The effectiveness of a "War" on terror

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Interesting discussion Lief. Gaun yersel big man.

I don't find it surprising that Shia militias (militiae?) are getting arms from Iran. Let's see, if China invaded Canada, and installed a Maoist government, don't you think the Free Canuck resistance might get the odd peashooter from the US?

Except that Canada is our ally. Iraq was Iran's enemy.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In that context it's a pretty unimpressive haul, in fact. Maybe they can file the receipts next to the ones they've got from Saddam in the 80s.

However, given your views on "terrorists" and enemies, doesn't that mean we should be talking to Iran as a matter of priority?

What I've been arguing is that we should leave to the experts whether or not negotiations would be profitable with any particular terrorist group. If they think that peace negotiations have a chance of success and that the group won't backstab us, that diplomacy is a good option, then I say we should definitely go forward with them.

At present, the Administration doesn't think that communicating with Iran is a good move. I know that there was a different panel in our government that recommended it, though. So clearly there's disagreement on policy at the top.

I think negotiation with Iran would be great, but, as the Administration has repeatedly stated, it cannot be at the price of letting Iran develop its nuclear program. So if Iran is only willing to make a deal on Iraq on condition that we allow their nuclear program to proceed, I don't feel that diplomacy would be at all helpful an option in that situation.

[The Telcontarion]

Good morning to you too captain.

Originally Posted by CNN
U.S. defense officials say...

This is the problem, I don't believe it. What happened to good old fashion reporting. You know when journalist actually do some investigating as appose to just be mouth pieces for government; "U.S. defense officials say," whatever.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

I heard tonight in President Bush's state of the union that the war's ging fine, all he needs is more troops. Oh and terrorists are against freedom. So:

Does throwing more troops at the problem solve it? Did that work in Vietnam?

and:

Are terrorists against "freedom"?

note: Firstly, I object to the use of “freedom” as a possessive noun, it suggests that the US are only ones who can say who is for freedom and who is against freedom. It’s the classic Bush: “Your either with us or against us…” God that’s arrogant.
And secondly, and more importantly, Bush said that "terrorists are only interested in stopping other people's freedom" (sic). I contend, regardless of their methods, terrorists have specific aims, and one of those aims most certainly is the pursuit of freedom for their own people, be they oppressed or no.

"Freedom", or lack thereof, is in the eye of the beholder.

[hectorberlioz]

The problem is that you guys only care about what Bush says, not what he means...

...and I think there's a real difference between the two. First of all, Bush is not Aristotle. Secondly, your thoughts about the use of the word "freedom" are not much help, and if I was president and you'd told me that, I'd tell you to stop reading so many dictionaries. Politics is not a cold science. I doubt many politicians take the time to read "word of the day".

Terrorists may not be "against" freedom, but they sure as heck are trying to stifle our efforts in Iraq. It sure doesn't tell you that they're for freedom either, but the real point, and the point I think Bush always makes in a very roundabout way, is that "those guys are killing us (troops) and Iraqis, so we kill them in return."

We're trying to help the Iraqis, the insurgents are preventing us, and if they somehow think they're "fighting for freedom" thats fine, but that's not the point.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The problem is that you guys only care about what Bush says, not what he means...

Call me old fashioned, but when the president of the United States says something during the state of the union address, I think I'll believe what he SAYS. mate. Either he is the commander of the largest armed force the world has ever seen, and is, well, not very bright, or not. Well?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

...and I think there's a real difference between the two. First of all, Bush is not Aristotle.

no argument here. Still, he has the nuclear launch codes, so what does philosophy matter, or, well, brains...?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Secondly, your thoughts about the use of the word "freedom" are not much help, and if I was president and you'd told me that, I'd tell you to stop reading so many dictionaries. Politics is not a cold science. I doubt many politicians take the time to read "word of the day".

Sweet dear God I hope ths isnt true! We want the leaders of the "free" world to read! Damn man! Of one of the virtues required in the oval office, one would think that intelligence would be one of them, eh lad?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Terrorists may not be "against" freedom, but they sure as heck are trying to stifle our efforts in Iraq.

I said before man. For who's freedom is president Bush fighting for? Don’t give me any garbage about it belong the Iraqis. Freedom, or lack of, depends on your point of view. What ever happened to those pesky weapons of mass destruction? Well they must be there, because ole Geroge W said they were there, and so on.

And finally: You Yanks are gonna love this...: Were the American "rebels" terrorists when they objected to the British version of freedomin the 1700's?

Discuss, my touchy American friends

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Call me old fashioned, but when the president of the United States says something during the state of the union address, I think I'll believe what he SAYS. mate.

Fundamentalist

Either he is the commander of the largest armed force the world has ever seen, and is, well, not very bright, or not. Well?

Hmm. But my point is that his speeches are always put in that "flowery code" manner, and if you want to believe what he SAYS, you have to know what it means. I don't know about you guys over there, but we here have to decode a lot of the messages our politician's give us.

no argument here. Still, he has the nuclear launch codes, so what does philosophy matter, or, well, brains...?

You can be a pretty smart person and still not want to set the world on fire, in fact I would argue that you want to do it less if you aren't the philisophical type.

Sweet dear God I hope ths isnt true! We want the leaders of the "free" world to read! Damn man!

I didn't say they couldn't read, my point is that grammar is not on their top priorities list.

Of one of the virtues required in the oval office, one would think that intelligence would be one of them, eh lad?

Indeed, and if you can find out where Bush secretly bought his Yale and Harvard degrees, I encourage you to look it up. Seems everytime this is brought up, the opposition goes back to the old "Intelligence isn't the same thing as education".

I said before man. For who's freedom is president Bush fighting for? Don’t give me any garbage about it belong the Iraqis.

Well you're about to get a decent helping of it, so prepare.

Freedom, or lack of, depends on your point of view.

Yes it may, but that was never the point. It doesn't matter a scrap whether Al-Qaeda or the loose insrugents think they're doing the right thing or if they enjoy it or not.

And let me ask you this Fenir, exactly how is it "freedom fighting" to blow people up, the same people that they supposedly fight for?
The answer is that it isn't freedom fighting whatever else it is, and you can call it whatever you want really...
And if any of us thinks we've lost too many troops-we have, but we have not lost even a quarter of what the Iraqis have lost. ("Finally he's comin' around!") And you know why? It's not because our guys have been over there mowing everyone down, it's because the insurgents don't SEEM to care who they kill. I'd venture to say that if you took out the sectarian violence factor, that alone would give us far fewer news stories about the bombs blowing in Baghdad.
It wouldn't stop everything, I'm not saying that.

What ever happened to those pesky weapons of mass destruction? Well they must be there, because ole Geroge W said they were there, and so on.

Somehow this last bit doesn't fit with the "freedom" subject, at least not right off hand.

And finally: You Yanks are gonna love this...: Were the American "rebels" terrorists when they objected to the British version of freedomin the 1700's?

Discuss, my touchy American friends

I'm sick of hearing this question. I can't say that much for the sins of my fathers...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

note: Firstly, I object to the use of “freedom” as a possessive noun, it suggests that the US are only ones who can say who is for freedom and who is against freedom. It’s the classic Bush: “Your either with us or against us…” God that’s arrogant.

Yeah, that really bothers me, the way people associate American ideas and democracy with freedom, as though they were the same thing.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

And finally: You Yanks are gonna love this...: Were the American "rebels" terrorists when they objected to the British version of freedomin the 1700's?

Discuss, my touchy American friends

Oh, and yes.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Yeah, that really bothers me, the way people associate American ideas and democracy with freedom, as though they were the same thing.

It bothers me that Castro and Chavez get worshipped for silencing the dissent in their countries, and that some people think Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Cigars is a good system of Government simply because of what Marxism AIMS for, not what actually happens under communism.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It bothers me that Castro and Chavez get worshipped for silencing the dissent in their countries, and that some people think Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Cigars is a good system of Government simply because of what Marxism AIMS for, not what actually happens under communism.

That too is problematic.

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Firstly, I object to the use of “freedom” as a possessive noun, it suggests that the US are only ones who can say who is for freedom and who is against freedom. It’s the classic Bush: “Your either with us or against us…” God that’s arrogant.

And secondly, and more importantly, Bush said that "terrorists are only interested in stopping other people's freedom" (sic). I contend, regardless of their methods, terrorists have specific aims, and one of those aims most certainly is the pursuit of freedom for their own people, be they oppressed or no.

"Freedom", or lack thereof, is in the eye of the beholder.

Thank you so much for saying all of this.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It bothers me that Castro and Chavez get worshipped for silencing the dissent in their countries, and that some people think Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Cigars is a good system of Government simply because of what Marxism AIMS for, not what actually happens under communism.

Exactly. Technically, a lot of things are great in principle. It's the fact that they're only good under PERFECT circumstances, which we as human beings cannot produce in our societies, that trumps everything.

What one aims for is usually not what one gets.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

I said before man. For who's freedom is president Bush fighting for? Don’t give me any garbage about it belong the Iraqis. Freedom, or lack of, depends on your point of view.

Tell that to the colonists who fought for American Independence . I can just imagine you standing there, as they're readying themselves to fight the British to win their independence, "freedom depends on your point of view." My bet is they'd give you the boot . From the colonists' perspective, they weren't free, and humbug the fact that the British might have thought the colonists were free.

And secondly, and more importantly, Bush said that "terrorists are only interested in stopping other people's freedom" (sic). I contend, regardless of their methods, terrorists have specific aims, and one of those aims most certainly is the pursuit of freedom for their own people, be they oppressed or no.

I don't believe that Bush said "terrorists are only interested in stopping other people's freedom." I certainly don't remember that. But he did say they wanted to impose their ideology on everybody. And I think that that is true.

I agree with you that some of the terrorist groups want the freedom of their people. That is particularly true in the Palestinian territories. It is probably also true of some of the insurgent groups in Iraq.

In other places, though, it is not true. The Taliban is an excellent example of this. So was the UIC, which didn't allow the common people any role in the government and was definitely a totalitarian force- as were the warlords too, of course. But many Islamic governments do not give the people any representation in the government, or much liberty at all. Most of them really aren't interested in freedom for the common man.

One can't lump all terrorists into one group. Though Islamic terrorists have a similar ideology to one another in effect, there is diversity between different groups too, in terms of objectives. One can't characterize them all as freedom fighters or as totalitarian lumps. Either generalization about them is going to be flawed.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Tell that to the colonists who fought for American Independence . I can just imagine you standing there, as they're readying themselves to fight the British to win their independence, "freedom depends on your point of view." My bet is they'd give you the boot . From the colonists' perspective, they weren't free, and humbug the fact that the British might have thought the colonists were free.

And humbug the fact that they were really pretty much right!

[Lief Erikson]

I don't have any time, really, but I'd like to bring up a news story that has recently come out, in response to an earlier part of conversation.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insidious Rex
So Theres a LOT out there on this Lief. I hardly think you need me to fish out “citations” over such a well known issue…



I did remember four generals stepping down because of having problems with Rumsfeld. I also remember seeing a different general praise Rumsfeld's leadership, in response to their accusations. And I haven't seen Tommy Franks or the very highest leaders make this accusation of the Administration. My guess is that it's the responsibility of the highest general in charge of operations to make the request of the Administration, that they send in more troops, and the advice of lower ranking generals wouldn't be as likely to be heeded if their superior doesn't agree with them.

But that's just my guess as to how it works; I don't know for sure.

Turns out I was right on this.

Originally Posted by BBC News

President Bush's choice for the new army chief of staff has denied that current US policy on Iraq has failed.
General George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq for the last two years, faced tough questioning at his Senate confirmation hearing.

But he disputed Republican Senator John McCain's suggestion he had painted an overly "rosy" picture of events.

"I do not agree that we have a failed policy," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

President Bush plans to send 21,500 more US soldiers to Iraq to help stem the conflict.

But Gen Casey said security in the capital, Baghdad, could be improved without such an influx of extra troops.

"I do believe the job in Baghdad as it's designed now can be done with less than that," he told senators.

"But having the other three brigades on a deployment cycle gives General Petraeus [his successor] great flexibility," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6322267.stm
So the general who was "the top US commander in Iraq for the last two years" has been advising President Bush that the old plan was working, and he still thinks it is working. Other generals apparently disagreed with him, but he was the top general, the one working with the Administration and whose opinion they were most likely to listen to. So if people here are going to blame any perceived failure in Iraq on anyone, it would be more fair not to place it on the Administration. President Bush repeatedly said that if the generals on the field told him that they needed more troops, he'd send them more troops. And the top US commander in Iraq never did that.

It's logical that the Administration would be more likely to listen to the top general than lower ranking generals.

[Tessar]

Oh come on, Lief. Stop saying you don't have time... we all know you couldn't stop debating if you had your jaw wired shut and your fingers in a cast.

You'd learn to type with your toes .

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's logical that the Administration would be more likely to listen to the top general than lower ranking generals.

The President is Commander and Chief. He's supposed to listen to everyone.

As far as top general's opinions go, I suggest reading up a bit on William Westmoreland.

[The Gaffer]

Already the history is being rewritten, except this time to fit the loser.

Right from the start of the Iraq war there have been mililtary types voicing their concerns. These have got louder and louder. It's a matter of record that the Pentagon overruled the military on many occasions.

It is unprecedented in my lifetime for so many military and ex-military to question to conduct of a war whilst it is still going on.

And the spectacle of Bush trying to delegate the blame to the generals ("hey, tell me what ideas you got") is disgusting.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Turns out I was right on this.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6322267.stm
So the general who was "the top US commander in Iraq for the last two years" has been advising President Bush that the old plan was working, and he still thinks it is working. Other generals apparently disagreed with him, but he was the top general, the one working with the Administration and whose opinion they were most likely to listen to. So if people here are going to blame any perceived failure in Iraq on anyone, it would be more fair not to place it on the Administration. President Bush repeatedly said that if the generals on the field told him that they needed more troops, he'd send them more troops. And the top US commander in Iraq never did that.

It's logical that the Administration would be more likely to listen to the top general than lower ranking generals.

Lief get serious. Casey was just relieved of his post not a week ago. Want to guess as to why? Of course he isn’t going to bad mouth the administrations war policy when he is now being considered for Chief of Staff of the Army. And of course Bush is going to keep the one general that goes with him on Iraq close at hand. So its all very fitting. Why would he bad mouth bush when he is trying to get a position like Chief of Staff? That would make no sense. Meanwhile, John Abizaid was Casey’s boss and DID speak out against the administrations plans as you will remember. But you will brush off his higher up and refer t him as a “lower ranking general”? It doesn’t get any higher up then Abizaid Lief… And it’s a little disingenious to shrug off all the equally high ranking generals who disagree and site this one lone general who apparently has gone along with Bush and who just happens to be trying to get a Chief of Staff seat from Bush…

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Oh come on, Lief. Stop saying you don't have time... we all know you couldn't stop debating if you had your jaw wired shut and your fingers in a cast.

You'd learn to type with your toes .

he's fooling no one - and Lief's toes are faster than clint eastwood, already!

[hectorberlioz]

I think Lief writes his gurangatuan posts offline, and then he ZAPS us with 'em. More shock value