The insurgents are the ordinary Iraqis defending their country. The terrorists are the people from other countries who came to take potshots at convenient Americans. Both types are there.

Not that I think that's what Galloway was saying.

There is a large majority of insurgents that are coming in from other countries. This no longer makes them defending thier country, but idiots trying to play the ultimate game of "dirt clod war."

Marichiko is straining much too hard to find an evil, any evil, in what is really a great good: removing the threat presented us by bigots and religious fanatics -- which threat is the greater if it is raised up in a non-democracy. Nondemocratic social orders are prone to wars, wars by proxy (terrorist movements, deniable with varying plausibility by the ruling circles) and extremism. Fomenting democracies in the midst of this cauldron of troubles is the best chance we have of making Islamoterrorism go extinct. Is this really any harder to follow than rocket science?

If Marichiko keeps straining like that, she risks losing an intestine. The result may be good for making the roses grow, but beyond that... tsk tsk tsk.

I don't ever think of was as a 'great good'. At it's best, war is an unpleasant neccesity. Also, most countries which invaded other countries in the past 100 years did so to 'liberate' those countries. There are a lot of justifications, and most of them only seem to be believed inside the borders of the invading country.

Iraq is either a $200+ billion mistake based on faulty intelligence or the result of a conspiracy. The fact that we are attempting nation building is supposed to be a side issue to the real reason for the war.

The men and women who are making the sacrifices in Iraq today are doing so because they took and oath and trusted their leaders to use them as a last resort.

Will it be worth it? It will be while before we know. Was it a great good? If the entire Iraqi population could have voted for the invasion, would they have? We never gave them the chance to do so, and we will never know.

As for a great good, ask the parents of a dead child if the price was right.

That is not what we are doing in Iraq. Hussein was a tinpot dictator, but he was a secular one. He tortured people for purely personal and/or political reasons. The bigots and religious fanatics are the ones who are now preparing to write sharia law into the Iraqi Constitution.

Why, that's what the US has been doing for decades! Good point. We do need to work on improving our democracy.

"We (the USA?) never gave them a chance"? Sorry, Rich, that was all Saddam's doing, as you know perfectly well. Now why in Hell didn't you have the honesty to so state?

"Ask the parents of a dead child"? Ask our dead soldiers' parents. You, Rich, will be surprised, indeed, shocked and awed, at the affirmative responses you will receive. If you have the moral courage to essay it.

My commitment to human liberty is not rattled by casualties. Not by any casualties in any amount -- for I know what freedom is worth, and know whose blood is shed to water Liberty's tree. You, OTOH, seem to know something of the cost, but not of the worth. You could stand to take a leaf from my book. I doubt you have the courage to manage it, but it would rid you of the moral cowardice I see in your position here.

I believe liberty is every bit as good for Yusuf al-Iraqi as it is for Joe Sixpack. Liberty is good for humans, and last I checked, Iraq was chiefly inhabited by humans.

Will the Shi'ite majority become politically dominant in Iraq? Very likely. It will turn out all right as long as the rights and liberties of the Sunni, Kurdish, and Christian minorities are carefully safeguarded, checking and balancing any crudities, crassnesses, or oppression the numerical majority might be tempted to enact.

Is it yet guaranteed to happen this way? No, but I'll tell you what was guaranteed: that life under a strongman rule would continue to suck, between economic distortion (few dictators ever seem to understand economics) and oppression (dictatorships always oppress, to a greater or lesser degree).

I don't think you're looking into it deeply enough, Happy. To make Islamoterrorism go extinct, you need to eliminate all of its breeding grounds, which means all of the non-democracies in the Arabic-speaking world, and then further, in all the Islamic world. A large task, true, but not necessarily impossible, except to the mind that finds freedom too great a strain. Iraq was one such breeding ground, and the case of al-Zarqawi getting surgery from Saddam's Iraq, connected to al-Qaeda quite closely enough for me. And what country was it that harbored Carlos the Jackal, before snuffing him just before the 2003 invasion in case he inconvenienced somebody like Saddam by talking? Saddam's Iraq was in it up to their collective neck, people, and from first principles, not because we shot at them. We'd not have shot at them if they hadn't been in it already.

To amplify: there's no particular wrong in taking the weakest dictatorship down first, and it's already been shown ad nauseam that if our Middle East policy were solely about oil, such a policy would have been singularly ill served by our giving the Rumaila oilfield right back to Iraq just as soon as we could walk our boots and roll our tanks off it.

We want these nations to stop behaving like shitheads, and since we don't particularly wish to exterminate all their inhabitants, democratization sounds like the best bet. Will these democracies precisely resemble the US? Don't bet on it; these will always have an Arab accent to them, or their populaces will choke on them -- and go back to some shitheaded manner of society. I'd call that unacceptable, wouldn't you?

Monkey, that's a damned dishonest spin to put on our effort to fight against tyrannies. Just because we temporarily fail to fight against one tyrant does not make illegitimate removing and hanging another, and you know that perfectly well. I mean, how could it? The above example of leftist-think is a good example of just why I am no sort of leftist: their thoughts are stupid, and they do not satisfy. Also, I'm too old, and have grown up too far, to be a leftist, or be taken in by their cant, or their can'ts.

Level with me, can't you? Isn't this less because its being done at all than it is because it's a Republican doing it? The Democrats haven't presented a President capable of getting this done since Johnson, and he blew it. The record of the last two generations shows the Republicans, on getting this kind of chance, don't blow it. Who's got the winning record here?

I posit myself as a fairly neutral observer of this partisan wrassle, being of the Libertarian persuasion.

The US backed Saddam as long as we had a use for him. Why don't you have the honesty to admit this?

Nah, UG, you're the one who lacks the moral courage to ask. I am extremely proud of my career military father's 30 years of service to this country. I was angrier than hell that he had to go risk his life doing two tours of duty in 'Nam - a foolish politician's war, if there ever was one. I'd be angry if he had to go fight in Iraq today. My friend whose husband has orders to go to Iraq in October is angry. The E3's and E4's I've talked to who have had to do 2 or 3 stints in Iraq are angry. Try to get an active duty soldier to say what he thinks about Iraq for the record. They'll be a member of JAG standing just behind his left elbow to make sure he says the right thing.

Why don't you just crawl back into the pages of Soldier of Fortune with all those other gung ho nuts who never have seen combat? Were you with the tanks in the first wave of assault in Desert Storm? Were you in the jungle during the Tet offensive? Have you been in a fire fight in Iraq? Most soldiers who have seen actual combat don't write like you do. Tell us what branch you served in, what was your rank, and in what engagements were you under direct enemy fire. What campaign ribbons do you have, what military honors and citations? Tell us what its like to be on the "FEBA" and no fair copying out of someone else's memoirs.

I don't need to burst a gut. You provide more than enough manure around here.

I proudly bear two awards Navy Expeditionary Medal, as I've said before -- stupid of you to forget, isn't it? I've got nine years' more military service than you do, Marichiko, in the United States Navy. I served in the Naval Security Group and made Cryptologic Technician (Interpretive) First Class -- I made my living speaking, reading, and writing Russian. My first award of the Navy Expeditionary was for service in support of the Iranian hostage rescue mission, the second for secretive doings off the shore of a then-hostile nation, further north.

So I'm not going to crawl back into anywhere, you squealing little lightweight. You haven't done any of this, and I've got your number: you've got a flapping jaw and a foolish hatred for the United States and that's all, unless you count a correspondingly foolish love for tyrants as an asset. I wouldn't.

You actually show a ray of hope in that you "don't need to bust a gut." Good: stop doing what you don't need to, then. This will help you be something other than purblind and immature. I'd rather deal with a better Marichiko than the one I'm seeing.

In other words, you were a spook for the navy who never saw real combat. I rest my case.

Ah but I do: I recall our giving intelligence support to Iraq when they were shooting at Iran, with whom we ourselves were all but at war with at the time. This strategy worked pretty well, too: set one asshole regime to bleed another monstrous regiment of assholes, and you end up with both these troublemakers seriously weakened. We took the anti-American zip right out of Iranian policymaking -- military-age kids are terrorist-age kids too, and since neither Iran nor Iraq were any too brilliant at fighting that war, that demographic got bled white, particularly in Iran -- and that was just what we needed.

Set a gangsterish dictator to strangle a fanatical absolutist mullah -- tough to find the downside.

As an aside, why do you think that was an answer to the actual question I posed, Marichiko? Immaturity cropping up again? Sorry, but I have zero patience with unrighteousness pretending to righteous wrath. I have this minor flaw: I resent being lied to.

Think about that seriously for 10 seconds. Why do they hate us? Just like all authoritarian types you ignore what really happens to the people you play your games with.

Hey, hey, hey!

Lay off the navy or I'm gonna come over there and we'll have a real slap fight! :worried:

Mar only respects the military branch her dear ol' dad was in. Don't you know that? It helps to know where people are coming from, TS. I don't think she served in ANY branch, though.

Did I say anything against the Navy? No. My point was merely that UG seems to have been more involved in covert type operations rather than battlefield situations. I would have made the same comments if he had said he was a Russian language specialist and cryptographer for the Army or Air Force. The men who serve and have served in the Navy are as honorable and brave as any other members of our Armed Forces. I write of men (and women) who serve in the US Army and Air Force because these are the people I know first hand. My father served in the Army, as did a close friend of mine. My father's brother, my uncle Leland, served in the NAVY in WWII and saw action in some of the great naval battles of that war. I respected my Uncle Leland as much as I did my Dad. There is a large Army base where I live and the Air Force Academy is located here, also. The last I heard, there are no naval bases located in Colorado, in case no one has noticed.

Wrong on the first part, correct on the second. I did actually talk with a NAVAL recruiter back in the 70's and give serious though to enlisting with the Navy. However, I wanted to go in as an officer and they told me I needed to finish my degree before they would consider allowing me to enlist and go through officer's candidate school. By time I finished my degree, I had gotten married and my life took a different direction. :p

Joke, dear, joke.

That's what the smiley and the mention of a slap fight were to indicate.

I know, TS. My response was directed more at another poster, Meow! ;)

I've just been so sensitive today. Just a heavy day I guess.

You should simply say what you mean. Then there aren't any misinterpretations--which can be deadly. :rattat: "you said my mother wore what?! " that type of thing.


Oh, and by the way, what did you say about my mother..?
Wench.

Actually, the terrorist breeding-grounds are every country in the world. Pre-war Iraq wasn't much (if at all) worse than average in that regard, and it was lower than pretty much all of its neighbors.
Did I say anything about temporarily failing to fight? The US has actively supported tyrannies and terrorist organization both publically and behind the scenes for decades.
No.
Clinton, I guess, by your definition. Bush I left Saddam in power, and the current Bush is putting the Sharia Law people in power in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war Clinton was involved in was successful, had no US casualties, and didn't trash the country involved.

Yer Mamma wears combat boots! :apistola: :lol:

So I've read pretty much most of te posts in this thread and have concluded that y'all really haven't concluded much, other than terrorists are bad, m'kay?

On understanding terrorists... Why complicate it by assuming their justifications and then poking holes in them? There are no justifications, there are no good reasons to perpetrate suicide bombings and inflicting injury, mayhem, and death on innocent civilians. Trying to involve U.S. policy in the cause and effect of terrorism is just plain stupid. It shouldn't matter if every 'Murican pissed on the Koran and called Allah a pig farker. There's really no rational, sane reason to do what these nut cases are doing.

Try understanding folks that target men, women, and children alike in their attacks. Can you honestly even begin to get your head around that? I sure can't and the first thing I feel is dispair when I even try. The next thing I feel is a desire to protect mine and myself from these folks, even if it means supporting military action, which is just so contrary to my character.

Ultimately, I think it is the goal of these terrorists to cause these mental disruptions and psychic traumas. It's one hell of a tactic and used only both folks I'd label as evil.

kudos, Mouse. I agree. But now tw is going to regale us with some really convoluted shit about...well, you'll see.

Indeed, its allll about the details here sometimes :smack:

Man, Mr. Noodle, this is too true and a daily source of so much frustration for me. When the hell did folks get so dogmatic about their thinking? Personally, I attribute it to laziness. It seems to be easier to be a lock-step hater or even, for that matter, a lock-step ass-puppet for whatever Authority has to say. (Sorry, can I say 'ass-puppet?' I'm new and don't want to offend.) I'd love to know when everything became to black and white or, currently, red and blue.

Don't worry about offending anyone here.. its a daily thing. Just as long as you can back up what you say, or just fart and leave like Bruce suggests :fart:

So tell us how democracy is flourishing in Vietnam. We literally used every military resource (except nuclear) to democratize a country that did not want nor would fight for democracy. Instead they wanted independence. So clearly your vision of liberty is proven by Vietnam.

Clearly democracy is flourishing in Haiti where democracy is also being forced upon the nation. And Somalia?

By now one can appreciate why enlisted men are both dumb and directed. We need such cannon fodder in the front lines. But the lessons of history are lost on these militaristic types. No problem. Knowing why would only keep them from grasping their enlisted man job.

A nation cannot have liberty and democracy forced upon it. That nation must earn those rights. Only fools still claim that the US can force democracy on nations such as in the Middle East and Central Asia. Fools who fail to first learn basic history or even the purpose of war.

Fools said we would save Vietnam when it did not want to be saved. And so those fools even lied to us until they were exposed by the Pentagon Papers. Urbane Guerrilla talks just like Gen William Westmoreland. He would have fit perfectly in late 1960s America - when America foolishly thought we could force democracy and liberty on other nations. When smarter people said Westmoreland, et al were wrong, Urbane Guerrilla types would then insult the better educated. Somehow insults and claims of military service are a replacement for knowledge, education, and intelligence. Deja Vue.

I once thought Americans would learn from the mistakes of Vietnam. Apparently enlisted men need not learn history. They just know better. It explains why enlisted men are not officers. Officers are now required to learn the lessons of history.

good thing tw never stoops to insulting people. UG is ridiculous in his assumptions and arguments, but tw - you know this is an asinine statement.

1) a 12 week "officer candidate school" is all that separates the enlisted from the officers in many cases when you acknowledge that a very high percentage of enlisted have at least a bachelor's and many have advanced degrees.

2) If officers are required to learn the lessons of history and officers are the decision makers, how could the mistake of repeating history be made?

You mean like these parents of soldiers?

You claim to have been in the Navy. You must remember your oath. I was never in uniform, but I also took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies'.

The 'Constitution of the United States', not the Constitution of Iraq. If we really wanted to invade Iraq and commit to nation building, then by all means make the case and ask for volunteers. The men and women in Iraq are doing their jobs as well as they can considering how truly *&(*ed up the planning for this war was. They are abiding by their oath, which also says that they will obey the President. This does not mean that they should be there or that they even think that they should be there. It was the job of Congress and the President to decide when to deploy them and how to support them and they royally screwed up.

If a bunch of gung ho idiots are really up for 'freeing the world', then they should reenlist and let the soldiers who have done their tour and just want to come home do so.

You show me a real, credible threat to this country and I will fight it. Getting cranked up from watching too much GOP TV and getting a hard-on to take on the world is a waste of my time.

I'd love to take a leaf from your book, but I don't read crayon too well.

BTW, if you have a complaint, you can ask for me by name, my real name. I use it to back up every post that I make. How's that for moral courage, Mr. Urbane?

Actually, I really don't need an answer. There are people on the Cellar who I disagree with who I still have a lot of respect for. Their opinions matter to me. Considering the tone, manner, and content of your posts, I think a dialogue with one of Wolf's tenants would probably be more productive than anything you could generate, assuming you are a real person and not a pseudonym of some Cellarite picking the most outlandish personality to stir up trouble. You just seem a little too one-dimensional, Mr. Urbane.

If you are indeed real, your prayers have been answered and there's a war on. Don't let us keep you from your nearest recruiting station.

Gosh, maybe Urbane Guerilla is really Slang! :worried:

TW, where your argument fails is that we are not, contrary to your claim, "forcing democracy" on anyone, as we know that doesn't work very well. What the military force we apply does do is to remove the obstacle to democracy a tyrannical regime presents, by pulverizing the regime, or in Iraq's case, less pulverizing than sublimating: it evaporated in front of us.

While Vietnam may not at this time have democracy, we can take comfort in that it really doesn't have Communism either, big C or small, except as a sort of state religion you're supposed to believe in if you want a job in government. On the streets it's capitalism and small businesses.

Turning to Richlevy: most of the rest of your arguments, sir, are and likely will remain the preposterous rationalizations of those who want this war against tyrants who would prefer oppressing us to leaving us alone to be lost, immediately, and at any cost. I have nil respect for such people and such opinions; America should win her wars. Is there something so wrong in this?

Widebody jetliners into large buildings is a credible threat, to anyone who comprehends credible threats. Why would anyone set the bar higher? You will not be able to answer this question, Rich; I know your sort. Handwaving about a waste of your time is ridiculous, and a rationalization for the moral cowardice you daily offend with. Phooey! You will sidestep, dance, expostulate, obfuscate, and evade. What you won't do is fight terrorism nor tyranny -- which constitute threats to the Constitution and the several States to which we've both sworn. Too much a waste of your precious, inviolable time. Wow.

This is why my manner indicates contempt. You can't back up the convictions your post says you hold, name or no name. If you think my book is crayon (not that you believe even that), you think terribly poorly, which is par for the antiwar types in here. They may satisfy themselves with their "reasons" to undermine and fail at this war on tyranny -- but their reasons don't satisfy me.

The recruiting stations stop taking them at thirty-nine, and I've got more military time and decorations than you do anyway, as you admit. So Phooey again; your bleatings don't impress.

You've done a fine job of making yourself the issue for a couple of posts, but this is an end to it. We now return to the matter of terrorism, and its proper excision.

Marichiko, you just don't want to understand that Slang apparently is not alone in certain opinions. If you're going to make jokes, use smilier smilies or I'm likely to assume you're being as straightfaced as I am.

Now there is a terrifying thought, indeed. Hopefully, they won't be letting you out any time too soon, and I refuse to smile when I write this.

WE who, white boy? I sit at The Wall in DC, trace my fingers on certain names etched in stone, never to hear that man's voice again, never to see his smile, and I am to take comfort in the thought that some street vendor in Saigon is selling wrist watches made in China? Sorry, pal. The soldiers who gave their lives deserve better than that cheap plastic watch sold in the name of the state religion of ANYTHING, be it communism, Mohammed, or Jesus. Nope, thats not what my Dad and my friends fought for (and some died for) during the Tet Offensive, or any other encounter in that miserable, sorry excuse of a waste of American lives. How dare you make so light of their sacrifices?

Excellent question. Go to the head of the class! Where is Bin Laden? Iraq? BBBZZZZZT! WRONG! Of what family is Bin Laden from? Saddam's? Nope, wrong again. Go to the back of the class, after all. WHY AREN'T WE GOING AFTER BIN LADEN? HELLO? AS someone who was involved in military intelligence and covert ops, aren't you the slightest bit puzzled over what the hell we are doing in Iraq? Give me a break, if we were going to invade ANY country in retribution for 9/11, would it not be Saudi Arabia? Is not Bin Laden a member of the House of Saud? When is the last time the Saudi's had a democratic election to pick out their king, since you are so worried about democracy, hmmmm? Its as if after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we decided to declare war on New Zealand. What the hell? Close enough!

Took the very words out of my mouth. You cannot back up your convictions. You advocate a generalized blood bath which does nothing to bring to justice the perp behind 9/11, you tell us Vietnam was a worthy sacrifice of American lives because some street vendor over there gets to sell a couple of bannana's, and you complain of failing "at this war on tyranny." NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Try going after the tyrants for a change, how about? Granted, Saddam was a tyrant, but the fucking world is chock full of tyrants! The US neither can nor should go out to war against all of them. The proper function of the military in a DEMOCRACY is to defend the country's own borders. Did the Iraqi's send the planes into those towers? Hello? NO! WHY AREN'T WE GOING AFTER THE TYRANT RESPONSIBLE FOR ATTACKING OUR COUNTRY??????????????????????

I'm waiting, Mr. Democracy, and why the hell don't you put your body where your mouth is and go fight some Iraqi "insurgents," since you are so god damn gung ho about killing prople? Go kill 'em already, why are you wasting your time here?

The US government demands that Iraq have their constitution written and approved by 15 August. That sounds exactly like forcing a government down their throats. Furthermore, the US government has put restrictions on what can and cannot be in that constitution.

Meanwhile, history demonstrates that when democracy is pushed down their throats, bad things like Civil War occur. Brent Scowcroft (a closest friend of George Sr) was discussing this as a real possibility maybe one year ago. Now reporters in the 'field' are reporting civil war as a more likely consideration with each month.

The Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani is recently been quoted saying, "the Kurdish people have the right to secede.''

Meanwhile, one of the underlying themes from the founding members of "Project for a New American Century" was to fix the Middle East and Central Asia; to impose democratic structures on these nations. Those are underlying concepts behind pre-emption. We will fix these people because they cannot fix themselves. Stable democratic governments do not occur when those governments are unilaterally imposed by an exterior force. We even tried to do that in Vietnam. All we ended up with was the most corrupt government in the region. Furthermore, we ended up destabilizing governments in adjacent nations.

Liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. The people must sweat and bleed to eventually 'earn' their own government. If democracy is so good, then democracy will occur naturally. But a democracy imposed on a nation just will not work. George Jr is trying to impose democracy upon Iraq. America has even issued deadlines. Next on the list: Iran.

One of the underlying principles behind "Project for a New American Century" is pre-emption - to unilaterally force a change upon them. In fact, many of the most right wing members of this group have openly called for imposing democracatic institutions on these nations.

America is trying to impose democracy, in part, because the George Jr administration was surprised that democracy did not happen in the first seven months after "Mission Accomplished" was declared. The George Jr administration's own principles just assumed democracy would spring up when the people were liberated. They failed to learn the lessons of history. Those people must take the first steps to liberate themselves. In Iraq, they did not. America is forcing changes upon them - complete with deadlines.

Could you define "very high percentage", my bullshit detector is spazing? :eyebrow:

Meanwhile, to understand terrorism, then appreciate how the administration may be changing its tune - having learned that the "Mission Accomplished" war is winable ... just like Vietnam. This from Billy Kristol, one of the 40 founders (including Rumsfeld) of "Project for a New American Century":

Bruce i haven't seen a report in about a year but i will look around and see if i can dig one up, when i get a chance.

by "very high percentage" i don't mean 90% or anything close. keep in mind that a large number of enlisted are only 1-3 years out of high school. i should have been more specific in my statement, because i was referring to the NCO's and career enlisted. for instance, I am at the base for duty right now. as i look around this unit (we are a little top heavy in my area) i see 3 LT Col's 1 has a Doctorate, 1 a master's, 1 a bachelors. there is 1 major with a bachelor's, 1 captain with a master's. there are 12 enlisted on the floor right now. 3 have master's degrees, (1 working on his doctorate), 3 with bachelor's, (one just entering law school), and 2 with Associate's. that means that half of the enlisted in this area alone have higher than the minimum requirements for a commission - so the only thing that separates them officers is the 12 week course.

on further thought, one of the E-6's will retire as a Major. he gave up his commission due to time constraints. in the last 12 months two of us have been offered the opportunity for commissioning, but declined for personal reasons - in my case i simply can't leave my business to go to a school.

So you are now floating the notions that:

1) Saddam Hussein was oppressing us.
2) Saddam Hussein was resonsible for 9/11?

For someone whose job it was to collect intelligence, you seem to have picked up a few pieces of which %99.9999999999 of the rest of the world is ignorant. Did you receive these on a special radio in your bomb shelter or did the tin foil hat slip one day and let them in?

I will fight enemies who pose a 'clear and present' danger along with anyone else, but I'd like the next guy over in the foxhole to be sane. Maybe those recruiters are smart to set some limits.

And a large number of enlisted haven't seen a college for the sand...or mud...or snow. ;)

When I was younger I met a kid at Fort Dix who was 17. He said his recruiter told him he could get his diploma while in the Army. I don't know if they had regular classes or were just helping him towards a GED.

You are talking about your Reserve unit, I presume, Lookout. Major difference between the educational attainments of the Reserves versus regular career military. Bruce is right about the snow and the sand getting between the pages of those college text books. My Mohican Indian friend who fought in Desert Storm was lured into the military by the promise of a college diploma. Never happened. He became disabled in the First Gulf War and his disability precludes him attending college now. Anyhow, it wasn't the rank and file officers who got us into this mess. It was the politicians in case no one has noticed. :eyebrow:

..I'd like to teach the world to chill and something Coca-Cola....

My Dad got his GED while he was in the Marines. I think that was pretty common years ago.

1) No. The tyrants I speak of are al-Qaeda and their ilk, who behave most tyrannously to not only Christendom, but about everyone else, to judge from al-Zarqawi's pronunciamentos telling Muslims to avoid democracy. Terrorist attacks are tyrannical methods, are they not? And opposing democratization of the social order means support for tyrannical governance instead, does it not?

I do apologize for being a little unclear as to which particular tyrants I was assailing. (It's still very important that you've never done anything of the kind yoursel owing to your appallingly limited conception of liberty. News flash, Richie: liberty is not and shall not be the exclusive property of the United States.)

2) No again. Isn't it astonishing how many of the soft-on-tyranny sort of Americans believe that some other Americans believe Saddam launched it? Well, the left wouldn't be so recognizable if it weren't for its ill-founded ideas. Personally, I couldn't name one single American who believes Saddam had anything more to do with 9/11 than Hitler had to do with Pearl Harbor. And I couldn't name a single American who did think that way that I couldn't show him that he was mistaken.

Fortunately for the nation, you guys are gullible enough to think we're about as smart as you are -- it keeps you wasting your efforts to undermine the rest of us. You instead spend your time in futilities, and lose elections -- repeatedly.

Sooo... you're in denial about the idea that widebody jetliners into buildings might pose a danger to the Republic that is both clear as could be and as present as the rubble pile left in downtown Manhattan. Sounds about like what I ought to expect from the likes of you, Rich.

Fighting against tyranny is what sane people do, Rich. You, in what appears to be some of the most grossly misplaced egotism to be found anywhere on the 'Net, aren't fighting the tyranny. Son: you don't qualify to fight in the next metaphorical foxhole from me.

Urbane, you seem to be splitting up your posts. Is this one for each personality?

As for denial, you are the one who seems to be whipsawing back and forth between Al-Queda and Saddam. My point was that the war in Iraq was not part of the war on terror. You seem to agree with that point and criticize my opinion at the same time.

Want to fight tyrants? Let's make a list and throw in Myanmar, Congo, and at least a dozen more. We'll leave off North Korea and Iran, since they may actually have nukes and paradoxically cannot be invaded by us. It's sort of like the idea of only loaning money to people who don't need it. You can only invade countries which threaten you with nukes if they don't actually have them.

I love your sterotype of liberals. At the same time that you go into a harangue about the concept of everyone thinking every neo-con is stupid enough to believe the Saddam-9/11 connection, while that is what your post appeared to support, you of course paint liberals with a broad brush.

My personal preference is that instead of 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden and 160,000 in Iraq, we have 200,000 soldiers in Afgahnistan looking for Bin Laden. My way would probably result in getting the 'tyrant' who actually attacked us. That's hardly being 'soft' on tyrants.

I support and defend my Constitution. I hold my leaders accountable. I do not sit on my ass humming patriotic tunes and playing "don't ask, don't tell" with politics. A soldier does his duty by following orders. A citizen does his duty by questioning authority and insuring that Congress has the consent of the governed. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about every tinpot foreign tyrant in the world. I worry about us raising one here, or setting the stage for one in the future.

If it were only your ass on the line, I'd love to let you dress up and go out there to shoot something. Unfortunately, there are a quarter of a million men and women who are expecting to be sent to the right place at the right time and with the right equipment and support. We let them down this time. They did not have to go to Iraq. There were no weapons pointed our way. We have changed their mission and they are doing the best that they can with where we have placed them.

Right now you can say it was worth it. I wish you were younger and had a classification where you actually got shot at, so you could come back and tell me if that is really true.

For some reason you have become infected with Heinlein syndrome. This malignent disease results in the idea that veterans are automatically better citizens than civilians.

Hear, hear, Rich! Right on! I am not a veteran, but as a soldier's daughter I spent age 13 -14 and again, age 16 - 17 glued to the TV every night when CBS Evening News would come on with its Vietnam war footage. It took 10 days back then for a letter from Vietnam to reach the US. My Dad wrote me every day he possibly could, so I'd know he'd been alive 10 days before. I'd scan the faces on the clips aired by CBS anxiously looking for my father's - was he dead? Wounded? And for what just cause? In what honorable fight?

I live in a military town, and certain businesses here hang large banners proclaiming, "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!" Bullshit! These folks are just in the business of ripping off soldiers they know will be in Iraq in a few months and will have other things on their mind than to complain about being ripped off.

UG is the sort of sociopath who climbs out of the woodwork drooling bloodlust and passes it off as patriotism. Anyone who cares about this country will ask what the hell we are doing in Iraq? Anyone who wants to prevent further 9/11's will go after the man responsible, not the people who weren't. Anyone who honestly "supports our troops" will be horrified that they are being sent off to fight and die in a game of smoke and mirrors. The fiasco in Iraq is at best a display of criminal incompetance on the part of the leaders of this country and, at worst, evidence of an uncaring, self-serving desire to hold on to the reins of power and win elections, our soldiers and our people and our country be damned. :mad2:

The voice of unreason as usual, Marichiko.

I've walked the Wall more than once myself. I've stood in the little pine grove near the Three Bronze Grunts (the nurse statue wasn't up yet) and played "Battle of the Somme" on my pipes. After I was done playing, some of the patch veterans that frequent the Wall came up and told me how much they'd liked it. There was more than one pair of misty eyes there that afternoon.

I bet they'd thank you if you went and did likewise. From a raw-beginner start, it would likely take you about eight to twelve months of practice to get you where you'd be ready to do it. Like any musical instrument, it's less the days of doing it than it is the hours.

That you'd like me to make light of their sacrifice is just one more reason that that will never happen. And taking your political ideas for action -- dubious, very very dubious. William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell (speaking, as we soon will, of "in the family") seem to me far more trustworthy.


Not remotely puzzled: I can see what it is we're trying to do. We are trying to make Islamoterrorism extinct by eliminating its natural breeding grounds: Islamic non-democracies. There's nothing in particular wrong with eliminating the weakest non-democracy first, and that was Iraq -- interesting, was it not, to note how few felt like dying for Saddam's régime? And those few, well, they died. Good riddance: a lack of lackeys emasculates tyrants.

We who were in the military intelligence community tend to differentiate strongly our understandings of what routine intelligence gathering and covert operations really are -- considering covert ops to be Special Warfare and the bailiwick of the Special Forces, the SEALs, Delta, and perhaps a few less publicized outfits of get-in-and-whack-'ems. We SIGINT guys -- well, it's good duty, but I'd be the last to call it exciting to watch: it's guys under headphones staring at equipment. Perhaps the nearest civilian equivalent to SIGINT is radio astronomy -- you're using the electromagnetic spectrum to tease out information that isn't necessarily meant for you, and you don't reach out and twiddle with what you're getting the information from. Covert operations? Only in the very broadest sense of covert, and not as used within the community.

Or shouldn't we be treating Saudi as an ally? They've been wiping out al-Qaeda sympathizers to the tune of five thousand arrested or dead. And since we've been this active in the region, elections are happening in Saudi too. Who'd've expected that development? Would we have expected it without the Iraq campaign? The people who try to find failure in all this don't strike me as honest, not at all. The House of Saud is walking a tightrope between their biggest markets on one side and the more idiotic sort of al-Wahabis on the other, but on balance they come down on our side because they know they'd be the poorer if they bowed to al-Wahab -- about as big a clench-butt in the Islamic world as the most tightassed fundie televangelists you can think of.

He is not. The bin Laden family is Yemeni in origin, and made the family fortune in construction -- in Saudi, where the money was. The bin Laden family don't like Osama very much at all, either. They treat him like a remittance man. This suggests they don't find him anything approaching reasonable themselves. Osama's what happens when you've got religious bigotry combined with tens of millions of dollars.

Good liberals ought to fight against religious bigots, shouldn't they? If they're actually good, I mean?

This is the sort of raving that tells us you're wrapped considerably too tight, and that you think this makes your point demonstrates your want of wisdom.

Heh heh. Sez you; and I shall be delighted to prove you mistaken, and at length. Say, for the next forty years, by which time I'll be pushing ninety and may be bored with it.

Of course it was. Fights against tyrannies (and was North Vietnam anything but?) are worthy fights by definition. Check Augustine of Hippo on the topic. What was wrong with Vietnam was the strategy was in effect designed to lose, and the war was lost not in the hills of Vietnam but in the halls of Congress, to our shame. That the Saigon government was not exactly a model of either enlightenment or efficiency in no way invalidates the battle against Hanoi, as a quarter million Vietnamese refugees and boat people will happily and rightly tell you. And what's become of the Communist régime in Vietnam? Its communism has decayed, and will fairly soon be replaced by something more in accord with human nature, bit by quiet bit.

As a strong believer in the goodness of human freedom, I find the first sentence flatly disproves the second. You see, I want a good world. That means a world with no tyrannies, nor tyranny's excesses. "All of them"? Eh, one at a time will suffice. The tender feelings of tyrants and their lackeys should receive no consideration beyond the mercy of a bullet through the skull, rather than say burning at the stake or just plain impalement, which doesn't consume firewood and if done Wallachian style, takes longer too. Blunted point, greased shaft. Considering where they stick it in, embarrassing too, though death per anum may well suit the irredeemably assholic.

This is mistaken too. The proper function of a democracy's military is to defend that democracy's INTERESTS. These do not stop at the borders.

Well! The shriller you get, the more the madwoman you sound. You're saying "Mr. Democracy" as if it were a bad thing. I believe I've made it clear at least twice that I am now over military age, and yet have nine years more military service than you do. I've a wife with twenty and a retirement. You do not have any standing to screech about this; I've told you you're a lightweight, and that's why. What I'm doing here is one of two things: either converting you from your current error (I'd go so far as to call it a sin -- one I don't commit.) or leaving you as the sole and the only adherent to it: isolated in your error and your wrongfulness, while all the Cellar points at you and laughs.

I do not agree with that point at all. They are one and the same. Those who want the war lost insist they are somehow separate, but you should know my views on that by now. From now on, please take it as read that I regard the Iraq campaign as an integral part of the War on Terror, part of that denial of breeding grounds I've so often mentioned.

The chappie who disses Heinlein does not understand what it takes to keep a Republic on the libertarian path -- hardly the path of wisdom, is it now?

As neatly phrased an indictment of the Democratic Party's misbehavior and misplaced motivations as I've seen in months. I'd like to borrow it.

Feel, free, UG. Borrow away. Your response to my points about Vietnam was that you got to go play your bagpipes at The Wall. That's nice. So, all those men died so you could go get your ego gratified at their national memorial? And what makes you think I know nothing of music and the time and dedication it takes to play music well? But that's a not the issue, now is it?

In response to my question of why are we not going after Bin Laden you respond that "There's nothing in particular wrong with eliminating the weakest non-democracy first, and that was Iraq." You have made my point for me. Bush took the easy way out and allowed the real culprit to remain at large.

Frankly, if the people of any given nation don't have the desire or will to rid themselves of dictators and tyrants, why should we spill our blood on their behalf? Let them reap their just reward as a nation and as a people. They'll figure it out - or not.

You may finally become bored at 90, but I have a short little span of attention and I am bored now, so I'll respond to you no further. I have better things to do with my time

One of tw's central points is that much Islamic terror is no longer from al-Qaeda but something the administration calls al-Qaeda. Huh:

Saudis warned UK weeks ahead of bombings

These articles and accusations have continued every week since 7 July. Your assumption is that those phone called were to Al Qaeda operatives in Saudia Arabia - not to some Al Qadea 'look alikes' better called Muslim Brotherhood. Show me the trail to bin Laden?

You are assuming that every terrorist must be Al Qaeda. That is the administration propaganda. Time after time, the many terrorist attacks over the past few years have no connection to Bin Laden. Even Zarqawi's relationship to bin Laden is best called fictional; only exists in the principles of Muslim Brotherhood.

Part of the problem with this big centralized Islamic conspiracy under the headline of Al Qaeda: Al Qaeda does not even exist according to Musharraf of Pakistan. It has long since disbanded as effective terrrorist and guerilla insurgents routinely do.

For Al Qaeda to exist according to administration and Rush Limbaugh propaganda, then Al Qaeda also attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. But then these are the same people who blamed Saddam for 11 September. There is this wee little thing called credibility.

Post back when you have credibile facts - not just another accusation from one source that claims it was Al Qaeda. A phone call was made to Saudia Arabia. Therefore it must be Al Qaeda!!!!!

"Bank was just robbed in the next town. I read a report that says it was Al Qaeda. Oh god. Dear me. They're coming to get me." Call me when real facts exist. Posted here is just another in a long list of claims all citing Al Qaeda - from unnamed government sources... Karl Rove.

So over 50,000 dead, a war lost, and the former enemy is reforming itself without our military intervention, but through trade.

Sounds like an argument against war to me.

It's nice that you respect them, it's nice that you play the pipes for them, but the best result for them would not to be there in first place. I personally would like to see less walls and monuments and more living monuments with their friends and families.

War is sometimes necessary, but you have set the bar abysmally low.

Obviously, if Hanoi and Vietnam was a hell hole, then those boat people are still coming in the millions. Just the other side of the fact that Rush Limbaugh and UG would forget to mention. Tyranny was not N Vietnam. One is suppose to learn history instead of rewriting it. Tyranny was the S Vietnamese government and its army.

But then we cite specific examples. Who asked to be made a protectorate of the US? Ho Chi Minh. Whose Declaration of Independence is an example copy of the US Declaration of Independence? Vietnam's.

Who was the enemy of the poeple? Who really were the freedom figthers that UG promotes? Unfortunately, the US government listened to militarists who had enlisted man intelligence - such as Gen William Westmoreland. The US lost that war because the US military commanders violated basic military principles and doctrine taught even in 500 BC. To his grave, Westmoreland refuse to admit HE was the problem - just like that 'dumb and directed' enlisted man who cannot learn on his own. An informed military man would have known that war was lost by the generals (and a just as myopic president) who were more enthrilled with their military hardware than in the purpose of war and the lessons of history.

Officers are suppose to first understand basic concepts such as what and why. The Vietnam war is a classic example of what happens when military leaders fail to define a strategic objective - and then lie to coverup their illegal war. This treachory at the highest levels of military and government officials is well documented in history. UG has demonstrated that his knowledge is more based in his militaristic emotions and not in first learning the lessons of history. UG has no idea why the Vietnam war was well understood as lost in the mid 1960s - by the officers on the ground. UG is encouraged to read what some of the toughest Marines in Vietnam learned that early on - David Halbersham's "Making of a Quagmire". Must reading for any enlisted man who intends to have an officer's education.

So just like in the "Misson Accomplished" war, even the intelligence was subverted to serve the lying leadership. According to military intelligence, we had killed everyone in Vietnam three times. But UG blames Congress. Its called rewriting history.

tw, do you actually believe that officers are more intelligent than the enlisted?

Ah hem. Must say that TW is just a bit off in his assumptions there. My Dad was an enlisted man who could read Ceasar's Commentaries in the original Latin. One of his tours in "Nam was in MACV under Westmoreland. My Dad didn't think much of the man. He preferred McArthur. My Dad had a book case filled with volumes on military history and strategy and had read them all. You were saying about ignorant enlisted men?

You want to make proof by specific examples. Overall, enlisted men don't have the curiosity to be officers. That does not say all enlisted men are dumb or do not have officer education. Indeed, even Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Peter Jennings would only be enlisted men. But yes, the typical enlisted man has the education of a technician. He knows very well how to work with what he has. Typically has no interest in knowing the bigger picture - the strategic objective. Officers are supposed to understand that bigger picture.

In Vietnam, the officer named Westmoreland did not have sufficient intelligence or curiosity to be commanding general material. Would the enlisted man even know? Things that every officer was supposed to know were not even provided to enlisted man. The enlisted man only knew the symptoms -
"And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, next stop is Vietnam
And it's five, six, seven, open up the Pearly Gates.
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopie we're all gonna die. "

They knew the top generals were wrong; were lying. The music said so. Any yet if we told enlisted men why, well, eyes would only glaze over. You tell me. How many enlisted men read Sze Tzu's 'Art of War' - and why not? Required reading for anyone in the military - with sufficient knowledge of the job. Anyone trained even in those basic concepts knew we were in trouble when the 3rd ID had no orders for the peace. Officers may have understood. We know quite accurately that the commanding officer for the 101st Airborne in Mosul understood the problem quite accurately - and all but said we have a leadership problem. As an officer, he saw what enlisted men would not even ask. For the most part, enlisted men did not have sufficient education and knowledge to appreciate how bad things would become in Iraq.

Yes there can be enlisted men with officer's education. Exceptions exist. But how many enlisted men were asking why the dimensions of those aluminum tubes were exact dimensions for a Medusa rocket. Such curiosity is lost on most enlisted men. An enlisted man need only be dumb and well directed. Any additional intelligence is a benefit - but not required - when they will not be doing officer work - such as understanding the big picture - the strategic objective.

only a true fool would believe intelligence can be estimated based upon a rank.

are you one of those elitists that believes a degree is a direct reflection of one's intelligence? have you ever met an ignorant individual with a degree? more than one? have you ever met a truly intelligent individual without a degree? more than one?

a degree is evidence of a formal education, not proof of intelligence. a formal education does not necessarily instill the ability to analyze, interpret, and formulate a plan of action. lack of formal education does not exclude the ability to do the same.

lack of a commission means a lack of curiosity? an ignorance of one's surroundings?

an enlisted man only needs to be dumb enough to follow directions? what military service have you been around?

in all my time and experiences in the military i have only met 1 officer who displayed such misplaced, elitist contempt for the enlisted. i have however found similar elitist attitudes in the academic world, usually in people that would never be able to hold their own outside the walls of academia.

So you are claiming your dad is typical of all enlisted men? I don't think so. That would be why he was in HQ.

I find it very disconcerting that anyone would cite one exception as proof of a trend. if true, then video games have caused massive increase in murders, car thefts, and overall mayhem. After all, a single example in the local gossip news proved it to be true. An exception does not prove anything other than an exception exists.

You have not yet represented by example what I posted IF you did not example every one of 1 million enlisted men - and show me the volumes of history and strategy that each has read. Most enlisted men would not learn why, for example, the smoking gun is essential to justify war. Technicians need not understand the bigger picture.

Again, be very careful with what I posted verses what you have just read. I did not say all technicians remain that ill informed. I said - and read it carefully "Technicians need not understand the bigger picture". Some might even regard an understanding of that bigger picture determental to their own health and safety.

Lookout123's posts concerning this are nothing more than cheap shots. He perverts what I posted. I did not say all enlisted men are dumb. So Lookout123 does a Rush Limbaugh trick. He phrases a challenge to pervert what I said. Its classic propaganda. He says things I did not say. Don't fall for how he intentionally misrepresents what I had posted. He would even pervert what I posted into "every officer is always more intelligent than every enlisted man". Obviously I did not say that. And yet that is what Lookout123 wants you to believe.