So much for John Edwards' take on terrorism

[Pangloss]

Kinda having a hard time seeing the "create a stronghold... and control it as we wish" theory as a bad thing. Alas, I don't give our leadership credit for anything so intelligent and purposeful. I guess I'd have to be ideologically opposed to it in order to find such thoughtful design and intention.

[john5746]

Recent develops have discredited John Edwards' assertion that the "war on terror" is a bumper sticker.

 

Well, I don't know exactly what he said, but it is obvious we have a problem with Islamic radicals around the world. Some are part of sophisticated groups, some are just pissed off losers trying to get back at the 'system'.

 

Just because that may be a reality does not mean the 'war on terror' slogan is not being used as a bumper sticker. It decided the last two elections and will decide the next. It is used to justify actions that have nothing to do with terrorism. Don't criticize the military because we have global terrorism, etc.

[bascule]

So really quick... how do we tell crazy people from those who are legitimately a threat?

[Physia]

Woah! Way 2 go!

 

However, I think our actions in Iraq will do exactly the opposite. I think it more likely it's to create a 'forever war' so that the arms industries can make loadsa money - but hey, that's a different thread!

 

Our war in Iraq is a type of success in some perspectives.

We increased the tensions between Shiites and Sunnis. Let them kill each other.

We're there as a referee, referees get hurt sometimes.

We've turned terrorists groups against Al Qaeda. We're finding more evidence for the Irano-Syrian axis involvement in Iraq, and that includes Hizbollah terrorist guerrillas controlling Beirut's southern suburb in Lebanon.

 

The opposite will happen if we back up. Nobody will clean our crap for us, we need to clean it before we leave .

[lucaspa]

Edwards doesn't believe there is a global terror war.

 

There really isn't a global war on "terror". "Terrorism" is a set of tactics, not an ideology or nation state. The USA has used terrorism as tactics from time to time. Like when an American Army officer gave blankets from smallpox victims to Indians in the Ohio Territory around 1800. That would be a "terrorist" attack by the standards of today.

 

Do we have a conflict with people who think Western secular democracy should be destroyed? Yes. But that conflict has been going on for centuries. Anyone old enough to remember the 1970s remembers the Weathermen and other "terrorist" groups.

 

Armygas, you hold this boogeyman up as tho we should be afraid of it. Try a little courage. Can al Quada and any of its fellow-travelers really destroy the USA? NO! They don't have the capability. Yes, they can kill a few individuals, but they can't destory Western civilization. As long as we don't destroy ourselves. One of the primary axioms taught military officers is "keep calm; don't lose your head". Is it tragic that these people kill Americans and Britons? Yes. Is it tragic that the various drug cartels kill people? Yes. Is it tragic that 40,000 Americans per year die in traffic accidents? Yes. But none of those is a "war" and certainly not in the sense that "losing" a battle or 2 will end up with the countries or civilizations overthrown.

 

The "War on Terror" is great for whipping up hysteria and rationalization of some political agendas. But simply because it is now so blatantly used for those ends indicates that it's more a political slogan.

[lucaspa]

Our war in Iraq is a type of success in some perspectives.

We increased the tensions between Shiites and Sunnis. Let them kill each other.

 

WHAT!!?? We were told we were supposed to bring PEACE between Shiites and Sunnis so they could establish a peaceful, united Iraq.

 

We're there as a referee, referees get hurt sometimes.

 

This contradicts the first. Why bother to referee if you want them to kill each other?

We are in Iraq to trigger the emergence of an ideology that can neutralize the ideologies of Khomeini and Qutb and thereby reduce the risk of World War III.

 

If that is the case, then we should never have been in Iraq to begin with! They already had an "ideology" -- Hussein -- that opposed the ideologies of Khomeini and Qutb. And just what "ideology" do you see emerging? What ideology did we intend to emerge? Whatever it was, we ain't getting it.

 

We've turned terrorists groups against Al Qaeda. We're finding more evidence for the Irano-Syrian axis involvement in Iraq, and that includes Hizbollah terrorist guerrillas controlling Beirut's southern suburb in Lebanon.

 

LOL! Al Qaeda wouldn't even BE in Iraq if we hadn't invaded! Great! We invade a country we didn't have to, start a civil war, and then declare that having 2 of the factions fight each other is a "good" thing. Also, the Irano-Syrian axis would not exist if it were not for us. So we cause something, then declare it is "good" to find evidence of what we caused?

 

The opposite will happen if we back up. Nobody will clean our crap for us, we need to clean it before we leave .

 

The premise here is that it is "cleanable". At least you are admitting we made the crap. However, many of us disagree that it is "cleanable". We screwed up too badly to fix.

[ParanoiA]

The "War on Terror" is great for whipping up hysteria and rationalization of some political agendas. But simply because it is now so blatantly used for those ends indicates that it's more a political slogan.

 

Now you're swinging the pendulum all the way the other way. We try to prevent traffic accidents, understanding we can't be perfect. Terrorism is a legitimate concern for many. We should try to prevent it, and then not act equally stupid and a hang people out to dry via the classic american witch hunt, when it happens anyway - like 9/11.

 

9/11 was horrible. We realized that we can't ignore this stuff, or we'll get 9/11's on a regular basis. We should recognize that, and we should take steps to combat it, and it is a quite legitimate political position. Just because other people are abusing the situation and using "the war on terror" to further propaganda efforts, doesn't mean we should respond by ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist, or selling some misanthropic "who cares if a few people die ever now and then".

[Pangloss]

So really quick... how do we tell crazy people from those who are legitimately a threat?

 

Ask them who was responsible for 9/11.

[Pangloss]

Good post by ParanoiA above.

 

This reminds me of an interview I saw with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman on Sunday. (For background, he's a former Democrat who left his party following an attempt to oust him from his seat in the last election mainly over his position on Iraq (he supports the President). Lieberman is a moderate and is now officially an "Independent", but he generally sides with Democrats on most votes.)

 

Lieberman was saying that our work in Iraq has been a success, and listed a bunch of reasons for thinking so, ranging from improved infrastructure to reduced sectarian violence. Pretty familiar stuff.

 

Then he went on to say that we can't leave now because Al Qaeda and Iran would work together to make Iraq into a new terrorist state.

 

I know some of you won't need a microsecond to see the fallacy in that argument. Al Qaeda is sunni and Iran is shi'a. The only thing they agree on is the calibre of bullet to use when shooting one another. But he even went on to clarify that he meant that they would celebrate victory together and go on to run the country together!

 

How can an American Senator of his experience and intelligence screw THAT up? I don't know, but it sure left me floored.

[Sayonara]

Seeing as Britain and the US are in the "war" on terror together, I am not really convinced that the recent bombings constitute "international terrorism".

 

True, the UK and the US are different nations, but in terms of the sides fighting in this so-called war, isn't the UK just the bit of the US that is easiest to get to?

 

It's not like the UK didn't expect to get bombed.

[lucaspa]

Now you're swinging the pendulum all the way the other way. ... Terrorism is a legitimate concern for many. We should try to prevent it, and then not act equally stupid and a hang people out to dry via the classic american witch hunt, when it happens anyway - like 9/11.

 

You misunderstood or I was not clear. I never said "ignore it". Remember, I said "Do we have a conflict with people who think Western secular democracy should be destroyed? Yes." Should we combat the people who want to destroy Western secular democracy? Of course. However, the police and intelligence agencies are doing a good job of that.

 

And, remember, altho they want to destroy our way of life, they can't. They simply don't have the power to do so. They can kill a few of us, but can't come anywhere close to destroying our way of life on their own.

 

The only way they can destroy us is like you said: if we act stupidly.

 

Just because other people are abusing the situation and using "the war on terror" to further propaganda efforts, doesn't mean we should respond by ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist, or selling some misanthropic "who cares if a few people die ever now and then".

 

I never said ignore it, but tone down the hysteria and treat it for what it is: a chronic problem that we've had for decades and that can be handled by existing law enforcement and intelligence agencies: if they are alerted to the threat. The only reason they got away with 9/11 is because the relevant agencies weren't looking or thinking about terrorist attacks. Even then, FBI agents in Minnesota were sounding the alarm because known enemies were taking flying lessons. The alarm wasn't listened to.

 

It's not that I don't care, but in a "war" you have to keep perspective. Losing people is second to losing the battle or war. So yes, you are going to have casualties. The important consideration is whether those casualties are going to result in the enemy winning. In the case of Al Qaida, the answer is "NO". As heartless as it sounds to you, Paranoia, New York could be nuked and the USA would be just fine. Flight 93 could have hit the White House and killed Bush and the USA would have been fine.

 

We lose the war if we place such a high value on individual life that we destroy our own liberties to protect those lives. IOW, if we give in to our fears of our own death.

 

Then he went on to say that we can't leave now because Al Qaeda and Iran would work together to make Iraq into a new terrorist state.

 

Which is why I said from the first that we lost a battle against Al Qaeda the moment we invaded Iraq! We had just deprived Al Qaeda of state protection in Afghanistan. Hussein wouldn't let them into Iraq. But then we invade and open the country to chaos and offer Al Qaeda the possibility of state protection that we had just deprived them of in Afghanistan!

 

From the intelligence reports our own government has published, Al Qaeda already has safe areas in Iraq. We simply don't have enough troops there to occupy the entire country.

 

Al Qaeda and Iran can agree in their desire to hurt the West. That may be enough to overcome the Sunni-Shiite difference. Or the Shiites could simply let Al Qaeda have training camps, Iraqi passports, etc. without providing funds or caring if they are Sunnis. The number of Al Qaeda operatives is small and offers no military threat to the Shiites. After all, this is pretty much what was done in Afghanistan.

 

The point Lieberman misses is that all this is going happen if we stay. We are in a war we can't win. We can delay the day all his fears come to pass by keeping troops there, but it will come to pass. And all the troops killed in the interim will be killed to no purpose. IMO, time to admit we got into a war we couldn't win, pull out, start preparing for the consequences, and trying to set up a situation where we can win. We lost this battle. Time to get ready for the next one.

[bombus]

Our war in Iraq is a type of success in some perspectives.

We increased the tensions between Shiites and Sunnis. Let them kill each other.

We're there as a referee, referees get hurt sometimes.

We've turned terrorists groups against Al Qaeda. We're finding more evidence for the Irano-Syrian axis involvement in Iraq, and that includes Hizbollah terrorist guerrillas controlling Beirut's southern suburb in Lebanon.

 

The opposite will happen if we back up. Nobody will clean our crap for us, we need to clean it before we leave .

 

If we wanted to destroy Islamic extremists, and Al Qaeda, we should have given Saddam more support, not deposed him. He killed more Al Qaeda operatives, and Islamic extremists that anyone. He was our best defence against them! As they say, he was a bastard, but he was our bastard.

[Pangloss]

Which is why I said from the first that we lost a battle against Al Qaeda the moment we invaded Iraq! We had just deprived Al Qaeda of state protection in Afghanistan. Hussein wouldn't let them into Iraq. But then we invade and open the country to chaos and offer Al Qaeda the possibility of state protection that we had just deprived them of in Afghanistan!

 

Yah, well put. I still suspect that sooner or later Hussein would have let them in. (This is where I disagree with Bombus' post above -- he stopped being "our guy" in 1991.) But we should have waited for that to happen, and I would have supported action once it did.

 

You know, reading the way you put that is giving me a new perspective on what you guys mean when you complain about the phrase "war on terror". It's not that you don't agree that we're fighting bad guys, and it's not about Bush-bashing. It's about something getting enlarged that simply didn't need to be enlarged.

 

Thank you for that insight.

[bombus]

Yah, well put. I still suspect that sooner or later Hussein would have let them in. (This is where I disagree with Bombus' post above -- he stopped being "our guy" in 1991.) But we should have waited for that to happen, and I would have supported action once it did.

 

You know, reading the way you put that is giving me a new perspective on what you guys mean when you complain about the phrase "war on terror". It's not that you don't agree that we're fighting bad guys, and it's not about Bush-bashing. It's about something getting enlarged that simply didn't need to be enlarged.

 

Thank you for that insight.

 

Saddam hated Al Qaeda etc as much as us, because he was a believer in secular government. They hated him more than they hate us. He'd have NEVER let them in as they would have challenged his authority.

 

He didn't really stop being our guy in 1991. In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait’s borders and summoned American Ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

 

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

 

Some have interpreted these statements as diplomatic language signalling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that it had handled everything “by the book” (in accordance with the US’s official neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League’s Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam’s expectations may have been influenced by a perception that the US was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border.

 

So, maybe he was tricked into invasion so that we had an excuse to impose sanctions and bomb Iraq for 10 years to allow a ground invasion to seize the oil!

 

Damn conspiracy theories...

[lucaspa]

I still suspect that sooner or later Hussein would have let them in. (This is where I disagree with Bombus' post above -- he stopped being "our guy" in 1991.) But we should have waited for that to happen, and I would have supported action once it did.

 

Yeah, me too. This concept of "preemptive war" is very dangerous. The 9/11 Commission and others noted that Al Qaida had approached Hussein after 1991 and Hussein didn't let them in. I think Hussein was just too afraid of the USA after the Gulf War. He had tried tangling with the USA and knew he got his ass kicked. He figured another confrontation would lose him his position -- as it did! So I think fear would have kept him away from Al Qaida.

 

You know, reading the way you put that is giving me a new perspective on what you guys mean when you complain about the phrase "war on terror". It's not that you don't agree that we're fighting bad guys, and it's not about Bush-bashing. It's about something getting enlarged that simply didn't need to be enlarged.

 

Thank you for that insight.

 

You're welcome. It's also about including things under "terrorism" that have no business there. It's confusing the ends with the means. "Terrorism" is tactics -- bombings, assassinations, killing people at random. People with different goals can use the same tactics. Labeling them "terrorists" limits discussion and thought as to whether the goals are those we would agree with or not agree with.

 

For instance, the Israelis use this tactic very well -- labeling all Palestinians "terrorists" and covering up that the Palestinians are fighting an illegal occupation and oppression.

 

The Bush Administration uses "terrorism" to instigate widespread inroads on our personal liberties that will not actually harm or stop our enemies.

 

I can, and do, object to both of those while still opposing Al Qaida and its goal to destroy Western secular civilization.

 

BTW, did you hear about the new National Intelligence Assessment that says Al Qaida today is stronger than before we invaded Iraq?

 

Although the State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that it had handled everything “by the book” (in accordance with the US’s official neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League’s Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam’s expectations may have been influenced by a perception that the US was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border.

 

Most wars are started because one or both sides don't understand the other and misinterpret what is going on. Everyone misinterpreted each other's mobilizations in August 1914 and Europe slid into war. England particularly was a little fuzzy about its commitment to Belgium, which led Germany to think England would not object to a "little" violation of Belgian territory.

 

You don't need conspiracy theory here: in 1990 Hussein misunderstood the position of the USA partly because the position was not stated as clearly as it should have been. His logic about Kuwait being an "internal border" and similar to the Germanies is just dumb.

[bombus]

His logic about Kuwait being an "internal border" and similar to the Germanies is just dumb.

 

That's an opinion!

 

In the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the British concurred with the Ottoman Empire in defining Kuwait as an "autonomous caza" of the Ottoman Empire and that the Shaikhs of Kuwait were not independent leaders, but rather qaimmaqams (provincial sub-governors) of the Ottoman government. After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was financially crippled and the invading British forces invalidated the Anglo-Ottoman Convention, declaring Kuwait to be an "independent sheikhdom under British protectorate.

 

Also in WW1 the germans never offered to retreat:

 

That the Bush administration wanted the war is obvious by its steadfast refusal to enter into any genuine negotiations with Iraq that could have achieved a diplomatic solution. Iraq's August 12, 1990, negotiation proposal, which indicated that Iraq was willing to make significant concessions in return for a comprehensive discussion of other unresolved Middle East conflicts, was rejected out of hand by the Bush administration. So was another Iraqi offer made in December that was reported by Knut Royce in Newsday.

 

President Bush avoided diplomacy and negotiations, even refusing to send Secretary of State Baker to meet Saddam Hussein before the January 15, 1991 deadline as he had promised on November 30, 1990. Bush also rejected Iraq's withdrawal offer of February 15, 1991, two days after U.S. planes incinerated hundreds of women and children sleeping in the al-Arneriyah bomb shelter. The Iraqis immediately agreed to the Soviet proposal of February 18, 1991 - that is four days before the so-called ground war was launched - which required Iraq to abide by all UN resolutions.

 

The U.S. ground war against Iraqi positions resulted in the greatest number of casualties in the conflict. As many as 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi soldiers may have died after the Iraqi government had fully capitulated to all U.S. and UN demands. It is thus obvious that the U.S. government did not fight the war to secure Iraq's eviction from Kuwait but rather proceeded with this unparalleled massacre for other foreign policy objectives.

Copyright © 1992 by The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal

[ParanoiA]

Honestly, after the ruthless massacre, mass rape and pillaging of the citizens of Kuwait - the part you left out - military conflict was necessary. The alternative is that any country can invade any other country - terrorize it's people and destroy it's infrastructure - without any retaliation, as long as they leave right afterwards...

[armygas]

Try a little courage.

 

OK, nice try at an insult, BTW I have been in the conflict twice (TWO deployments)... can you say the same????

 

I am not a fan of the war, but I will do my job to the best of my abilities. The problem is our leaders decided to "pick a fight" and it must be finished. The hornets nest is stirred and now must be exterminated.

 

You said "yeah, a few people will die [in the US]", almost as if you wished for it. I for one certainly do not think thats acceptable. No death is acceptable however our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have that option, they must kill or die (have you ever been in that situation?)

 

Hey guys, I got no problem with whatever person you all put into office...but remember you have to deal with them for the term, there are no "recalls" for the presidency so be sure you get it right the first time or else decisions get made that you don't agree with then you start "blaming" everyone except yourselves for the vote. I keep hearing how bad things are........................well then quit complaining about the situation, get organized, and do something about the having a role in the next person you put into office.

[ParanoiA]

Hey guys, I got no problem with whatever person you all put into office...but remember you have to deal with them for the term, there are no "recalls" for the presidency so be sure you get it right the first time or else decisions get made that you don't agree with then you start "blaming" everyone except yourselves for the vote.

 

We get the government we deserve. We, americans, are idiots.

 

We judge candidates on their pop culture cool factor and how well they talk, listen for lip service on our favorite topic that we know nothing about in the first damn place, we encourage people who don't pay attention to politics at all to go vote with "rock the vote", we reject candidates that yell "Booyah!!!" in excitement cuz that's "not cool" apparently, we judge our candidates on complete bullsh!t and then act all surprised when things get messy.

 

We'll never get it right because we're spoiled brats overflowing with resources half the world struggles to get a fraction of...similar to how I see my fat american countrymen struggle to get squeezed into their SUV that serves as their only means to move their overgrown carcass...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I am not a fan of the war, but I will do my job to the best of my abilities. The problem is our leaders decided to "pick a fight" and it must be finished. The hornets nest is stirred and now must be exterminated.

Why?

 

The idea that because we got into it, we have to finish it, is an application of the sunk cost fallacy. Staying and fighting only saves face. Leaving saves us money and lives.

[armygas]

Why?

 

The idea that because we got into it, we have to finish it, is an application of the sunk cost fallacy. Staying and fighting only saves face. Leaving saves us money and lives.

 

That will be a question for the next administration, so choose wisely.

 

"The United States is embedded in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Quick exits from a failed policy and a failing Iraq have emotional appeal but will probably be very hard to achieve, absent a catastrophic change in the situation. Given the nature of U.S. commitments and the investment already made in our political and military partnership with the Iraqi state, the next administration, of either party, will face the Iraq file in 2009, and will likely be working on ways to limit and downscale U.S. involvement there for the better part of the next presidential term."

 

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/LaipsonPaper.pdf

[bombus]

Honestly, after the ruthless massacre, mass rape and pillaging of the citizens of Kuwait - the part you left out - military conflict was necessary. The alternative is that any country can invade any other country - terrorize it's people and destroy it's infrastructure - without any retaliation, as long as they leave right afterwards...

 

For somone so intelligent, you don't question much do you?

[ParanoiA]

For somone so intelligent, you don't question much do you?

 

Did you give that any thought bombus? What is your pacifist answer for a country that invades another country just to rape and pillage and then leave? You're advocating that it would have been a great idea to allow him to simply withdraw since he made the offer. What was to be his punishment? Let me guess...more sanctions (to punish his people with)?

 

When you establish a precedence of negotiating with an aggressor who viciously attacks a country like that, it emboldens every other aggressor with similar thoughts. Just invade, kill, rape, destroy - then leave...no problem, no consequences - they'll be happy you withdrew and leave you alone.

 

If you're going to play world police, or sign a treaty to resist aggressors, then you have a responsibility to do it. Personally, I don't agree with pre-established alignments and military commitments, but since we're here, let's be realistic.

[bombus]

Did you give that any thought bombus? What is your pacifist answer for a country that invades another country just to rape and pillage and then leave? You're advocating that it would have been a great idea to allow him to simply withdraw since he made the offer. What was to be his punishment? Let me guess...more sanctions (to punish his people with)?

 

When you establish a precedence of negotiating with an aggressor who viciously attacks a country like that, it emboldens every other aggressor with similar thoughts. Just invade, kill, rape, destroy - then leave...no problem, no consequences - they'll be happy you withdrew and leave you alone.

 

If you're going to play world police, or sign a treaty to resist aggressors, then you have a responsibility to do it. Personally, I don't agree with pre-established alignments and military commitments, but since we're here, let's be realistic.

 

I'll post up some stuff that questions your beliefs about what happened regarding Kuwait. I'm on a different PC at the moment so have not access to it. Much of what was supposed to have happened to Kuwait was probably propoganda.

 

Question everything!

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa: His logic about Kuwait being an "internal border" and similar to the Germanies is just dumb.

 

That's an opinion!

 

After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was financially crippled and the invading British forces invalidated the Anglo-Ottoman Convention, declaring Kuwait to be an "independent sheikhdom under British protectorate.

 

Thank you, Bombus, for posting the smoking gun that showed just how dumb Hussein's logic was!

 

Also in WW1 the germans never offered to retreat:

 

Actually, in period of mobilization prior to the start of troop movements in August 1914, the Germans did indeed discuss refraining from invading Belgium. They made several offers to both Britain and France to avoid war with them. See Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August. There were huge arguments within the German government about whether they should go to war against France at all. And whether an invasion of Belgium would bring in Britain and how to avoid that. In the end, they misunderstood Britain's committment to Belgium and decided that Britain would not fight for what the Germans thought was just a "point of honor" that didn't seem to be vital to Britain's interests.

 

Iraq's August 12, 1990, negotiation proposal, which indicated that Iraq was willing to make significant concessions in return for a comprehensive discussion of other unresolved Middle East conflicts, was rejected out of hand by the Bush administration.

 

And I agree with that rejection. Hussein's plan to tie withdrawal from Kuwait to other issues meant he wanted profit out of invading Kuwait. As I will note below to Paralith, that could not be countenanced.

 

Bush also rejected Iraq's withdrawal offer of February 15, 1991, two days after U.S. planes incinerated hundreds of women and children sleeping in the al-Arneriyah bomb shelter. The Iraqis immediately agreed to the Soviet proposal of February 18, 1991 - that is four days before the so-called ground war was launched - which required Iraq to abide by all UN resolutions.

 

Those might have been listened to. But, that is in isolation from Hussein's other remarks that he was going to fight, and defeat, the Coalition forces. I can understand the first Bush's Administration not believing the offers were genuine and instead deciding that they had to continue with the war.

 

Honestly, after the ruthless massacre, mass rape and pillaging of the citizens of Kuwait - the part you left out - military conflict was necessary. The alternative is that any country can invade any other country - terrorize it's people and destroy it's infrastructure - without any retaliation, as long as they leave right afterwards...

 

Any massacre, rape, and pillaging is irrelevant. the principle is that any country cannot invade any other country except as a result of self-defense. It really doesn't matter whether they are nice or not, does it?

 

OK, nice try at an insult, BTW I have been in the conflict twice (TWO deployments)... can you say the same????

 

It wasn't an insult. It was a statement. That you served two deployments in Iraq has nothing to do about your fear concerning terrorist attacks in the USA.

 

I am not a fan of the war, but I will do my job to the best of my abilities.

 

And you are supposed to do that. Our job

 

There is an unspoken contract between civilians and soldiers. Soldiers promise to go where they are told, fight who they are told to fight, and to suffer whatever comes doing that. Our job as civilians is to make sure that your job is honorable and doable so that your sacrifice isn't for nothing. So your job involves unquestioning obedience but our job involves continual questioning and soul searching: is the war morally justified, will a battle or series of battles in this place contribute to ultimate victory, are the strategy and tactics of the military actually defeating the enemy, is "victory" in these battles or war achievable?

 

The problem is our leaders decided to "pick a fight" and it must be finished. The hornets nest is stirred and now must be exterminated.

You are correct that the problem is that the NCA picked a fight in Iraq. It was the wrong fight in the wrong place at the wrong time for fighting Al Qaeda. The hornet's nest was ALREADY stirred up: that's how we got 9/11. But we had destroyed a bunch of hornets in Afghanistan and severely limited the capabilities of the rest. At home, now that we were alerted to the danger, our defenses in the form of law enforcement and security measures has stopped many plots. Invading Iraq simply gave back to Al Qaida what they had lost in the fall of the Taliban.

 

You said "yeah, a few people will die [in the US]", almost as if you wished for it. I for one certainly do not think thats acceptable.

 

Don't be silly. I don't wish it. Remember, I am possibly one of those deaths. It won't be you in Iraq killed in an attack on civilians in the US, will it? It is possibly ME or my loved ones. I begin to doubt you are in the military, because I know one of the basic military principles is that casualties are acceptable to achieve the mission. Unless you risk casualties, you won't get the mission done.

 

No death is acceptable

 

I'm apparently a bit more ruthless than you, despite that you are a soldier and I'm a civvie. For me, the mission is a free USA. I recognize that "The tree of liberty must be watered occasionally with the blood of patriots." I'm willing that the blood be mine or my loved ones rather than impose so many restrictions on our liberty, because "no death is acceptable", that we make ourselves perfectly safe but lose our liberties.

 

Hey guys, I got no problem with whatever person you all put into office...but remember you have to deal with them for the term, there are no "recalls" for the presidency so be sure you get it right the first time or else decisions get made that you don't agree with then you start "blaming" everyone except yourselves for the vote.

 

Oh, I blame ourselves (the civvies) for the vote in 2004. I myself should have worked harder for Bush's defeat. Of course, Bush lost MY vote for all time when he stood all safe in the Rose Garden and invited the insurgents to "bring it on". I think one of the great testimonials to the discipline of US Marines is that Bush's Marine guard did not frag him right then and there.

 

I'm a REMF and know I am. I know there are limits on what a REMF can say. Acting like a juvenile teenager and goading the enemy to attack soldiers in harm's way while I am safe is WAY beyond those limits. I can never forgive Bush for that one.