? How "realpolitik" would that be, Mr. Kissinger?

Instead our foreign policy is to pretend the Saudi Royal family has nothing at al to do with state sponsored terrorism.

This an absolute fallacy. Again, the fact that a Saudi prince was at the US-Arab Economic forum talking about building a better democracy than America's (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=94611&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17) is worth noting. You seem to think America hasn't done a thing to press Saudi reform, but uh hello, Iraq!!!!!???!!!/?/?!

I mean, this is a country that didn't officially ban SLAVERY until 1962. The mere fact that countries such as this one are even talking about such dramatic reforms is totally attributable to our pressure, primarily the invasion of Iraq. I'm amazed that you cant even see this, but then again, you've got those pesky Bush blinders.

The more alarming thing about Saudi Arabia's continuing spread of hate speech is that there's a market for it. If muslims all around the world didn't already believe this shit, the Saudi text books wouldn't be as much of a problem. And we're not just talking about the poor, frustrated, and uneducated. These texts, often omitting Israel from their maps, are used in the West too. Hell, one of them is a short drive away from me in Alexandria (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127940,00.html). So once again, the problem isn't just corrupt regimes, or poverty, or whatever. There's a pervasive problem throughout Islam, and that is our enemy. Stopping states that finance it is crucial, but not the whole war.


I'm not sure how posting the full statement changes anything. My objection was to your idea of 'liberals' and the implication that associtting the word 'Liberal' with something somehow automatically discredits it. Something I've noted a lot of 'chowderheads' are fond of doing.

I think you misunderstood me. Maybe it's due to my own lack of clarity, but I wasn't trying to insinuate that "liberal" is the dirty word. I consider myself one, so that would be pretty counter-productive. True or false-- do liberals refer to the WOT as a police matter? Keep your own position on it in mind.


You're right, theres no such thing as a police effort. There's no FBI, there's no CIA, there are no special forces, and if we ever acknowledge international law I'm sure that would vanish as well.

So is your argument that these resources aren't being utilized? If that's your argument, well you're wrong. Some of the more valuable aspects of the Patriot Act were to better connect these agencies so that they could share info and resources at the state & local level. If you think we've simply dropped bombs on two countries and declared "yahtzee!" you're sorely mistaken.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq. As I've said here numerous times, I'm more of a big stick, speak softly kind of guy. But we DID invade Iraq, and as abc has pointed out for you, the war on islamic terrorism is indeed now in Iraq. To abandon Iraq would be like handing a chaotic Afghanistan over tothe Taliban, or a chaotic Somalia over the muslim militias who want to stone rapists to death. Ifyou can't see the pattern, then you're not really paying attention.

But you seem more intent on having a told ya so foreign policy. The tenets of Max Burbank's toldyasoism is that no foreign policy can proceed unless the president is pure like a little girl in her Communion day dress. If you invade a country, the president better be right about why he did it, otherwise you can't do anything else. You must remain paralyzed by the told ya so, or else you look like a hypocrite. to practice toldyasoism all you have to do is compare every American action to something Christians did in the 16th Century, mention that the Americans killed Native Americans and stuff. It has the pomposity of Kevinism, but without the citations.


No, he said we should invade Iraq, he said we had no choice, and at best he was totally wrong about why and at worst he was lying. I know we don't have a time machine and we can't undo what we did, but while you say you don't like Bush et al, you think it's good we're their and what we've brought is an unquestionable improvement. Should we only 'improve' the nations we can get away with on account of their lack of holy sites? Personally, I think we've used up all our free invasion cards.

And under toldyasoism, if the president puffed up the reasons for invading a country, well then you can't have done anything good in Iraq. :/

Saddam was an enemy, and while you seem to think he was "contained", I think he was a monster whose people are better off without him and his murderous lot there. To say that there were ABSOLUTELY NO links to Al Qaeda and islamic extremism is intellectually dishonest. If nothing else, he was an opportunist. He encouraged terrorist acts against Israel, and wanted to use Islam as a means to control his populace. The guy thought he was friggin Saladin. There most certainly was contact between Al Qaeda agents and Iraqi Baathists in the late 90's, and Zarqawi himself managed to flow in and out of Iraq.

Iraq was a weak spot, and we took it out. The Pentagon made some early mistakes that have continued to haunt our troops, but the toppling of Saddam has put every other nation in the Middle East on notice. Hell, why do you think Iran rushed their nuke program? They looked at N. Korea, they knew they were on our shit list, and realized that they wanted security. Iran doesn't want to suffer Iraq's fate. I think you will see some "realpolitik" in Iran, you will see a carrot and stick deal eventually worked out, and hopefully you'll ultimately see reform in Iran.

And SO... we use sanctions, leverage, and police actions (which we are doing in Iran right now, so don't say there's no such thing).

See above.


And no, it does not bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. THAT's what the War on Terror looks like to me. Slow, dogged, unsatisfying, sometimes inaffective, not at all sexy country song patriotic. They keep their women in bags, they teeter on the edge of slavery with their guest worker program, they are totally not a democracy, and yet we have decided there are ways to fight terror without invading them. Now I think we should pressure them a lot more, hold them a lot more accountable, but we can do it without invading. I also think we could do it without inviting them to Crawford and Kennybunkport.

And we find ourselves in total agreement. The only problem is that I see the role theinvasion of iraq played in creating that pressure, and you can't.

North Korea's economy is totally relient upon foreign aid. The "slow, dogged" stuff isn't always effective, and doesn't necessarily stop countries from pursuing nuclear weapons if the technology is made available to them.


I think though you absolute certainty that these things are 'directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states. ' while certainly arguable, is something you take as a matter of faith. I would challenge you to support it without saying "Isn't it totally obvious??????"

You're kidding, right? Max, is it all a grand coinsidence these political reform discussions and movements that are happening in the Arab world are happening now? Why does all of this stuff just happen to be a product of a post-9/11 world? More importantly, why did Libya trip over themselves to at least give us the token gesture of giving up on nuclear weapons? Why is Pakistan, a nation with a high muslim population, bending to our wishes in the mountain region near the Afghan border? All of the current regime actions in the middle east today, be them good or bad, helpful or antagonistic, are a result of the United States.

I feel I've gone to great lengths to provide evidence for you, both anecdotal and quantified, to show you this. You on the other hand have never done this. Tell me Max, if not directly linked to the actions of the United States, what is causing it all? Any thoughts? I mean, I know one key tenet of toldyasoism is to focus on what the other is supposedly doing wrong, rather than what could be done right, but please enlighten me.

I'm not going to quote your whole next paragraph in the interests of space, but let me see if I can paraphrase it without sarcasm or jokes. W and company lied to us about the real reason for invading Iraq. The secret reason they chose Iraq was to topple a middle eastern country they thought they could bring democracy to.

Tell me if that's approximately what you are saying, and I'll get my huge bag of question marks ready. I don't want to waste them if that isn't what you are saying.

This is essentially what I'm saying, yes.


Because wether you believe it of me or not, a LOT of people who voted for W and believed in him don't like the war, don't think it's an "obvious, Exponential improvement in Iraq" and if they hate W now, it's because of the war.

I know, and that's more an indictment of the American people than it is of the president. Americans, as I have frequently lamented, love to blow shit up, but they hate to clean it up. Everbody likes to make a mess, but nobody likes to be the guy in the cleanup aisle (now, the cost, the hypocrisy of cutting taxes while at war, that's certainly worth the outrage).

Presidents do unpopular things. Bush isn't setting any precedent here. But history doesn't judge a president or a policy on 1 week, 1 month, or even 1 year. IMO, we will look back on this presidency, taking into account all of its problems and mistakes, and they will be judged by Iraq. I am of the opinion that it will be a pleasant judgement, but that's just me.


But I bet smarterer people with less raging hatreds than mine also might think, possibly, that we have not improved the lives of the Iraqi people. I bet some of them are good folks nd not just blind, liberal, Bush Haters.

Find me the respected scholar or policy analyist who says we've only made matters worse, or made NO improvements for the Iraqi people. I'd like to hear their thoughts, and heck, I'd love it if you brought something to the table here!

I just think expecting a think tank to tell you what living in Ira is like via statistics only says so much. I think for instance, the cable recently written by our own ambassador is also a valid picture.

Well sweet Jesus Max, you can't see it, but I'm throwing my hands up for you right now. I mean, my opinion is apparently unsubstantiated, the factually supported data from some think tank (one of the oldest and most highly respected in the country) means nothing, obviously the White House's opinion means nothing, obviously the opinions of the newly elected Iraqi PM mean nothing, etc. etc.

Apparently the only opinions worth listening to on Iraq are the ones that say everything is going wrong.

"Told ya so!"


How can you possibly know that in twenty years Iraq might not be a democracy (or some other form of decent government) without our intervention? Not every country in human history that has undergone progressive growth required an invasion and occupation.

Allow me to repeat myself. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Somalia. Look at Palestine. There'sa pattern here, Max. Where we allow Islamic tyranny to thirve, it most certainly will. I believe this was our mistake in the past. I believe we need to do something about it now, rather than just looking back at our dubious record in Afghanistan, Iraq/Iran, and the rest of the Middle East, and saying "told ya so!".

How about if Iraq spirals into civil war, drags neighboring countries in and is ground zero for your Great War?

This won't happen if we fight this war. I see this more likely to happen were we to withdraw. I see iraq becoming a carte blanche for Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and every petty thug and Islamic radical who wants a piece of the pie.

And Max, if we dokeep at this war, and that STILL happens, I'll invite youto say "I told ya so!"


Almost, Kev? I'm not a soul peerer, but I'd say you're treating that 'almost' line like a runner itching to steal Second.

Perhaps you missed my point. I'm starting to feel like Charlie Brown and Preechr.

My point was that some nations haven't gotten on board with this war to the extent we have. I pity the small time Islamic thug who messes with Russia or China. They won't be getting Halal food and prayer time in those prisons. Heck, look at how France of all nations has clamped down on their extremists.

My point was that Radical Islam wouldn't stand a chance if the sleeping giants in the East and Europe woke up. I think extremists counton the liberal guilt of the European nations, and it plays a partin fostering great degrees of intolerance in presumably liberal and free nations.


Tell me, if the Great War comes, will you fight in it, or would you prefer to be one of those guys in suits with other priorities?

Well, I look pretty good in a nice tie.

I think your point is to bait me, but whatever. If it came down to a draft, I most certainly would fight. However the best military in the world is made of voluntary citizens, and that's one reason we have the finest military inthe world.


I myself would really like to see us work harder on NOT having that war. I know, I'm an isolationist and the only way I can prove I'm not is to kill some people.

I think we are working to avoid tragedy now. But part of that will include not having such shitty regimes in the Middle East.


[qote]You're off in La-La land dreaming about all the good shit we could do if we had a dream government. I'm angry about the things our current government is fucking up, and I think being concerned about those fuck ups could be constructive in getting a better administration.[/quote]

I'm glad you're concerned aboutyour next president, it's of personal interest to me too. But frankly, I'm more interested in winning a war and seeing out our mission in iraq.

I hope the next president (hopefully President Warner) continues this fight, but does more here at home to create consistent American sacrifice both here and abroad. We shouldn't be watching our men and women dying on the evening news and think that's how to win.

[Abcdxxxx]

or to expect an answer at all...

Iraq's borders were sealed tight under Saddam.
He had 240 border guard stations and 640 border guards.
The Iran border was guarded on foot.
They reported to several ministries.
If you walked even near a mountain zone region like Sulayminah, you were in breach.

The Iran-Iraq border is 800 miles.
The Syrian border is about 376 miles.
The other 4 countries Iraq shares a border with are participatory allies so that cuts your 2281 mile border equation in half.
That's assuming the US had a plan for border security at all, and they didn't.

Unlike our Southern Border, there are no cities right against the border. That comparison is retarded.

[ziggytrix]

Since Saudi Arbia is officially our ally, we can just ignore the Saudi/Iraq border in terms of security? I don't think I can agree with that.

Nor can I agree that the sort of border infiltration that terrorists attempt was wholly prevented under Saddam's regime.

I am aware that since September 2004 the US in concert with Iraqi trainees have been working on border security (source (http://www.cbp.gov)). A full year later, Zarqawi loyalists took over Qaim (source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090500313.html)). So again, I don't really agree with your implication that sealing Iraq's border is a simple task, but I do at least agree that it could have been worked on sooner. I just don't think it would have had as major an impact on the insurgency as you seem to, though I'm sure I could be wrong.

Anyway, thank you for finally answering the question.

[Abcdxxxx]

Nor can I agree that the sort of border infiltration that terrorists attempt was wholly prevented under Saddam's regime.


Well there you go again. Why? It was nearly impossible to make sanctioned travel between borders let alone an "infiltration" these borders. Find a source that says otherwise. Saddam's borders were most definetly capped tight. Terrorists never "infilitrated" Saddam's borders, they were invited.

It's not unreasonable to expect allied states like Saudi Arabia to police their borders or at least assist with a solid plan - the truth is we didn't even have one, and that's the issue. We added 18,000 border guards in 2004, and the borders still aren't on lockdown.

www.usip.org/library/oh/sops/iraq/sec/hines.pdf

[ziggytrix]

Nor can I agree that the sort of border infiltration that terrorists attempt was wholly prevented under Saddam's regime.


Well there you go again. Why?

Well, for starters, you say Saddam had 640 guards as opposed to our 18,000 - now maybe I'm being naive, but I think our guys are a little better equipped, and definitely more loyal (Hines certainly seems very disparaging of them in the article you linked), and yet we don't have the borders locked down.

Corruption seems to run rampant in dictatorships. I'm betting under Saddam, with the right money greasing the right palms, or telling the right lies to the the right people, smuggling would be ridiculously easy. Do you think Saddam knew about every single illicit deal going across his borders? Especially with seperate agencies for customs and for border police? I can't even conceive it, though I bet Saddam thought it was all under control, as long as the money kept coming in.

It would seem to me, that what has happened is that our invasion has created new destinations for existing black markets. Now that Saddam isn't the number one buyer, we've got all these different actors. And it's certainly a lot more chaotic, but I just can't believe the border is actually more permeable under (however many there alredy were plus) 18,000 American/Iraqi guards than under 640 of Saddam's guards.

That is what we're talking about here right? Sealing the border against smuggling of money and arms, right? I suppose that deserves some clarification. If we're talking about stopping fighters from crossing the border, then I would like to ask you one more time if you think the 5-10% figure is incorrect when talking about the foreign makeup of the insurgency? I've heard that figure several times, and have yet to hear it actively disputed, but then I'm not caiming to be an expert on the Mideast.

[Abcdxxxx]

Huh?

Yeah so 18,000 poorly trained border guards still can't do the job which was accomplished by 600 of Saddam's loyalist. That's because only a couple hundred of our 18,000 had gone through training by mid-2004. I don't know what the current figure is.

Irregardless, Saddam had his borders locked down. You haven't proven otherwise, or proven that a nation can not control a border. If he allowed corruption, it's because he allowed it. Iraq's borders were probably the most solid in the region. Even areas that were weaker, like the Kurd-Turk border, only increased in tension when the borders became vulnerable under occupation.

For the last time, the percentage of foriegn fighters means little. Who trained them? Where do they take their cues from? Who arms them? Who finances them? Who and what are they fighting for?

[mburbank]

"There's a reason my posts are limited to certain subjects. You should try it! Look, talk about something you really know about. Talk from an informed opinion. Educate yourself. That way, this stuff isn't some abstract question akin to "what is art". That way you don't say stupid shit like "How can you seal off Iraq's borders? It's 2281miles of border" and expect an answer that's not patronizing."

That would be a swell answer had my question been "Are you informed on the middle east?". It wasn't, though.

My question was, what's your background. School? Proffession? Hobby? Past residence? I want to know what you've done in your life that makes you so certain about all all things middle easte4rn, and I'm being totally serious here, not flippant.

There's nothing in life I feel as confident as you seem on this subject, and while I'm sure you'll see that as some sort of admission of failure or a carachter, you make me curious.

--

Kevin, cannot read so much right now. One question. Do you think the family Bush and the family Saud are not a degree or two more emeshed than the family of any admnistration has eevr been before? And do you really see blowing the shit out of the country of origin of none of the hijackers as a motivator to the country that sent most of them? Cause I see it as kind of an indication that they get a free pass. "Don't you EVER mess with us again, or we'll... get... some other guy that... you had a beef with too. So watch it!"

[Abcdxxxx]

edit: nevermind.

[mburbank]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over your editting.

[Ant10708]

Who cares that the hijackers were mostly Saudis. That doesn't mean the country was complicit. Not that Iraq was either but we shouldn't attack Saudi Arabia because thats where the hijackers were born.

[Abcdxxxx]

Shouldn't a state be accountable for sponsoring crime organizations?

[Preechr]

Government is above interpersonal law at best, at worst a criminal enterprise itself. Al Quaeda and the IRS are just means to an end. Who's to say which is better: Rule by Fear or the Death of a Thousand Cuts?

[mburbank]

I'll take 'Death of a Thousand Cuts' for $500.00, Alex. That's $320.00 after taxes.

[mburbank]

Kev; I'll keep it short as we've been around this track a time or two by now.

Believe it or not, I listen to what you say. I'm pretty sure you aren't an idiot, and I'm interested what an intelligent, well meaning sort makes of the current global situation. In some degree, I'm heartened by the idea that you see things as hopeful, because it offers the possability that I'm totally wrong in my 'toldyasoism'. In fact, the only area in which I am almost (almost, not totally) certain you are wrong is the idea that history will judge W kindly.

I also challenge your assumption that in the absence of an aggressive USA, there would be no changes in any other countries. Statis is unnatural, change is law, and while I do not argue that we have major impact, we might not be the Prime Mover.

Those caveats aside, respectfully, here's where you make me worry. You take all opinions which don't match yours, at very very least half of our country, and you ascribe it all to either the blindness of Bush hatred or the habitual weakness of Americans. I think a greater degree of doubt would serve you (and most people) well. I imagine that no matter what opinion you hold, you'll find that not everyone who disagrees with you is blind, or weak, or an idiot.

I simply do not think that good can be squeezed out of so much killing. Far from 'itoldyasoism', I genuinely hope in the long term you are right and I am wrong. The killing has already happend and shpws no signs of stopping. It would seem to me a far better outcome if in the end it came to something than for me to be able to say 'I told you so.'

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Do you think the family Bush and the family Saud are not a degree or two more emeshed than the family of any admnistration has eevr been before?

Their families have been close, and have done business together. But the real question is has this resulted in a diplomatic bias, as a result of that business history? I'd say no, and I'd ask you to show me how Bush has treated the Saudis differently than past administrations. I don't think they have.


And do you really see blowing the shit out of the country of origin of none of the hijackers as a motivator to the country that sent most of them? Cause I see it as kind of an indication that they get a free pass. "Don't you EVER mess with us again, or we'll... get... some other guy that... you had a beef with too. So watch it!"

Again, you seem to bounce around from "realpolitik" realism, back to bomb-and-reform international liberalism. Do you not see a strategic purpose in keeping people who want to b friends as friends? And what message would it send if we invaded the most holy place in the muslim world? You keep arguing that we only make matters worse, so wouldn't that have made matters really, really bad?????????????? Let's not forget the oil. No blood for oil, "WHOSE STREETS, OUR STREETS!"

Iraq was not a friend, not a strategic ally, and had threatened military action aainst its neighbors. We deal with the Saudis b/c they are more willing to deal. Saddam had his chance, and declined.


You take all opinions which don't match yours, at very very least half of our country, and you ascribe it all to either the blindness of Bush hatred or the habitual weakness of Americans. I think a greater degree of doubt would serve you (and most people) well. I imagine that no matter what opinion you hold, you'll find that not everyone who disagrees with you is blind, or weak, or an idiot.

Leaders make unpopular decisions. Was Iraq so much better in November 2004, when a record number of Americans turned out to vote for President Bush? More American troops were in fact dying at that point than they are now (Iraqis are now taking a greater burden). Should policy be dictated by opinion polls? Maybe we could have a big poll every week, and the president could shift foreign policy accordingly.

That isn't republicanism, or democracy, or even populism. That's lunacy, and you can't govern that way. People get tired of war. they also get tired of it, because they have no personal investment in it. They see billions of dollars going to rebuild another nation, and yet these people are blowing up our men and women.

I think we have electons, and elect a president in order to lead us in foreign affairs, not be bound to every whim and roadside bomb. They voted for the man, and this is how he chose to fight this war. They can change their minds again in the fall, and then again in 2008. We'll see. So tell me Max, either people are fickle about war, or they are terribly bi-polar (since a majority elected this man in the middle of the war). Which is it?

And regarding the Bush hatred-- I think it plays a HUGE role in all of this. This country is terribly polarized, Max. I think Bush bears a good deal of the blame in all that, but I also think the far-left makes matters worse. The "netroots", the new influentials in the party, and the Deaniacs, are all intent on purging the party of anyone who even smiles in Bush's direction. I see it rather close at the DNC, and you can read it from the Daily Kos types.

I simply do not think that good can be squeezed out of so much killing. Far from 'itoldyasoism', I genuinely hope in the long term you are right and I am wrong. The killing has already happend and shpws no signs of stopping. It would seem to me a far better outcome if in the end it came to something than for me to be able to say 'I told you so.'

But the killing started long before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, Max. Radical Islam is creating conflict and turmoil all over the globe.

I think the fundamental problem is that one group of people acknowledge that there most certainly is a pattern in all of this, and that there is a global fight between ways of life. Others seem to see it as all grand coinsidence, or worse, all the fault of the United States (and maybe Israel just or kicks). And just because they can't beat us in conventional warfare doesn't mean they can't hurt us, and it also doesn't mean they won't keep oppressing their own people.

So we choose-- do we watch a secular Europe become more and more Islamic? Do we turn a blind eye to thriving radical movements on every continent, ignore their attemps to codify Islamic law around the globe? Do we isolate ourselvs and pretend that it all goes away if we leave Iraq, or if Israel withdraws from Gaza?