Not debateable at all-Study was made proving what he said. Too tired to get if for you right now though.

Might as well change the thread title to "Fox news says..." :roll:

It's MSN also. I'm just trying to help you out because, maybe those WMD got into your system and clouded things up.

Actually the bombing of the mosque WAS about the time most experts began admitting we were "stuck" in the middle of a Civil War in Iraq.

For SOME reason YOU think that only MSM pundits are speaking out on this. Here is part of a report from March '05, where those speaking are NOT from the media. Since this report, MANY more have spoken out from Generals to Ambassadors and others.

Kintama

What he meant by "MSM" was main-stream media, not MSN, as in MSNBC. In your world it probably depends on what "is, is"

Watch the Lip
Some of us on here were in Iraq and actually know what's going on without having to read or watch the News.

Thank you for your service yoopr

no thanks needed but thanks
Just tired of people who have no clue on what's going on over there except what they read or Hear on the News and it all becomes political Bush Lied-People Died-we're there for the OIL-etc etc
Saddam killed between 500,000 to a Million or more and these "Can't we just get along" Crowd would just like for that to continue.
I suggest that these people, IF they're open Minded to read George Sada's(Sp) book. He was Saddam's Air Force General. He reported What happened and what is currently happening in Iraq much better than Me.

You can Thank WildK and a few others on here for being there. Ranger was over there but he seems to have disappeared from here.

"MANY more have spoken out from Generals to Ambassadors and others. "

Concerning the Admirals and Generals you CLAIM to have been in the Military and IF you were you'd know that there are a Few THOUSAND Retired Admirals and Generals and the FEW who have disagreed are a Very TINY Minority.

Sorry, Double Post!!

Yooper,

Please understand that I don't doubt your word in reading of your experiences in Iraq. The problem that I have with what you are saying is that I know too many enlisted soldiers and commissioned officers who have returned from Iraq, and they are telling me a very different story. Some of them are Republicans, and some are Democrats. A few people that I've talked to have worked over there as civillian contractors. So, it's not the MSM that I am relying upon for information here.

No, I have not been there myself, but living in a part of the state where there is such a heavy military presence, and hearing the stories and analysis that is coming from such a wide spectrum of military people who have just recently returned from there, I find it difficult to discount what they are saying.

If everything in Iraq was going so well, then I think that it would be possible to identify a point where we could declare a victory and extricate ourselves. Yet, there are just too many waring factions who are fighting for power, and the one thing that they share is a hatred for The U.S. There can be no disputing the fact that these factions are becoming increasingly powerful, and for the life of me, I just don't see any chance for the U.S. to bring stability to this troubled corner of the Earth.

We are trying to implement democracy in a part of the world that has never known anything but oppression and vengeance. While the idea of democracy and freedom is certainly noble, democracy can only exist and survive where there are people willing to respect those with dissenting views, accept the will of the majority without infringing upon the rights of the minority, embrace civil discourse, and accept compromise.

The fact is that we are dealing with an oppressive culture and a religion that thrives off of hatred, death, and destruction; a culture and a religion that considers words like "freedom" and "compromise" to be the roots of evil. It is a religion that is consumed with killing or dying in the name of Allah.

The United States is not going to change that, unless we are willing to totally obliterate that part of the world. While the soldiers serving over in Iraq have for the most part served with dignity and honor, there can be no denying the corruption of the financial elite serving their own interests in Iraq, nor can it be denied that they've scammed the American taxpayer out of billions, while Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Republican party as a whole turn with a wink and a blind eye.

Does this mean that the Democrats should be considered any more trust worthy?? Go back and revisit Vietnam, the tawdry spectacles of The Clinton Administration, (BTW, I'm not talking about his "intern affair"; the scandal with Monica Lewinsky was but a tiny drop of water in terms of the wrongdoing that took place under his leadership!!) think about the chicanery that led to the purging of the Democrats not only from Washington D.C., but also from the Governor"s Mansions, and the Legislative Halls in so many state back in 1994, and I think that it becomes abundantly clear that they can not!!

Personally, I think that the Republicans deserve to be turned out of office; yet, I hold no illusions that when the Democrats regain the reins of power, (as I believe they will!!) that they will return as a reformed party who has learned from their mistakes of the past. These elections will not be so much a victory for the Democrats as it will be a repudiation of the Republicans. After all the ballots are counted, all that will happen is that we will have switched from one political toxin to another.

Now for those who are talking about Democrats trying to "change the subject", I think that most of us have made it clear on where we think that Kerry stands. I think that I've made myself clear in stating my belief that he is drowning in his own verbal raw sewage. Hopefully, he has ended his political career.

That does not mean that there are not other matters that pertain to his remarks (insults would be a better word!!) that are not equally worthy of discussion. I don't think that this thread has been hijacked, I think that it has just evolved.

One more thing, Yooper, I do consider myself to be open minded, and I'm about to go by Border's or Barnes and Noble to buy a copy of the book you mentioned, and read it while I grab some lunch. Sounds like a good read, thanks for the recommend!![/quote]

It's hard to believe some folks still support this war. Bush and his cronies are smart enuff to realize that oil is not necessarily where the money is but reconstruction, after all isn't that how Bin ladins daddy got rich? And it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize what's going on, i.e., if we blow it up it will have to be rebuilt. Meanwhile do you realize how many gallons of petroleum based products are required to kepp a war machine going, Prescott bush ought to know cause he was sellin oil to germany in WW2. So here is a simple plan, create panic,i.e. terrorism, go after a country, bomb it, rebuild it and let the AMERICAN TAXPAYER, pay for it so the future Bushs will have to never worry about where thier meal is comin from

Here's another clue for ya, USA 200 years old, Iraq, particullarly Bagdad 4000 years old. Aint never gonna work, those folks have pride and traditions also. They don't want a Wal-Mart and a CVS and a titty bar,and a bank right around the corner, and I don't blame them.

The Debate ..
 

First, I think it is an interesting step in our democracy that we can tune in to hundreds of channels and find whomever that agrees with us. The sadness is that the debate has been reduced to Clinton failed to get Bin Laden and Bush Lied people died. The debate in my opinion is far more fundamental and far more important than people getting rich off oil.

Here are the mistakes and miscalculations our president made:

The president assumed that 911 provided infinite political will from the people and commitment from congress to escalate the Light Intensity conflcit that had been secretly engaged for 20 years into a Medium Intensity conflict. The advantage was to compress the time-lines at a cost of political will and beans, bullets and butts. Clearly this country does not want to pay such a cost.Now we are in a MIC again with no public support.

The president badly estimated the reaction in Iraq. Thinking more like how the Ukrainians greeted the Germans not how thousands of years of history in the area. Many very bad decisions came from this including the thought that implementing democracy would have immediate positive effects.

OK that said ...

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO NEXT???? Retreat at this point would embolden our enemies and increase our problems. Can we deescalate this war into a LIC again?

WHAT IS THE REAL QUESTION ON TERRORISM? Is this a legal problem where terrorist are something like the mafia? (Democrats view) Are terrorist agents of the sponsoring country and we escalate the extension of political will to those nations i.e. war? (Bush Doctrine)

Ahhhh so much easier to not think about this and espouse emotional talking points .... :wink:

Good post, CrackAces! Bush actually called that "political will" Political Capital! Well... I think it is spent! Bankrupt almost!

I DON'T support any "cut and run" philosophy, and consider those who use it against us "Dems" as disingenous and dishonest. NONE of us want to see us LOSE this war.... but we ARE losing it. Some just won't admit it.

What to do next? I like your "de-escalation" idea. NOT negotiation or capitulation, but some way to get our troops out of the crossfire. I've heard rumblings of ideas about a "Pan-Arab" force to replace us and help keep the peace (such as it is.) These Arab countries are MUCH more agreeable to having some of their OWN types keep order, as opposed to the "infidel" Americans. We aren't doing much in that regard right now, anyway!

What people in general, and Republicans specifically, can't seem to understand or accept, is that the ROOT of their hatred is our PRESENCE on their "holy lands."

Would it not, at least, be worthwhile to TALK to the enemy and find out if there IS some kind of compromise that would ENSURE the freedom and democracy of the newly established Iraqi government, under the auspices of ARAB military forces?

These people are weird. They would rather die and/or live in chaos than have ONE American soldier on their soil! We can poo-pooh it, and fight on.... or we can at least CONSIDER an alternative.

I'm not saying that the DEMS have the answer. Heck, I don't know if ANY of us do. I DO know that Bush doesn't have it! So... let's get together as Americans and get this SETTLED and get out of there!

I think you may have already posted it some months ago, but do you have a link to more discussion on this LIC/MIC stuff? I'd very much like to study it.

Hobo

Thanks .. the concept of Political will and war is Clausewitz. An interesting extension in my book is the concept of dictatorships and monarchy's where a natural singular thought exists vs. democracies where the political seasons naturally divide political will. No successful war for America has extended across a Presidents term. A very key side effect of a two term limit for a president is that no war can last beyond 8 years.

It all depends on your defintion of "losing it"

Clearly the domestic view of continued investment in a Medium Intensity conflict is that we need to end this thing now. Thus the public support to achieve the original objectives are not there and thus are not feasible.

Militarily we are achieving objectives.

1. It is estimated that 90% of terrorist investments including Iran's and Syria's typical outlay for one year are going into Iraq. This is what the president wanted.

2. The Americans have bases next to Iran and Syria and can put pressure on these countries.

However .. again the Americans do not agree with these objectives or the costs paid.


Yes this would be a good solution. Unfortunately moderate Arab nations are very much afraid of a radical Islam revolution in their countries. Do not think so .. ask Sadat .. oh he is dead ...

It is the creation of Israel from the former colonies of France that has these people ticked off.

1. They think that France never had any rights to their land. WW1 and all only reminds them of the Crusades of the 11th and 12th century.

2. The plan proposed by the US for the creation of Israel and executed --simply moved people into "concentration" I mean refugee camps that in the view of Arabs is no different than what Germany did ..

Then it gets very very complected if you add in the Soviet Union and China meddling in these affairs. (if somebody is interested I would be happy to post my thoughts.




In my view I think our best opportunity was(Afghanistan against the soviets) 1980. We were actively involved positively in this area. Our failure to bring resolution to this problem means we either kill millions of people or capitulate. The radical Islam expects nor will give no quarter.

On the MIC/LIC stuff I am only quoting what I learned as a green beanie .. I spent time in Lebanon in 1980 and got to understand both points of view. The gap is sooooo wide that I am thinking now that the point has been reached where the Arabs will discover how to split atoms and I am not sure it is as "weird" as determined to impose their solution at any cost.

Couple of points… and I’ll be brief cause I’m hungry… :D

1) Israel didn’t put them into “concentration camps” aka refugee camps….at the time of the creation of Israel all of the Palestinians (which incidently have NEVER had their own government and nation) had an offer to become Israeli citizens. The surrounding Arab nations convinced 50% of them that Israel will never last and they (pan-arabs) will annihilate them. Well the 50% that did agree to live are living (for the most part) peaceful lives inside Israel. Granted they can’t vote and serve in the military…but they are much better off than the camps and those in that corrupted place called Gaza.

2) Iraq….Post WWI somebody drew some lines and called it Iraq. Nobody paid any attention to the ethnic groups inside those lines. So you ended up with the Kurds in the north and the Shiites and Sunnis splitting the south. The boundaries make no cultural sense and they never coexisted. It was only under the brutal hammer of Saddam that sectarian violence was muted.

3) If we de-escalate now, we will leave a total vacuum in that country and allow militai groups like Muqtada al Sadr to gain ever more power. His Mahti Army is being formed in imitation of Hezbollah (and probably funded by both Syria and Iran). He would step into a vacuum and the results would be horrific.

4) Like CA said, we are there and we can’t go back in time. I wish we had finished our business in Afghanistan before dealing with Saddam. Unfortunately that is not the case and I feel we need more troops, not less, to gain control in areas like Baghdad and other cities….or partition the country and I don’t see that working with all the oil money in the north.

5) I tell ya, it’s a damn political and strategic maze over there. We are dealing with a culture that respects power and force not polite “let’s all just get along” politically correct negotiations. There is no easy answer.

My 02…

Good points GolfHobo....

Is there another option? Maybe....maybe we partition the country. Divide the country into a Kurdish north, a Sunni center, and a Shiite south. Take the oil money and divide it between the three. Let them all have self governing powers.

Interesting point about the dividing of Iraq after WWI...Winston Churchill was the guy who drew the lines and created Iraq from the remains of the Ottoman Empire. He was Britain's Colonial Secratary then (I had to go research this tidbit). He later said that this forced unity in Iraq was one of his biggest mistakes. A mistake that we are all still paying for!!

My putting concentration camps in quotes is because that is how the Arab Street views the situation. Why would you displace millions of Arabs for the sovereignty of a few Jews?

They believe they would be much better off on their own land living the way they did just before 1948, when the United States sponsored and executed a plan to create Israel and "relive the crusades of the 11 century".

Just like this thread, where a spectrum of belief systems that span the realm of reality are expressed (Republican vs. Democrat), there too in the middle east is a spectrum of reality that various depending on your view.

Thus my attempt to see this problem through the eyes of my opposition.

Crackaces,

Could you clarify your statement that the US sponsored and then executed a plan to create Israel. You may be refering to the same thing I am thinking but with different terminology.

Going back to my Mid-East and African History classes it was the United Nations, with a great deal of input from Great Britan, that actually sponsored and then executed the creation of Israel. Mainly for two reasons with the first being that Jews had been returning and settling in the areas for years prior and actually started armed insurrection against the British who held the area as a protectorate after WWI to gain some self autonomy. The Brittish were tired after WWII and ready to divest themselves of colonial holdings such as Palestine (originally part of the Ottoman Empire). Along with the horror of the holocaust revealed against the Jews by the Nazi's the world powers at the time were ready to re-establish a Jewish homeland by dividing the land between Jews settled in the area and Arabs who lived there.

The history I researched and reviewed seemed to indicate that Pres Truman was undecided about the new state of Israel and was reluctant at first to even acknowledge them as a legal state. After the 1948 UN resolution that set the boundaries between the Jews and Arabs, and the Arabs immediately attacked Israel it was then that the US stepped up as a supporter of Israel.

Since the US was the major power at the time in the UN it could be said that they were the ones responsible for the creation of Israel. I just did not recall major US involvement from my history class.

Whenever I think deeply about the middle east situation....I always get a headache... :?

There is no easy way out, for anybody involved over there including those who live there. It has been, still is, and apparantly will always be....a focus and flash point for the worlds major western religions...of course unless you are of the Eastern beliefs in which we will eventually realize that all of this (including ourselves) is nothing but an illusion.

A side note....but if EVER there was a city that should be called a world city and be protected by the UN...it is Jerusalem. It is the center for three major religions (excluding Mecca) and should not be controlled (or even perceived to be) by any one of them.

Again I was expressing the problem through the eyes of the Arab street. The United States with its foreign policy of meddling into Arab affairs is the cause of all these problems. Other countries are somehow left off the table ...

Your post reflects pretty much the situation at the time. Your history class might have left out ...

I think in looking at this from a higher view.

1. WWI Brought French and British influence back into the Middle East not seen since the 11 Century.

2. Harsh economic penalties in Germany set up a multiple class system of "really haves" and "really have -nots" Many famous Jewish people including the famous Rothschild's were untouched by these penalties. It became easy for a madman to point out the differences and create a racial based class envy. It should be noted that the Catholic / Jewish "problem" existed many centuries before and the Inquisition was still fresh in the minds of people. Thus Europe has been facing the "Jewish Issue" for quite sometime.

Well the horrors of WWII happened. Not only in Germany but in many parts of the world Jewish people were persecuted and executed. This created huge political fall-outs and pressures. A push for the Jewish people Though many in the US saw the problems with such a solution, A solution to centuries of conflict had to be resolved and now (1948) seem like the best time. It should be noted that the US had blood on its hands -a story seen in the movie "Voyage of the Damn". This incident provided the political pressure that the US must do the right thing.

The United States and Great Britain came to a compromise of sectioning off a portion of Palestine to create the country of Israel. Jewish people from all over the world would be free to migrate to this new country. The only problem with this solution is that the land had people that disagreed with the plan living on it. Much like the Indian wars of the US where one group of people believes they own the land and an other people deems themselves entitled to that land ... well they would have to be moved. Thus a conflict .. the war of 1948 -- and a series of wars thereafter.

A sort of irony is that Hitler in 1938 instituted a plan to migrate all European Jews to Palestine. In exchange for all your belongings besides the clothes on your back you would be transported to Palestine. That plan was not seen as fair by a lot of people, but much less fair plans lay ahead. The beginning of WWII cut off the ability to move people wholesale to Palestine since Germany was now at war with France/Britain who laid claim to the lands.

Here are a couple of more facts. This is really really key to the current discussion. The Soviet Union saw the Israel / Arab conflict as a huge opportunity to engage the free world in a LIC. They sold arms, intelligence, and provided political cover. Thus a solution was very hard to arrive at with super powers fighting each other trying to keep the conflict going because of the cold war.

(Some of this is still going on today :wink: )

Probably the biggest influence the USSR provided was in 1973 where the US just retreated from Vietnam. The USSR calculated that since the US just got themselves out of Vietnam they would not have the political will to support Israel. Thus they encouraged Egypt and Syria to attack Israel in a MIC. Well ..this almost resulted in WWIII and the UN convinced the sides to make peace.

So ...

The Arab view of this conflict is very very important to understanding how this can be resolved and the intensity in which it is fought. I am not sure we can talk this out since our view and thier view of reality is so far apart.

This is the recepie so well put in Clauswitz On War.

Iran is not an Arab state but they are Islamamic. So ... the conflict now has a new dimension of exapnding the issue to including people from all over the world. North Korea sees this as an opportunity and has calculated the US is too weak to respond .. and .... I hope to God these calculations do not force the US to split atoms.

BTW) Back on the topic of this thread. Kerry exclaimed that if I did not study hard I would end up in Iraq. I did 10 years in the Army. I am very proud of my service. I Possess a BS and a MS degree. I am not an Ivy league scholar but I feel I am not below the 50% percentile either ... :wink:

CA...first of all....thankyou for your service to our country. It is thru the efforts of you and all men & women who have served (and paid the ultimate sacrifice) that we can have this discussion in the first place. There are so many places in the world (including the topic of discussion) where your life is in jeopardy simply for bringing up the subject.

An interesting book to read..."The Haj" by Leon Uris. I read it years ago so the details are foggy but it is the story of a Palastinian village leader (elder?) and it takes place during the 1940's in Palastine when Israel was being created. A good read to ease those long miles you are putting under your belt... 8)

Ok, it does appear that we are on the same page and same level view but only using different terminology. I think where I was more thorough in my explanation and history you were cutting to the basic facts as seen through the average Arab on the street.

Reason I ask you to clarify is that to many it is easy to see the US as not only the benefactor of Israel but it's sole and outright creator and reason for existence. This one erroneous fact alone can cause people to have an incorrect view of the situation and a desire to blame the US for the problems in the Mid-East (for our support of Israel).

If anyone even wants to try and fix the problem going forward they must take the time to understand the history that got us to the point we are at for example.....

While the US is a major supporter of Israel it was a United Nations resolution that actually created Israel. Most people want a "two state solution" to the problem but what most don't know is that the 1948 UN resolution established "two states." It was only after the entire Arab world attacked Israel the day after its creation did the Palestinian state with its 1948 borders cease.

The push in 1948 by the UN to create Israel was more from pressure within the former colonial powers (Great Brittan, France, etc) who had taken possession of these areas in the Mid East in WWI from the Ottoman Empire. They were weak from WWII and wanted out of the area. They were also under great pressure from the Jewish lobby to repay the Jews for all wrongs...real or perceived.

Instead of taking time to work with all parties for a good solution....the UN mandated borders for the new states and passed the resolution even though the Palestinians left negotiations because they were unhappy with the plan. The European powers, in a hurry to leave the area, jammed the resolution forward anyway making sure to start the wars and conflicts to come.

You covered a lot I had back in class except for the part about Hitler considering a repatriation to Palestine for all Jews. I do not recall that fact and further Hitler was strongly allied with the Muslim leaders in the area....mainly because of their shared hatred for the Jewish people. It seems highly unlikely that Hitler would have seriously considered this option except as another way to exterminate the Jews. Instead of concentration camps in Europe he could ship them off to the Mid-East and let the radical Muslims do it. Strange that as far back as WWII the seeds of radical Islam were sprouting. If we had only known then what we know now.....

In short there is no easy answer today because a lot of people screwed up in the past. And now there is no way to play King Solomon and "split the baby in half." No matter what happens no one will be happy until they get all of what they want. You wont get that till one side kills all of the other.

Going back on topic...thank you for your service to our country. People can try to explain it anyway they want but most logical thinkers will tell you that Kerry's comments were a Freudian slip. Looking back into his history it is clear what his opinions are in a slip of the tongue...well...he stuck his foot in his mouth.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...e_of_Palestine

You can read more about this in lots of different places including The History Channel. Hitler was hell bent on exporting his problem before the actual start of the conflict. Then once he was at war -- the Concentration Camps, and the final solution.

Hitler's exportation of Jewish people was a great start to the unification Arab world since the Crusades.

The root of this problem is that the developed world (US, EU, Japan, etc) get 75%+ of our transportation energy from these yahoos.

The whole middle east is a dysfunctional mess. As PJ O'Rourke said "Its a family feud with borders" As long as they have an ATM machine spitting out money on their front porch it will continue.

Much of Africa is just as dysfunctional in terms of government turnover, lots of feuding ethic groups inside a "nation" created by colonial fiat, etc. But for the most part they don't have oil so the world largely ignores them except when it rises to a Holocaust level of Genocide as in Darfur or Rwanda.

Energy Independence is the key the extracting ourselves from the mess we have gotten stuck in.

With the 1/2 TRILLION+ that what we have poured down the rat hole to date we could have given a shiny new Prius to 20M households or build a 100 brand new nuclear power stations at $5B ea. to make hydrogen for internal combustion.

Once we have something close to energy Independence the sorry mess that is the middle east becomes buried in page 3 of the paper versus holding the world economy hostage and tying down 1/2 to 2/3 of our military.

This is why I gladly pay $3.50/gal for locally produced Biodiesel for my POV.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Thanks Crackaces,

This is good reading......

"The Holocaust had a major effect on the situation in Palestine. During the war, the British forbade entry into Palestine of European Jews escaping Nazi persecution, placing them in detention camps or deporting them to places such as Mauritius. Avraham Stern, the leader of the Jewish Lehi underground group, whose will to fight the British was so strong he offered to fight on the Nazi side, and other Zionists, tried to convince the Nazis to continue seeing emigration from Europe as the "solution" for their "Jewish problem", but the Nazis gradually abandoned this idea in favor of containment and physical extermination."

.....and should be required study for anyone thinking they have the quick answer to the "mid-east problem." Anyone who took time to study the history would quickly realize the confused and convoluted policies by all sides that have led us to where we are today.

I will have to read on it further. Just taking the above passage on face value would seem to indicate it was not necessarily the war that stopped Hitler's forced immigration but instead a personal preference to the concentration camp solution. From the reading itself it could be Hitler's sick mind at work, an offer to stop more Jews from entering the area to appease Arab elements he wanted as allies, the war itself, or any combination of these and other things.