"We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are p*****s. And Kim Jong Il is an *******. p*****s don't like dicks, because p*****s get ****ed by dicks. But dicks also **** assholes: assholes that just want to **** on everything. p*****s may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can **** an ******* is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they **** too much or **** when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a p***y to show them that. But sometimes, p*****s can be so full of **** that they become assholes themselves... because p*****s are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us **** this *******, we're going to have our dicks and p*****s all covered in ****! " i gotta take any chance to throw a team america reference in there.
The problem is that most wars now are assymetric as Saddam's Mother of all battles showed there is no way to try to fight a superpower on anything approaching equal terms. The US military knows this and all those force multipliers they like to talk about are euphemisms for finding ways to make us so much more lethal than our opponents. Given that situation when the only option is complete defeat desperate people do desperate things and the argument that our opponents do dishonorable things like suicide bombings, hiding among civillians and not wearing uniforms is that it would be illogical to expect them to come out and engage in open tank battles with US forces. Consider that the British during the Revolutionary war said Colonial militia were dishonorable as they wouldn't line up in firing lines against the vastly superior British army. I don't want to seem to condone terrorism but the opponents in a war are in it to win and the more the power equation is stacked up on one side the more likely the weaker side will be driven to acts of terrorism under the reasoning that they have no other weapon with which to hurt the enemy. There is no morality to it but then again is there much morality to dropping nukes on Hiroshima, fire bombs on Dresden or even a 1 ton bomb in the middle of a crowded civillian area to take out 1 high value target? The sad truth about war is that morality is more often the exception than the rule and one of the reasons it should be avoided as much as possible.
Well, tell me something I don't know! Your point accents one of the reasons why Bush's mad adventure in Iraq was such an incredible act of lunacy, as well as hubris. We are seen as bombing, shooting, conquering and occupying an Arab state, and no one in the region, except, perhaps, Israel, is happy about it. And I wonder about the people of Israel. I suspect a lot of folks there aren't happy about the increased instability in the region, the increased power of Iran, on full display in Lebanon today. At least Saddam was a counterweight to Iran and the "devil you know," instead of what we have now. Bush created a terrorist factory in Iraq where none existed before. He destroyed a nation-state that may never be put back together. He empowered a nation, Iran, 3 times the size of Iraq and governed by mullahs who hate our guts and hated them long before Bush's invasion of Iraq. Pretty depressing, really. Impeach Bush.
none of what you posted takes into account the incredible abuse of the iraqi people by Saddam, but, assuming for the moment that your points above are accurate, what would you do at this point?
Elect a Democrat as President and give him a majority in Congress. Time for new leadership, basso. What's been happening the last 7+ years hasn't been working, to put it mildly. Impeach Bush.
i meant in Iraq- could you detail what you would do, or what you'd want the next president to do in Iraq?
I don't know if the democrats have the balls, but get the hell out of that country. Changing hell into heaven ain't going to happen.
You provide a detailed post about Iraq, why we are there, why it is good, how we are going to win, when we might get out, if ever, and so on. Not another column or article from someone, but something in your own words. Do that, and I'll do a search among my many, many posts where I addressed just that subject and I'll do the same. OK? Impeach Bush.
i've posted about this innumerable times, in my own words, and was actually building towards a different kind of offer. i see many posts from you detailing what you think is wrong, but nothing, that i can recall, that indicates what you think should be done. i may have missed it, and if so, just point me there and i'll go read it.
I've posted about what was wrong, and I also have some ideas on what to do. 1. Start working with Iraq's neighbors to find a diplomatic way to engage their cooperation in help keeping Iraq stable. 2. Get rid of the inept folks who've been wrong in all things Iraq from the beginning, and bring back the folks who were actually correct, and seemed to have better judgement. Get their advice, and see what can be done. 3. Begin an orderly withdraw from Iraq handing over more control to Iraq and international forces, while keep our troops in the region should they be needed again. Part of this withdraw would include meeting with all the parties involved and going over their responsibilities, and making sure any existing agreements were firmed up.
I want to hear from Obama first on this,...Let's hear it. Also google "palestinian suicide bombers" to answer your lastest and greatest question....
One sided...talk about the muslim brotherhood to even your slanted ship...talk about how they started... So,...If Palestinian suicide bombers, or Hamas, or Hezbollah, or IRG,...Or AlQaeda had our technology, they would suddenly become selective, not target civilians, empower choice, rights, and freedoms...? Nope...That is the differance, and that is where they fail and you fail... Let's all embrace Obamas' belief that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East...I want your commitment to that. Can I count on you for change?
basso, I'll give you a real short take. We should begin withdrawing our troops. Not yank them all out at once, but a brigade a month until we get to around 50,000 boots on the ground. at the same time, we tell the Iraqi government that the party is over. That we really are leaving, except for a couple of bases in the north, in Kurdistan. If they don't like it, tough. By the time we get to around 50,000, it gets harder, but we just have to deal with it. We continue to draw down to what seems a reasonable number to operate and protect our couple of bases. We put special forces and quick response units (the Marines are excellent at this) in Kuwait and the Gulf mini-states to deal with flareups. If Iran attempts any moves across the Iraqi border, we bomb the crap out of those forces and claim we are bombing insurgents from a "foreign power." We tell Iran to stop their atomics program or we will stop it for them, but we wait until we have a new President. Bush is a complete and utter idiot. We use our unmanned drones to bring fear and retribution to anyone who messes with us. We tell the Iraqi government that they are footing the bill for our continued drawn down forces in theatre. With the absurd rise in oil prices, they can afford to pay a hefty chunk. We tell Syria that if they don't seal their border to a level acceptable to us, we will make them very sorry. Oh, and we double funding and military forces in Afghanistan, where they should have been in the first place, Iraq being an incredible blunder. That's a start. Is that OK, basso? Just to be clear, I don't want your Bush to do a damn thing but get the hell out of office and let the next President attempt to clean up his mess. Iran, Syria, and a host of other things can wait until he's gone, which can't be soon enough. I told you I was a Kennedy Democrat. Impeach Bush.
Are you denying that groups like the Stern Gang weren't terrorists or are you saying its OK since other people do it too? How do you know what Al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah would be like if they had our military? Do you think Al Qaeda would bother with a complicated and risky plot to hijack civillian airliners to use as missiles if they had access to strategic bombers? Do you think Hamas would rely on sending people as humans bombs into Pizza Huts in Tel Aviv if they had F-16's with JDAM's? Why target civillians if you have the ability to directly attack the command and control of your enemy? Terrorism directed at civillians is a desperate tactic but one with very poor results for all of the bombings Hamas hasn't beaten Israel, Chechens haven't defeated Russia and the Tamil Tigers haven't defeated Sri Lanka. If you have the ability you go directly after the military structure of your enemy. As far choice rights or whatever that has nothing at all to do regarding embracing terrorism. Many of the Leftist movements that have used terrorism have a far more liberal, in both the modern and classical sense, than the rightist goverments they were fighting. The ANC, IRA and ETA can honestly be said to be fighting for freedom from oppression yet that didn't stop them from bombing civillians. Again you are mistaking the tactics as an ideology. I think the more important question though is if the tables were turned and we were limited to the tools of Al Qaeda and the Badr brigades if we wouldn't turn to terrorism. Where they fail where I fail? Fail at what? I never mentioned Obama or the security of Israel only its history.
