The wisdom of Rumsfeld

[RussSchultz]

Eh? According to CNN he was captured this year, alive.

Maybe I've got the name wrong. The guy I'm talking about was the leader of Abu Nidal, the folks who hijacked the Achilles Lauro. he was living in refuge in Iraq until just a few years ago when he mysteriously "committed suicide" with a bullet to the back of the head.

Actually, got the name wrong the first time, right the second time, but the wrong actions.

http://www.terrorismanswers.org/groups/abunidal.html

 

[RussSchultz]

I wouldn't call the stuff happening in Iraq right now (car bombings, etc) terrorism. Those are people desperately trying to take back their own country, or people sympathetic to those who are.

Complete and utter horse shit.

You'd see the exact same things happening in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) if a foreign country took us over.

Again, complete and utter horse shit.

Not that it's right or anything, but the word 'terrorism' gets thrown around for everything these days.

I don't deny that. Use it too much and it waters down the meaning.

The folks doing the recent carbombing are not doing it against US targets, they're doing it against the Iraqi people. Police stations, schools, the red cross, the UN, a hotel. For the most part, they're not Iraqis, but foreign fighters come to do their part for jihad.

How can you say with a straight face that its not terrorism? HOW!?

 

[Ilfirin]

The folks doing the recent carbombing are not doing it against US targets, they're doing it against the Iraqi people. Police stations, schools, the red cross, the UN, a hotel. For the most part, they're not Iraqis, but foreign fighters come to do their part for jihad.

How can you say with a straight face that its not terrorism? HOW!?

All of those people are aiding and helping who these people consider "the enemy/the invaders/satan". Isn't that the entire reason we're in Iraq to begin with (to attack those aiding who we consider our enemy)?

 

[Natoma]

I'll have to disagree natoma. You've distilled the "reasons for war" down to one that you find easy to vet.

While I'm not in "the knew", I'd guess the real reason is likely more strategic in nature. Yes, the whole neo-con thing. 1) Make democracy in Iraq; 2) ween ourself from Saudi Oil; 3) then tackle the Saudi problem.

War on terrorism, spread democracy, ensure stable oil markets to the whole world (and particularly the US).

Imo, if we were truly interested in the war on terrorism, we'd have put more troops into Afghanistan during the war in 2001 in order to keep Al-Qaeda from escaping. And we'd have 100K+ troops there in order to keep the peace and keep Al-Qaeda from reforming as it has in that country.

We knew 100% that Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. We knew 100% that the Taliban supported and harbored Al-Qaeda. There is no murkiness there. There is no misunderstanding or room for interpretation. So why is it that only 10,000 troops currently police Afghanistan, and we only sent a fraction of the force used to subdue Iraq?

Now, if we're going to say that we're spreading democracy, why not go straight for the jugular and take out Saudi Arabia? That way, we get our oil, destroy Al-Qaeda's funding network, and free a people who have been as tortured and repressed as the iraqis under saddam.

Now as for the stable oil market bit. The only problem I have with that is that we as a nation had a chance to help ourselves by reducing our dependence on foreign oil last year. And both houses of congress, with the backing of the president, destroyed the initiative to raise the C.A.F.E standards through the use of hybrid technology, which today is very inexpensive. I'd pay an extra couple of thousand dollars knowing that my new car is reducing the money going to the middle east as well as helping keep the environment clean.

Again, while I agree with the overarching ideals of the neo-con vision, I do not agree with the implementation nor the hypocrisy inherent to that implementation.

 

[Willmeister]

I wouldn't call the stuff happening in Iraq right now (car bombings, etc) terrorism. Those are people desperately trying to take back their own country, or people sympathetic to those who are.

It isn't terrorism, and I wouldn't exactly go out on a limb to say these are 'freedom fighters', nor would I necessarily believe the Administration when they say these incidents are the work of outsiders and Saddam Loyalists. They could be. Could be a mix of a whole lot of groups.

 

[DemoCoder]

I wouldn't call the stuff happening in Iraq right now (car bombings, etc) terrorism. Those are people desperately trying to take back their own country, or people sympathetic to those who are.

You'd see the exact same things happening in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) if a foreign country took us over.

Not that it's right or anything, but the word 'terrorism' gets thrown around for everything these days. (6 months or so ago they were trying to charge a couple of kids with terrorism for playing with cherry bombs around here)

This is a gross simplification. First of all, the Kurds and Shia's aren't "resisting occupation" like this. The idea that all of Iraq wants the American troops to leave is false. Iraqi's know a quick departure of the coalition is a recipe for civil war and ethnic violence, especially the Shia's and Kurds. If the Coalition leaves, all eyes focus on Kurds and Mosul/Kirkuk. Think the Sunni's will just let the keep it? Sunni's benefited tremendously under Saddam's lavish carrot/stick treatment. Think Shia's aren't aching to revolt from their imposed poverty that make the Sunni's well off?

Secondly, there are many types of "resistance efforts" going on

1) Baathists allied with Saddam
2) Out of work and dissatisfied former Iraqi soldiers, republican guards, etc
3) Foreign Terrorists, probably Al Qaeda. Remember Afghanistan and these guys fighting the Soviets?


Notice how some of the attacks for road-side remote detonated bombs, some of snipers (probably out of work army), and some are suicide bombers and simultaneous coordinated bombers? (e.g. Al Qaeda trademark)

To lump all of the violence going on into a single monolithic resistance is just as big of an error as trying to lump all of them into the terrorist category.

I'm sure most Iraqi's will be glad to see the coalition leave, to see the violence stop, and for coalition forces to stop checkpointing, curfewing, and searching them. On the other hand, the alternative, for them to leave the country in the current state, is far worse, and the potential benefit: weathering the storm, waiting a year or two for constitition and elections, and having the world contribute billions in reconstruction is not something the majority will want to just toss away.

 

[Willmeister]

Maybe I've got the name wrong. The guy I'm talking about was the leader of Abu Nidal, the folks who hijacked the Achilles Lauro. he was living in refuge in Iraq until just a few years ago when he mysteriously "committed suicide" with a bullet to the back of the head.

Orlando Bosch did more than roll a cripple off the side of a boat. He took down a whole airliner and lives comfortably in the USA.

 

[RussSchultz]

Now, if we're going to say that we're spreading democracy, why not go straight for the jugular and take out Saudi Arabia?

And you thought the Arab street was outraged with invading Iraq.

An attack on Saudi Arabia would IMMEDIATELY turn into a war of religions, and spark a somewhat justified jihad.

 

[RussSchultz]

Maybe I've got the name wrong. The guy I'm talking about was the leader of Abu Nidal, the folks who hijacked the Achilles Lauro. he was living in refuge in Iraq until just a few years ago when he mysteriously "committed suicide" with a bullet to the back of the head.

Orlando Bosch did more than roll a cripple off the side of a boat. He took down a whole airliner and lives comfortably in the USA.

Hmm, he wasn't convicted in court, apparently.

If he did all he supposedly did, he's a bastard and Bush Sr. was wrong to pardon him, but I'll have to plead nolo-contendre on the whole issue. I know very little about it, and the only information I found in my googling are sites with an axe to grind.

 

[DemoCoder]

Maybe I've got the name wrong. The guy I'm talking about was the leader of Abu Nidal, the folks who hijacked the Achilles Lauro. he was living in refuge in Iraq until just a few years ago when he mysteriously "committed suicide" with a bullet to the back of the head.

Orlando Bosch did more than roll a cripple off the side of a boat. He took down a whole airliner and lives comfortably in the USA.

Wasn't he acquitted by Venezuela's courts?

 

[Ilfirin]

It isn't terrorism, and I wouldn't exactly go out on a limb to say these are 'freedom fighters', nor would I necessarily believe the Administration when they say these incidents are the work of outsiders and Saddam Loyalists. They could be. Could be a mix of a whole lot of groups.

I didn't say it was "freedom fighting" (god. We're living in a comic book). They're just people of an old, dieing world desperately fighting to keep the new world from coming (making everything they know useless). And, of course, all the other people that agree with them about us being satan.

 

[Sabastian]

Now, if we're going to say that we're spreading democracy, why not go straight for the jugular and take out Saudi Arabia?

And you thought the Arab street was outraged with invading Iraq.

An attack on Saudi Arabia would IMMEDIATELY turn into a war of religions, and spark a somewhat justified jihad.

It isn't horribly ironic or anything but often critique of current American policy (With particular regards to Iraq it seems.) tends towards some radical peace protest, and quickly once the logic of removing such an extremely vile regime that Iraq really was, is exposed of, the whole argument is augmented. Consequently, they realize that they are cornered into defending not only a brutal regime but, they are also defending illogically I might add, that such a regime should not ever come back. The whole argument changes to one of an even more aggressive stance then is currently being pursued! It seems these argumentation lines, are opportunistic in their ethics.

 

[Willmeister]

I didn't say it was "freedom fighting" (god. We're living in a comic book). They're just people of an old, dieing world desperately fighting to keep the new world from coming (making everything they know useless). And, of course, all the other people that agree with them about us being satan.

Just because something is 'new' doesn't mean it's good. After all, corporatism of the 1920s was touted by large bodies of people as a viable manner by which society should be organized, and to away with the old ineffective and corrupt forms of one-man-one-vote governance systems. Were people like Mussolini, Salazar and Franco right?

When they use the term 'satan' it has a totally different connotation that the Western one. 'Satan' isn't a literal manifestation to them. It is God himself that is testing you to see if you will stray from the path he has laid out before you. Anything that makes you stray from that is considered 'Satanic' to them.

Iraq was one of the most progressive nations in the region for over two decades. Easily at the Israeli level in terms of literacy and post-secondary because of the foresight of leaders Al Bakr, and *gasp*, (early) Saddam Hussein. Hussein did dumped gobs and gobs of money into programs like these and many nations looked to Iraq, in particuarly old pan-Arabists (especially them), as something to join in and work for. Baghdad literally means city of light and has traditionally actually been the centre of all things in the region, though greatly diminished by the Mongol invasion and the ascent of Cairo in it's place.

But Hussein did look to the past in the hopes of rekindling Baghdad's position and was well on his way to doing so (granted, Hussein did it for his own self-interest, but that still doesn't diminish the gains made).

 

[RussSchultz]

Musollini made the trains run on time in Italy, something that has yet to be matched.

 

[Natoma]

Now, if we're going to say that we're spreading democracy, why not go straight for the jugular and take out Saudi Arabia?

And you thought the Arab street was outraged with invading Iraq.

An attack on Saudi Arabia would IMMEDIATELY turn into a war of religions, and spark a somewhat justified jihad.

Anymore justified or a war of religions than Iraq is right now? General "My god is bigger than your god" Boykins anyone?

 

[Natoma]

Now, if we're going to say that we're spreading democracy, why not go straight for the jugular and take out Saudi Arabia?

And you thought the Arab street was outraged with invading Iraq.

An attack on Saudi Arabia would IMMEDIATELY turn into a war of religions, and spark a somewhat justified jihad.

It isn't horribly ironic or anything but often critique of current American policy (With particular regards to Iraq it seems.) tends towards some radical peace protest, and quickly once the logic of removing such an extremely vile regime that Iraq really was, is exposed of, the whole argument is augmented. Consequently, they realize that they are cornered into defending not only a brutal regime but, they are also defending illogically I might add, that such a regime should not ever come back. The whole argument changes to one of an even more aggressive stance then is currently being pursued! It seems these argumentation lines, are opportunistic in their ethics.

You've understood nothing if that's what you're coming away with. What I and millions of other americans want is a real reason to send people into harms way. By saying we should attack Saudi Arabia, I am pointing out the very fallacy of the argument that we should attack countries who are cruel to their people and are generally "very bad". Hell if we want to talk about terrorism, the Saudis are some of the worst out there in terms of their funding schemes to funnel money to organizations such as Al-Qaeda. You simply have no grasp of sarcasm it seems.

 

[Natoma]

I would also like to point out that the idea of "pre-emption" has been tried in the past.

You say "War on Terrorism, Spread Democracy, and stabilize the oil market" are the goals of the neo-cons. Anyone remember the "War on Communism, Spread Democracy, and stabilize the oil market" that was the doctrine of the US in the 45 years after World War II?

We certainly weren't attacked in Vietnam. We definitely weren't attacked in the Bay of Pigs. We definitely weren't attacked by Cuba when our myriad attempts at taking out Castro failed. We definitely weren't attacked by the Koreans in the 1950s. Anyone remember the Afghanistan war against the communist russian threat in which we taught the roots of Al-Qaeda how to fight and organize themselves?

All of these failed attempts at curtailing communism when all we had to do was outspend the russians and bankrupt them. Sound similar to our attempts to shape the world today? It should. Many of the neo-cons of today were the same communistic hardliners of yesteryear. And we see how good they did.

Now this is not to say that we shouldn't do something to try and curtail terrorism. But the current tack of the administration is not something i agree with, and given the past, neither apparently does history.

 

[RussSchultz]

Don't rewrite history.

South Korean was attacked by North Korea.

Communism WAS a threat to the world. It required military spending via the cold war and proxy wars to defeat. Its obvious that ideology alone wouldn't, since even today there's apparently a never ending line of idealistic idiots who are willing to give communism another try.

 

[RussSchultz]

By saying we should attack Saudi Arabia, I am pointing out the very fallacy of the argument that we should attack countries who are cruel to their people and are generally "very bad".

No, you're saying that you're greedy with your freedom and aren't willing to share it.

Actually, strike that, you're trying to use a strawman to show that the policy of deposing despotic leaders is a bad one, simply because Saudi Arabia presents the little problem of being the "holy land" for the Islamic World, who tend to be, overwhelmingly, despotic. You know its not feasable, so you use it as an obvious example.

"Next you'll say North Korea, why don't we invade north korea?". Well, again, they present their own tiny little problems (like a huge ass military poised to destroy one of the largest economies in Asia). Again, it isn't feasable, and you know it.

And you'll say all this simply because you are greedy with your freedom.

edit: clarity.

 

[Natoma]

Don't rewrite history.

South Korean was attacked by North Korea.

Communism WAS a threat to the world. It required military spending via the cold war and proxy wars to defeat. Its obvious that ideology alone wouldn't, since even today there's apparently a never ending line of idealistic idiots who are willing to give communism another try.

Who said anything about ideology alone would have beaten communism? I'm saying that many of the myriad attempts at defeating communism either failed outright, or ended up causing an even larger problem than it solved. As I said, I agree with the ideals, but not the implementation.

And unfortunately we have many of those same people now leading up our antiterrorism unit. Doesn't quite fill me with optimism, especially given the performance of the past 2 years in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at home.