Must read this.

[warbeak2099]

I'm sorry, but the argument "If you don't support what we're doing in Iraq, you don't support the troops." really aggravates me. It strikes me as more of the same "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" baloney.

Speaking of nation building: how are our efforts in South America in the 80s working out for us? Lots of pro-American sentiment there, right? Guys?

We're just telling you how it feels when you slam what we're doing. It doesn't exactly give us the idea of you supporting us. And the idea that you can do both is a lazy cop-out. I'd respect someone more who sticks to their guns and doesn't pretend to support me but not the job I'm training to do.

Actually we have established some succesful relationships with South American countries. Just because Chavez is a raving a-hole doesn't mean other S. American countries aren't working with us. Navy-wise, we have an alliance that puts the U.S., Panamanian, Argentinian, and other Latin navies together into a force dedicated to patroling the Atlantic and protecting each others' interests. I'd say that's not bad.

[Steelrat]

I'm sorry, but the argument "If you don't support what we're doing in Iraq, you don't support the troops." really aggravates me. It strikes me as more of the same "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" baloney.

Seems to me that it's up to the troops to decide the validity of the that. From the opinions I have seen here (Kosmo excluded) it appears they feel exactly that way.

[Steelrat]

Speaking of nation building: how are our efforts in South America in the 80s working out for us? Lots of pro-American sentiment there, right? Guys?

Germany and Japan seem to have turned out pretty well. Not every process is 100%. Plus, like 'Newt mentioned (and it pains me to agree with him) having an administration change every 4-8 years doesn't help when it comes to long-term projects.

[kosmo]

Um we're actually trying to prevent Islamic governments from getting power. We're trying to steer the people away from a corrupt theocracy.

Oh, really? I didnt know that. See, Im currently living in Afghanistan as a military advisor to a bunch of corrupt politicians working in a corrupt Islamic government, which by the way recently tried to have someone executed for converting to Christianity. Ive been too busy to realize that the government Im working with is corrupt.

Also, Iraq has become a pretty huge hub of terror. Lebanon and several African states are also parts of the problem. What terrorism sprouts from is basically poor economic situations. When you have a tyrannical dictator oppressing his people to the point that they can't provide for themselves, you get desperation. They also need to find a scapegoat on which to take out this desperation. Since defying the government in this type of situation is futile and impractical, terrorist factions direct the hatred to a much easier target, America. America is prosperous, powerful, etc. Perfect target. It's pretty easy to brainwash people into thinking that by killing Americans their problems will be neutralized, since the people they are recruiting are incredibly impoverished and have no where else to turn. Think about what a poor, dejected person would say to someone who promises eternity in paradise.

Thanks for that lesson, I didnt know any of that. Im too busy "fighting the war on terror" to have been educated on what causes terrorism. See, here I thought Israel was the center of the whole Islamofacist war thingie. Thats why theyve been fighting these kinds of terrorists for decades longer than we have (and have made no progress, with the much less constrictive ROE that some people are calling for,) theyre the targets of the WMDs that countries like Iran and Syria have, and theyre the reason that countries like Iran and Syria dont like us. Which is what causes them to mess with us in Iraq (that and having a president who invades other countries with no real justification, despite the rest of the world telling us not to). As if that werent enough, the vast majority of violence in Iraq isnt targeting Americans, but is a centuries old sectarian clash that pales in comparison to the slaughter in Darfur, somewhere nobody in our government gives a crap about helping (maybe they should find some oil there, or launch an easily foiled and obvious assassination attempt on G-Dubs dad).

They of course forget true Islamic doctrine that forbids a holy war against civilians and civilian property. They forget that a Jihad does not mean holy war, it means struggle and is supposed to be used to describe a personal struggle with your family/friend or with your faith. They forget reality basically. As do brainwashed liberals who follow these capricious ideas of a corrupt American government going around stealing people's oil and the like. Perhaps there is some evidence to that point, but they fail to look at the other side of the coin. The fact that we have made great strides toward democracy and political autonomy in Iraq. But I guess all the evidence supporting that fact is just conveniently erroneous.

Oh, weve made great progress, have we? The Iraq panel results released today seem to think otherwise. As did Rumsfelds letter right before he was canned admitting that the president over there is a useless hack. We toppled a dictator and destroyed the countries infrastructure. Since that point, we have done little to rebuild it, and anyone educated and valuable to the future of the country has fled. Meanwhile, nearly 3000 American soldiers have died, and approximately 20 times that number of civilians has died. Sounds like progress to me.

[Albinonewt]

Oh, really? I didnt know that. See, Im currently living in Afghanistan as a military advisor to a bunch of corrupt politicians working in a corrupt Islamic government, which by the way recently tried to have someone executed for converting to Christianity. Ive been too busy to realize that the government Im working with is corrupt.

Thanks for that lesson, I didnt know any of that. Im too busy "fighting the war on terror" to have been educated on what causes terrorism. See, here I thought Israel was the center of the whole Islamofacist war thingie.

Thats why theyve been fighting these kinds of terrorists for decades longer than we have (and have made no progress, with the much less constrictive ROE that some people are calling for,)

They make progress. The problem is that every inch they win the International community and their puppets at the UN pressure Israel to stop defending itself. They also foils dozens of a attacks a week and have killed numerous terrorist leaders.

theyre the targets of the WMDs that countries like Iran and Syria have, and theyre the reason that countries like Iran and Syria dont like us.

If we bombed Israel into the stone age today they would still hate us tomorrow.

Which is what causes them to mess with us in Iraq (that and having a president who invades other countries with no real justification, despite the rest of the world telling us not to).

As if that werent enough, the vast majority of violence in Iraq isnt targeting Americans, but is a centuries old sectarian clash

that pales in comparison to the slaughter in Darfur, somewhere nobody in our government gives a crap about helping (maybe they should find some oil there, or launch an easily foiled and obvious assassination attempt on G-Dubs dad).

Oh, weve made great progress, have we? The Iraq panel results released today seem to think otherwise.

and As did Rumsfelds letter right before he was canned admitting that the president over there is a useless hack.

We toppled a dictator and destroyed the countries infrastructure.

Iraq had no infrastructure. It was a shell of a country barely capable of sustaining itself in any meaningful way. One of the biggest failures of the pre-war planning was overestimating the degree of infrastructure in Iraq to begin with.

Since that point, we have done little to rebuild it,

and anyone educated and valuable to the future of the country has fled.

That is not entirely true, but a large number of Iraqis have left their country rather then participating in the reconstruction.

Meanwhile, nearly 3000 American soldiers have died, and approximately 20 times that number of civilians has died. Sounds like progress to me.

Body counts, as tragic as they are, do not define success and failure.

[kosmo]

I agree with that, and I think Afghanistan has a fair amount of hope. But it would take a lot less time if the US would quit pussyfooting around with Karzai. We need to tell him if he doesnt get rid of the corrupt officials and stop appointing more corrupt officials, then we will stop giving him money. Its absolutely ridiculous what we let them get away with.

They make progress. The problem is that every inch they win the International community and their puppets at the UN pressure Israel to stop defending itself. They also foils dozens of a attacks a week and have killed numerous terrorist leaders.

Progress is a relative term. Are they any safer today than they were 30 years ago? Not really. Have they made progress in learning how to protect themselves from these threats? Yes. Can America learn from them successfully without having to send soldiers to Iraq as a decoy to keep the terrorists from focusing on American soil? Absolutely.

If we bombed Israel into the stone age today they would still hate us tomorrow.

I never said they wouldnt. And I didnt really mean to allude that Israel was the "center" of the war on terror, because there isnt one. Thats the very essence of asymmetrical warfare, which is what this is, on a global level. Israel is just the biggest common motivating factor for most of these guys. From my point of view, it is stupid to call Iraq the center of the war. Just like Israel cant be safe from their enemies by putting a wall around Palestine and their border with Lebanon, we cant win the war on terror by converting Iraq to democracy. If we want to win the war on middle eastern terror, at the very least we have to destroy and rebuild Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. Considering how much trouble we are having now, it doesnt look like that plan is too feasible. After those, wed still have to clean up Chechnya, Indonesia, and Michigan if we really wanted to see this thing through. Considering that, the far more effective option is to take the billions upon billions of dollars we are wasting abroad and put it into homeland defense.

Well I dont know too much about the Syrian government, but the Iranians are quite confident that they can keep control of their own country from interior destabilization. The reason Iran is messing with us is because weve invaded both their neighbors and are setting our sights on them. The longer they can keep us in Iraq, the longer we are too busy to screw with them.

Ive read parts, and hell mustve frozen over because I agree with you twice in one post. McCain is right when he says that the plan they have is a plan for failure. Why the heck would they say crap like to see if Iran wants to help, even though they talked to them already and Iran said piss off, and our solution to them saying no is to call them a bunch of "rejectionists"? Thats pretty freakin pathetic. I think Bush is going to go with this plan just so when it fails, the republicans can point out how bad the democratically backed plan was.

Iraq had no infrastructure. It was a shell of a country barely capable of sustaining itself in any meaningful way. One of the biggest failures of the pre-war planning was overestimating the degree of infrastructure in Iraq to begin with.

There was infrastructure there, just not exactly how we were expecting it. They still had probably the best schools in the middle east, comparatively advanced medical care for the region (albeit trade embargos had destroyed their ability to get significant quantities of medicines), and relative security. Problem is that it was all held together by strict government rule, and thats not what we went in there to do.



Again, progress is relative. Weve had elections, weve built schools, weve dug wells, weve built hospitals. Did the elections result in anything resembling an effective government? No. Are there anywhere near enough teachers in the schools? No, many of them left, and many of those who stayed have been executed. Did the wells provide villages with water? Yes, so they can be less thirsty as theyre detonating roadside bombs on us. What about the hospitals? Same thing as the teachers, many doctors are gone or dead, now theyve got a lot of people who can plug holes and pray.

Body counts, as tragic as they are, do not define success and failure.

No, but they can be used to gauge progress. We are definitely moving backwards if our intent was to provide a safe, happy place for different sects to peacefully coexist.

[beam]

Oh, really? I didnt know that. See, Im currently living in Afghanistan as a military advisor to a bunch of corrupt politicians working in a corrupt Islamic government, which by the way recently tried to have someone executed for converting to Christianity. Ive been too busy to realize that the government Im working with is corrupt.

So how did you advise them in this situation?

Oh and Kosmo, since you're in Afghanistan, here's a blog you'll probably like to read:

Michael Yon

There's a lot of reading if you go back because he was first in Iraq with the Deuce Four. Went to Afghanistan most recently, and may still be there. Let me know if what he says about Afghanistan is crap or pretty accurate.

[Albinonewt]

I agree with that, and I think Afghanistan has a fair amount of hope. But it would take a lot less time if the US would quit pussyfooting around with Karzai. We need to tell him if he doesnt get rid of the corrupt officials and stop appointing more corrupt officials, then we will stop giving him money. Its absolutely ridiculous what we let them get away with.

Progress is a relative term. Are they any safer today than they were 30 years ago? Not really. Have they made progress in learning how to protect themselves from these threats? Yes. Can America learn from them successfully without having to send soldiers to Iraq as a decoy to keep the terrorists from focusing on American soil? Absolutely.

I never said they wouldnt. And I didnt really mean to allude that Israel was the "center" of the war on terror, because there isnt one.

See, here I thought Israel was the center of the whole Islamofacist war thingie. Thats why theyve been fighting these kinds of terrorists for decades longer than we have (and have made no progress, with the much less constrictive ROE that some people are calling for,) theyre the targets of the WMDs that countries like Iran and Syria have, and theyre the reason that countries like Iran and Syria dont like us

Thats the very essence of asymmetrical warfare, which is what this is, on a global level. Israel is just the biggest common motivating factor for most of these guys.

From my point of view, it is stupid to call Iraq the center of the war.

Just like Israel cant be safe from their enemies by putting a wall around Palestine and their border with Lebanon, we cant win the war on terror by converting Iraq to democracy.

If we want to win the war on middle eastern terror, at the very least we have to destroy and rebuild Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan.

Considering how much trouble we are having now, it doesnt look like that plan is too feasible. After those, wed still have to clean up Chechnya, Indonesia, and Michigan if we really wanted to see this thing through. Considering that, the far more effective option is to take the billions upon billions of dollars we are wasting abroad and put it into homeland defense.

Well I dont know too much about the Syrian government, but the Iranians are quite confident that they can keep control of their own country from interior destabilization. The reason Iran is messing with us is because weve invaded both their neighbors and are setting our sights on them. The longer they can keep us in Iraq, the longer we are too busy to screw with them.

Ive read parts, and hell mustve frozen over because I agree with you twice in one post. McCain is right when he says that the plan they have is a plan for failure. Why the heck would they say crap like to see if Iran wants to help, even though they talked to them already and Iran said piss off, and our solution to them saying no is to call them a bunch of "rejectionists"? Thats pretty freakin pathetic. I think Bush is going to go with this plan just so when it fails, the republicans can point out how bad the democratically backed plan was.

There was infrastructure there, just not exactly how we were expecting it. They still had probably the best schools in the middle east, comparatively advanced medical care for the region (albeit trade embargos had destroyed their ability to get significant quantities of medicines), and relative security. Problem is that it was all held together by strict government rule, and thats not what we went in there to do.

Again, progress is relative. Weve had elections, weve built schools, weve dug wells, weve built hospitals. Did the elections result in anything resembling an effective government? No. Are there anywhere near enough teachers in the schools? No, many of them left, and many of those who stayed have been executed. Did the wells provide villages with water? Yes, so they can be less thirsty as theyre detonating roadside bombs on us. What about the hospitals? Same thing as the teachers, many doctors are gone or dead, now theyve got a lot of people who can plug holes and pray.

No, but they can be used to gauge progress. We are definitely moving backwards if our intent was to provide a safe, happy place for different sects to peacefully coexist.