It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here's the fundamental difference between Iraq & Vietnam..

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I know people can't help but compare the two conflicts, I do it myself loosely sometimes. I see it compared on TV shows on the military channel. I hear politicians alluding to it on capitol hill, and i hear the people of this message board doing it quite frequently. So, I took it upon myself to make this thread to point out the fundamental differences, why they are so fundamental, while also showing the similarities.

Ideaology: Both conflicts involve the U.S. military and allies of a certain extent against an unconventional, poor, ill-equipped force that uses guerrilla tactics and other unconventional tactics and weapons to even up the chances of victory as best they can, and to counter the enemies forces. Both of those unconventional forces had an ideaology, one they both followed like zealots. One was communism and nationalism, one is 'Islamic Extremism', the attempt to create an Islamic state with Islamic law through extreme means, as well as the goal to see the occupiers leave the land.

The fundamental difference? Well in both cases men will sacrifice their lives for the better of the cause, the ideaology; the communist movement or the islamist movement. But thats where the similarities end. The fundamental difference is.. when you leave the small impoverished southeast asian communist country alone, it returns to peaceful means of living. When you leave the Islamist's land, they will use it as a base from which to further their cause, their ideaology, their movement, at any cost. So what you will have is Islamists using Iraq as a base to attack U.S. embassies, U.S. citizens in the area, U.S. bases in the region, U.S. assets in the region, U.S. allies in the region, the innocent civilians of U.S. allies in the region, the list goes on. They don't just stop and say "Woohoo, we're freed of the occupiers, now lets get down to peaceful living and reconstructing our beautiful land for our own benefit", they instead say "Woohoo, we're freed of the occupiers, now lets get down to laying plans and gathering materials to destroy their bases and people and their allies all over the world".

This is the fundamental difference, and this is why it was acceptable to 'pull out' of Vietnam without total victory objectives accomplished, such as the propping up of a non-communist government, because we knew they were going to stop fighting us, the vietnamese, and they had no means to continue fighting unless we were on their land. The opposite is true with Iraq, as well as Afganistan, and the U.S. politicians know it.

They fear it the most, over everything. They'll never let it happen, even if it means drafting american boys by force, or if it means eventual use of tactical nuclear weaponry. Whatever it takes, they will not allow their biggest fear to manifest into a reality.

Unfortunately, and I myself am a man of God, faith in God alone cannot stop those men whom have the power, money, and resources to carry out their goals, however evil they are, if they are evil at all. Faith in God can however prepare one for the hereafter, what actually matters. If only they'd realize this, the Jihadists .. that God does not come down onto the battlefield to pick sides and allow one side to beat the other. The walls of Jericho being brought down by trumpets is not necessarily true. Perhaps the folks inside just couldn't take the sound anymore and gave up? Sounds like what they use to break insurgents who refuse to talk in captivity.. hmm..

[edit on 12/24/2006 by runetang]




posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Hi rune, I think your comparison is flawed, the Muslim fanatics are attacking the US were they can because of Its Foreign policy. If the US had been in vietnam and other countries fighting communism Ithink you would have seen a wider conflict.

America on the world stage I'm afraid is seen as corrupt and uses its position of power to spread its global influence, you only have to read PNAC to see that. With that in mind can you blame peole for hittimg back when they can. Do you think it would be a different story if the US Goverment said they were going to invade China (thats a future possibility) do you think the people would support an invasion that knowing full well that the Chinese have a nuke capability and an ever growing military capability.

Do you reslly believe that the US would have invaded Iraq if it did have WMD's no not a chance, the invasion force would have been wiped out before it had a chance. No its simply this excluding the minority extremists that we have in all camps the Muslim people are just like you and I, they wan to live in peace, none of us want our countries invaded and have the ways of others rammed down our throats.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
The fundamental difference is.. when you leave the small impoverished southeast asian communist country alone, it returns to peaceful means of living. When you leave the Islamist's land, they will use it as a base from which to further their cause, their ideaology, their movement, at any cost.

this is why it was acceptable to 'pull out' of Vietnam without total victory objectives accomplished,

The opposite is true with Iraq, as well as Afganistan, and the U.S. politicians know it.


While I appreciate the accuracy of what you have said in regards to Vietnam as the outcome actually was, but I must disagree as to the difference in the way the conflicts are viewed.

In 1956, the US Government bore it fresh in mind that the Chicoms were a force to be reckoned with due to their sheer numbers and that the UN lacked the power to fully defeat them on the Asian mainland, yet it failed to understand that communism was not monolithic.
The link between the Viet Mihn and the Pathet Lao was clear. It was believed that if Vietnam was allowed to fall, Laos and Cambodia were next- in this much they were correct as the communists did aspire to all of French Indo-China. It was also believed however that domino theory would proceed on to Thailand, depriving America of an important naval base.
At the same time, the Suez Canal had been nationalized by Egypt, a Soviet-Sympathetic nation. The US believed it that it was at war with the Soviet Union and China for control of the gates to the Indian Ocean, and thus the whole of Asia.

By '63 the stakes were even greater. With non-aligned but socialist Indonesia at war with pro-British Malaysia, the idea of a communist front opening in Thailand and proceeding into Malaysia was horrifying- with the Archipelago gone entirely red, Australia would become a front-line state in the Cold War and the US Navy would be all but hemmed out of the Indian Ocean. The belief that the Indian Ocean was in play seemed proven correct.

It is no coincidence that the overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia and Johnson's escalation in Vietnam occurred virtually simultaneously.

In October of '65, Suharto seized power in Indonesia. The next month, the battle of the Ia Drang valley (depicted in We Were Soldiers) marked the first major engagement between Americans and Vietnamese forces. Lyndon Johnson announced the need to increase US troop levels almost 300%, from 120k to 400k.
Also that month, the British stepped up efforts against the nationalist/communist movement in Rhodesia and separated the British Indian Ocean territory from Mauritius which was on its way to independence.

The end of 1965 was all about manuevering to fight the domino effect.


In so many words, there was no belief that Vietnam was an isolated battle. It was believed to be a matter of stop them now or stop them later, just as some see Iraq to be in the war on terror.

That view was wrong in Vietnam. The traditional Thai enemity with the Vietnamese and the strength of the Thai regime ensured that the big dominoes wouldn't fall when Vietnam did, Indonesia was never a threat to the British in Malaysia, the Chinese and Russians couldn't project power into the archipelago from Vietnam, and as it turned out the Vietnamese weren't historically that fond of the Chinese to begin with. Consequently India stayed non-aligned, and even when CENTO fell apart with the rift between Britain and Turkey and the Iranian revolution, Pakistan remained accessible, saving Afghanistan.

We could have sat out of one hell of a war and been FINE, by just engaging our enemies at the critical points where we held the advantage.

This is also the case in Iraq.

They can't take Turkey- the holy grail of Islamic nationalism which would largely box the west out of the ME and give them the ability to threaten Europe.

The Saudi regime is strong enough and is in a position to be helped if they have problems, we are in as good a position to protect Kuwait as ever.

Having the radicals localized is a good thing- it causes their leadership and their money to concentrate in a place where we can get to it whenever we please. We don't have to rule them, we just have to be able to hit them when they pose a threat and keep track of them so that we observe and preempt assymetric strikes in the making. Trying to rule them is a fools errand- it's stooping to the only level where they have even the slightest chance of going toe to toe with us.

The most important aspect of keeping radicals weak is not depriving them of a state. It is depriving them of the ability to build economically, diplomatically, and militarily into a great power. As long as the world is united in an understanding that they are dangerous, we're OK.

But do you know what happens if we keep trying to rule them, creating Realpolitik between nations like China and Russia and nations like Iran? They will be able to acquire the weapons, and economic and diplomatic ties they need to be a real threat.

The best thing we can do is let these regimes coalesce and alienate the rest of the world and their own people, which will bring things to a point where we can subvert unpopular regimes without having to face a popular insurgency.

This is precisely the position we held in 1992, when we could have deposed Saddam and replaced him with disloyal factions of his own army and never assumed a serious occupation. The wait in 1992 and then the mishandling of the late attack in 2003 has set us back 40 years in Iraq, and now we've got to wait for the new regime to ruin itself and handle it right next time. Staying will only put that off further, or even diminish our credibility to a point where we'll never be able to do it.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The fundamental difference between Iraq & Vietnam . .



posted by Ruentang

People can't help but compare the two conflicts. I do it myself sometimes. I took it upon myself to make this thread to point out the differences, why they are so fundamental, while also showing the similarities.

Ideology: Both conflicts involve the U.S. military and allies to a certain extent against an unconventional, poor, ill-equipped force that uses guerrilla tactics and other unconventional tactics and weapons to even up the chances of victory as best they can. [Edited by Don W]



Actually, Mr R, I have to take issue here. It is true the Vietnam conflict involved both guerillas, the Viet Cong in the South part, and the NVA - the North Vietnam Army. The NVA strongly supported the VC but those were two separate forces. In any pitched battle the US was always able to defeat the NVA but we were never able to defeat the VC because they always avoided pitched battles. They enjoyed popular support and got all the cover they needed to stay alive.

We began our pre-emptive strike March 18, 2003, on the highly organized Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Army was defeated, demolished and demoralized by May 1. Baghdad had been captured. We disbanded what remained of the Army, the Ba’athist Party, the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi civil service. One huge mistake. Lesson One the hard way: Never destroy the political and social infrastructure. Colin Powell warned, “If you break it, you own it.”

While taking bows and complementing each other, America’s own Gang of Four, B43, VP Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Birmingham Songbird, Condi Rice, the long-time followers of Saddam Hussein re-grouped. What we are calling the “insurgency” was spawned in the vacuum we created. Over confident and self-assured, it took America’s leaders a couple years to realize there was a different kind of war in Iraq.

Lacking any new ideas and unwilling to seek outside advice, we have continued in this lackluster policy - stay the course - until the electorate said “No” on November 7. B43 suddenly came to life and fired Rumsfeld the next day. Old Reliable, Bob Gates, was called out of retirement to fly one more kamikaze mission. Bail B43's butt out of the Iraq quagmire before November 4, 2008. Meanwhile the KIA toll runs ever closer to 3,000 and not a word yet on what we're to do.

I don’t see any similarity between Iraq and Vietnam. Except we are losing (or lost) in both places.



So what you will have is Islamists using Iraq as a base to attack U.S. embassies, U.S. citizens in the area, U.S. bases in the region, U.S. assets in the region, U.S. allies in the region, the list goes on. They don't just stop and say "We're freed of the occupiers, now lets get down to peaceful living and reconstructing our beautiful land", they instead say "We're freed of the occupiers, now lets get down to laying plans and gathering materials to destroy their bases and people and their allies all over the world".



I don’t think there are 10 people in America who can speak Arabic, Mr R, so let’s not get too glib with what “they” are saying. You are quoting what the discredited B43 says they are saying, him who is trying to save his own butt from history. Him who wants to be Commander-in-Chief rather than to be president. Him who has done poorly in both undertakings. So let us not allow him to formulate our future. After all, he will pass away on January 20, 2009. Let’s hold our breath until then, and maybe we can begin to live again. And let’s make a resolution to 1) never again let the Supreme Court pick our president, and 2) never let an MBA who had 154 men executed be president.



This is . . fundamental . . it was acceptable . . Vietnam . . The opposite is true with Iraq . . Afghanistan . . the U.S. politicians know it . . They fear it . . never let happen . . drafting boys . . means use . . tactical nuclear weapon. Whatever takes . . not allow . . biggest fear . . into reality . .


Shame on the country that is first to use nuclear weapons! Shame! The world ought to impose a total embargo such a country for one decade.



posted by MagicMushroom

Rune, your comparison is flawed . . Muslim fanatics are attacking the US because of Foreign policy. America is corrupt and uses its power to spread its global influence. With that in mind can you blame people for hitting back when they can and with what weapons as are avail be to them? The Muslim people are just like you and I, they wan to live in peace, none of us want our countries invaded and have the ways of others rammed down our throats. [Edited by Don W]



I share your outlook and agree with your analysis, Mr M/M.



posted by The Vagabond

I appreciate the accuracy of what you [Mr Rune] have said in regards to Vietnam as [far as ] the outcome actually was, but I must disagree as to the difference in the way the conflicts are viewed. In October of '65, Lyndon Johnson increased US troop levels almost 300%, from 120k to 400k. The end of 1965 was all about maneuvering to fight the domino effect . . there was no belief that Vietnam was an isolated battle. It was believed to be a matter of stop them now or stop them later, just as some see Iraq to be in the war on terror. That view was wrong in Vietnam . . We could have sat out [the] war and been FINE, by just engaging our enemies at the critical points where we held the advantage. This is also the case in Iraq. They [insurgents] can't take Turkey . . the Saudi regime is strong enough . . we are good to protect Kuwait . . [Edited by Don W]



Excellent assessment Mr Vag, it coincides with my memory of it all. I never subscribed to the domino theory, but then, I was not consulted either. In fact, I never viewed the USSR as much of a threat to me or to my country. I knew we were overflying them and they were not overflying us. I was rather sympathetic with the socialist movement in Europe. You should know that when Pierre Mendes France was PM of the 4th Republic, he agreed to give Indo China its freedom as had been promised in War 2. After the fall of the 4th Republic and the reentry into French politics by Charles DeGaulle as President of the 5th Republic, that promise was recanted. You know the rest as relates to Vietnam. I was reading the Manchester Guardian Air Edition, the Reporter bi-weekly news mag, the best ever, the Nation, the New Republic, the Foreign Affairs Quarterly as well as important books on the topic of the Cold war.

Anyone who knew anything about world affairs knew if the US was devoting 10%-20% of our GDP to war (defense) the Soviets would be devoting 40%-50% of theirs. It was always just a matter of time how long the USSR could keep it up. When Kruschev backed down in the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis, the Cold War was lost. No matter what anyone chooses to think about Soviet leaders, none of them after Stalin were willing to loose another 25 million citizens.



Having the radicals localized is a good thing - it causes their leadership and their money to concentrate where we can get to it whenever we please. We don't have to rule them, we just have to be able to hit them when they pose a threat . . Trying to rule them is a fools errand - it's the only level where they have even the slightest chance of going toe to toe with us. . the important aspect of keeping radicals weak is not depriving them of a state. It is depriving them of the ability to build economically, diplomatically, and militarily into a great power. As long as the world is united in an understanding that they are dangerous, we're OK. The best thing we can do is let these regimes coalesce and alienate the rest of the world and their own people, which will bring things to a point where we can subvert unpopular regimes without having to face a popular insurgency.

This is the position we held in 1992, when we could have deposed Saddam and replaced him with disloyal factions of his own army . . The wait in 1992 and then the mishandling of the late attack in 2003 has set us back 40 years in Iraq, and now we've got to wait for the new regime to ruin itself and handle it right next time. Staying will only put that off further, or even diminish our credibility to a point where we'll never be able to do it. [Edited by Don W]



Bravo! Three Cheers!


[edit on 12/25/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Alright so I get it.. anything Bush does is automaticly wrong, anything he says is automaticly wrong, it's automaticly a conspiracy, theres always dirt on his shoulder, somethings always going on secretly right?

While stuff happens frequently, its not always the case.

And you used the fact that what I said was similar to what Bush said the 'terrorists' goal is, ie; world domination and attacking more american interests outside of the countries the US is currently inside of with military force.

That is not enough to discredit what one says as incorrect. For the record DonW, this is a freakin' fact buddy. The dang terrorists say it themselves on their dang videos! But let me guess, those videos arent really made by the 'terrorists', its another plot by, let me guess, Bush to make us think this and that right? Heh.. now that is a sad outlook.

I keep an open mind. I stand in the middle, not to the left, not to the right. Vision becomes obstructed when you are not aligned to the middle, IMO. I'm sympathetic to the left and not sympathetic to the right, but I still consider myself quite a moderate overall. I dont automaticly think theres a secret plan or automaticly discredit the president simply because its the president. I discredit the president when he says something that i interpret as stupid, dumb, wrong, a bad move, whatever. I criticize his actions not what I think he *might* secretly be doing on a secret payroll according to what some people say on some message board somewhere. I have more sense than that.

Onto the vietnam comparison. Duh, of course it was never an isolated conflict! I wasnt suggesting this. there was Laos, the trail there, there was the funding and support from China & the Soviets, there was more than just that. I know it was a proxy war, I know it was about the domino effect, I'm a former professed american communist I've read quite abit about all the communist movements in history. The domino effect was a fear America had, and in the end, it was unfounded and wrong and the deaths were unnecessary because the domino effect didnt take over the whole world or even that entire hemisphere with communism. The USA never lost thailand or the phillipines bases, despite losing the war.

The war started as a conventional conflict and then the north vietnamese resorted to more and more guerrilla tactics as they were beaten in field battles.

In Iraq, the same thing has happened. They realized or knew they couldnt beat the USA head on. do you really think the Insurgency wasnt PLANNED before we even invaded?! They had an "if the USA actually comes in, this is what we will do" kind of plan. And the plan was the Sunni Insurgency, which hatched sectarian strife by attacking the Shiites first[Golden Dome mosque]. wait, let me guess, America was behind the bombing of the Golden Dome too right? Lol.

And in Iraq just like Vietnam the fighting forces are being supported by outside powers donating money and support. Countries people. These Countries that are helping the Insurgency are much like the Soviets and Chinese helping the North Vietnamese, and the southern Vietcong. they are in their own theatre, while we are outside of our own theatre[hemisphere]. We are going to have to leave Iraq, the insurgents can just get killed every freakin day between now and then. But when we have to go, and we do have to go eventually, theyll shoot at us as we are leaving and then they'll overthrow the Shiite US-backed government or die trying. You'll see.

Then it will be known as vietnam part deux. And Bush will be comparable to Johnson in their blunders.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   


posted by runetang

I get it. Anything Bush does is automatically wrong, anything he says is automatically wrong, it's automatically a conspiracy, there’s always dirt on his shoulder, something always going on secretly right?[Edited by Don W]



Well, Mr R, didn’t B43 run in 2000 as a “Unite-er?” Did he not “give” away the projected $1.5 trillion surplus? Has he not accumulated more debt than any prior president, including his father? Did he not preside over the decline in the stock market’s DJIA from 11,000 under Clinton to 7,000? Did it not take 5+ years for the economy to recover to 11,000? Did he not lie to the American people, to the UN and to God that Iraq had: 1) chemical WMDs, 2) biological WMDs, 3) nuclear WMDs, 4) oil field fires WMDs, 5) rockets to Israel WMDs, 6) MOAB in Baghdad WMDs and 7) connections to Al Qaeda WMDs? Has he not promised Rumsfeld would stay on regardless of criticism,? Well, this is repeating old stuff, so you see why I start from the base of reality whenever Bush43 deigns to speak to us?

Now let’s get serious, Mr. R. B43 started the war in Iraq on his own authority. B43 proclaimed mission accomplished on May 1, 2003. Since that time, as of today, 3,002 men have died in Iraq. Now B43 is scrambling about for someone to tell him what do to? To bail his arrogant ass out of the quagmire he, VP Cheney and Herr Rumsfeld got us into. And him the self-described “decider?” Now he can't decide! Only delay, as our boys die!



That is not enough to discredit what one says as incorrect. For the record DonW, this is a freakin' fact buddy. The dang terrorists say it themselves on their dang videos! But let me guess, those videos aren’t really made by the 'terrorists', its another plot by, let me guess, Bush to make us think this and that right? Heh.. now that is a sad outlook.


Those are your words, Mr. R.



I keep an open mind. I stand in the middle, not to the left, not to the right.



Reminds me of the old bromide, “He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”



Onto the Vietnam comparison . . it was never an isolated conflict! I wasn’t suggesting this. There was Laos, the trail there, there was the funding and support from China & the Soviets, there was more than just that. I know it was a proxy war, I know it was about the domino effect, I'm a former professed American communist . .



I don’t mean to denigrate your personal knowledge, Mr R, but if you knew that then why did not our president LBJ and his assistant, Mr McNamara, know this, too? LBJ was one of the most astute politicians in mid-century America, so why did he let himself be trapped in an unwinnable war that destroyed his presidency?

OTOH, there is one other way to look at Vietnam from our perspective. Let’s assume LBJ knew from Day 1 we could not win. He choose Vietnam purposely to use as a warning, as an example to any who doubted American resolve, American capability and American capacity to inflict harm on others. So we engaged in that demonstration for its effect not in Vietnam but in the world at large. What pro-Communist puppet regime anywhere in the world wants to see Vietnam visited upon them by the US of A? The Tet Offensive was completely unexpected and the resulting adverse publicity at home “killed” the war for Americans. Because of the patently unfair draft of men to die there, it became enmeshed with the civil rights movement and military reform and so on. And the endless pictures of the bodies returning at Dover AFB in flag draped coffins. That did it in.

1964 to 1974. 10 years, 59,000 KIA. That’s 5,000 per year. That’s 15 men a day! KIA. 15 each and every day. To big a price for a bowl of rice. Americans like wars we are wining but we hate wars we are losing.



In Iraq, the same thing has happened. They realized or knew they couldn’t beat the USA head on. do you really think the Insurgency wasn’t PLANNED before we even invaded?! They had an "if the USA actually comes in, this is what we will do" kind of plan. And the plan was the Sunni Insurgency, which hatched sectarian strife by attacking the Shiites

Iraq is like Vietnam . . the fighting forces are being supported by outside powers . . The Countries that are helping the Insurgency are much like the Soviets and Chinese helping North Vietnam and the southern Vietcong. They are in their theater, while we are outside of ours. We are going to leave Iraq [eventually], the insurgents can just get killed every day between now and then. But when we go, and we have to go eventually, they’ll shoot at us as we are leaving and then they'll overthrow the Shiite US-backed government or die trying. You'll see.

Then it will be known as Vietnam part deux. And Bush will be comparable to Johnson in their blunders.



Amen! But will the US learn its lesson?



[edit on 1/2/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
Alright so I get it.. anything Bush does is automaticly wrong


Not always, just when he acts or speaks in defiance of reality. Unfortunately, he does that almost automatically. The automatic speed and consistency of this is the product of his faults, not ours. Don and I have presented sound arguments rooted in fact, not snap judgements.

It is quite fine to contest either the facts or the logic of the conclusions we draw from those facts.
I've been wrong like... I dunno... maybe 3 times in my life. I figure I'll make it to at least 5 before I'm dead, so maybe you are right. I welcome you to make that case, but to write off our arguments by saying that we just automatically side against Bush is a little insulting.


I keep an open mind.

When does an open mind end and credulity begin? Is your mind open to the possibility that if you were to dive head first from a roof it might be a lot cooler and less painful than it sounds? I for one am completely closed minded on the subject of impacting the ground at high speeds without any form of protection. I've never actually made a head first leap from a roof, but I've never failed to fall when whenever I put empty air between myself and the ground, and I've both experienced and seen mathematical evidence that the forces inflicting pain and injury on me increase in proportion to the height from which I fall. I've got enough evidence that I don't need an open mind when it comes to jumping off of the roof.

I believe we have enough evidence on Iraq as well.


I dont automaticly think theres a secret plan or automaticly discredit the president simply because its the president.

I don't think that automatically either, but the terrorist tapes keep showing up at just the right times for the Republicans and saying all the right things. I don't automatically think that there is a horse everywhere I go, but when I hear hoofbeats...

You know that expression, right? The cracker-barrel equivalent of Ockham's Razor: When you hear hoofbeats, think horses?

So when:
  • the terrorists give a PNAC administration exactly what the PNAC wanted (a new Pearl Harbor) in its very first year in office,
  • are allowed to escape capture when surrounded,
  • don't make another successful strike in the USA afterwards- not even so much as throwing a cherry bomb at a police car,
  • claim to be fighting us in a nation they've never operated in before even we've left it much easier for them to continue operating from Afghanistan, Waziristan, Sudan, Somalia, etc, and in coincidence with that, the overwhelmingly Iraqi-on-Iraqi nature of the violence in Iraq suggests that there may be no significant groups in Iraq who are primarily concerned with fighting Americans,
  • dare us to come hit them where they live, against their interests but very much in ours,
  • go out of their way to remind us about national security issues before every election,
  • make a spectacle of congratulating the opponents of the PNAC administration on victory in elections,

etc...

Is it horses: Al Qaida, if not still in the full employ of the CIA as much as during the 80s, is at the very least being played up by the administration for other purposes

or tap-dancing elephants: Al Qaida is running around starting wars with us and losing them on purpose so that borders and governments around the world are changing faster than Rand McNally can print atlases, and pretty soon when the real attack comes, we won't know how to get to the battle field because of all of our maps are outdated.



I criticize his actions not what I think he *might* secretly be doing


I would list the things that he has DONE beyond the shadow of a doubt, but Don already covered them pretty well.


Onto the vietnam comparison. Duh, of course it was never an isolated conflict! I wasnt suggesting this.

That's exactly what makes my point so strong. Vietnam was not an isolated conflict, and yet its results proved not to be nearly as far reaching as was believed when we got involved because the people who thought that we had to quench that fire with blood had failed to explore all of the possibilities and probabilities of a world in which Vietnam went communist.

The same is true of Iraq. Although Iraq is not an isolated conflict, losing it will not be the nightmare scenario we were sold when we went to war. This has already proven true. Almost 4 years of complete anarchy outside of the Emerald City have not yielded one instance of the safe haven for terrorists which exists in militia-controlled areas being used to stage an attack on American soil, nor was an Iraqi WMD threat imminent.



And the plan was the Sunni Insurgency, which hatched sectarian strife by attacking the Shiites first[Golden Dome mosque].

So what you're saying is that Saddam/Al Qaida's master plan to kill Americans was to make the Shi'ites want to kill the Sunni? That would make a lot more sense if there weren't so few Sunni Muslims in America. Look, I love my TV too; it was like a parent to me, but I still don't believe everything it tells me.




But when we have to go, and we do have to go eventually, theyll shoot at us as we are leaving and then they'll overthrow the Shiite US-backed government or die trying. You'll see.

Then it will be known as vietnam part deux. And Bush will be comparable to Johnson in their blunders.


Wait, so now the fundamental difference is gone and you want to say how the two are similar. Ironically, you're still wrong, although this is really peripheral to the point.

For lack of an organized army in the field, there will be no dramatic rescue from the rooftops as the country caves in around the last few men from 2nd Batallion, 9th Marines who are protecting Operation Frequent Wind.

There will not be a Sunni government- they probably will die trying, but the Shi'ites own that country now and all the Sunnis can do is pray that Turkey gets provoked into invading Kurdistan when we leave and finds it in their heart to open the border so that Sunnis will water down the Kurdish population.

Vietnam part deux it may indeed be known as though, although the similarities are nuanced and imperfect, and the Bush name will be done such damage that their best bet at remaining in the forefront of American life is to get the girls a show similar to "The Simple Life".

I wouldn't compare Bush to Johnson though. Johnson only screwed poor people from other nations. Bush is an equal opportunity destroyer.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Let me try to sum it up.

Vietnam - Ricepaddies. Largest exporter fed millions of people.
Iraq - Oil. Supplies energy to millions of people.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
DonW, I see why you hold him in such contempt, and I do too, I just don't buy into the theory of "al-qaeda is secretly at our command on our payroll" much. Not that im saying you do.

TheVagabond, I dont think Saddam's plan was for Shiites to kill Sunnis and vice versa. You added him in there. I said that was Al-Qaeda in Iraq's plan. Actually I said 'sunni insurgency' but shouldve been more specific.


They see the Shiite government as U.S. agents, subserviant to the U.S., and so every government employ is considered as such, every policeman, etc. Then, when they saw that the regular Shiite population were actively part of these Shiiite militias (Mehdi army, Badr Brigade, others) and that those militias were subserviant to the Shiite government politicians, they basicly connected the dots and declared war on the Shiites. And thats when the Sectarian attacks really started to take off. At first, all we saw was mostly Sunni-on-Shiite violence. Shiites being abducted and killed. Then, the Shiites started doing the same thing, but whats even worse is that some of the government police/soldiers units are so sympathetic to the militias and also a part of them that they have gone and killed innocent Sunnis in reprisal. But the blowing of the Golden Dome was what set the tone for the blood letting that has occured ever increasingly ever since, as I recall the conflict from a day-by-day perspective of between then and now.

I see your points. It is strange that Bin laden and Zawahiri cant be found, I personally think its because they are actually in the South Baluchistan region of the Iranian frontier with both Southern Afghanistan and Eastern Pakistan, both hotbeds of Taliban support and activity. If you do some research on the Baluchistan region and the Baluchi tribes there, you will see they have a long history of problems with the Shiite Iranian government. Why? Because they are all Sunnis, in a predominantly Shiite Iran! Did the lightbulb pop on in your head yet?

The U.S. could never strike that frontier, nor do any ground operations there either, because any of it would be detected by Iranian security/military and taken as an act of war, especially considering the ongoing nuke issue.

Can you think of a single better place for those 2 goons to be hiding? I honestly cant. If they are in Irani-Baluchistan, its like an invisible shield around them.. for now.

I do not think they are in cahoots with the Bush government. I just think the U.S. screwed up the Afgani operation pretty good when it came to catching or killing the al-qaida leadership.

I see nothing else for Iraq but 3 autonomous regions. The only one we will have TRUE cooperation and alliances[military bases, strategic position] with in the end will be Iraqi-Kurdistan, because Iraqi-Shiitestan (Sh*tty-stan, lol) will fall under Irans influence of course. Iraqi-Sunnistan will be eating lead and depleted uranium, as well as white phosphorous, for many years to come in my humble opinion.

[edit on 1/6/2007 by runetang]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
TheVagabond, I dont think Saddam's plan was for Shiites to kill Sunnis and vice versa. You added him in there.


It's implicit. How could an insurgency have been prepared in such a tightly controlled totalitarian state without the blessing of the intelligence services and the dictator.


I said that was Al-Qaeda in Iraq's plan.

What Al Qaida in Iraq? There was no such thing until we took over, which tends to loosen borders up quite a bit, and even then, the plan makes absolutely no sense. How does Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence kill Americans, which is Al Qaida's osstensible goal, remember?

The Iraqi-on-Iraqi nature of most violence there makes it fairly clear that we're dealing with Al Qaida primarily or if we are, they are not pursuing their aim of hurting us, but are just making it look good for us.

So tell me, why would Iraq go to a country where they never had any interests, claim to be fighting us, but instead devote all of their efforts to Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence?

There's nobody significant in Iraq focusing on us- it's an Iraqi civil war. Al Qaida in Iraq and insurgencies are negligible- if they weren't they'd be accounting for more of the violence, as reflected by greater problems to their target (us) and less to the people they side with (Iraqis).


They see the Shiite government as U.S. agents

That would make a little more sense (although it would still be strategically stupid since the Shi'ites would be nothing without the support of the US) except that it doesn't explain why they're bombing markets and mosques too- why not just fight the government that serves the US? You bomb a market and a mosque because you're at war with the people inside of them because of who they are, period. That's why Timothy McVeigh bombed federal buildings instead of the New York Subway.


I see your points. It is strange that Bin laden and Zawahiri cant be found, I personally think its because they are actually in the South Baluchistan


I'm familiar with Blochistan and the Sunni Baloch warlords (Balochi is what you call their language, not their ethnicity) and the problems posed to the Pakistani government by their clan heirarchies and their somewhat ideas, but that doesn't have the first thing to do with why we let Bin Laden go when he was surrounded at Tora Bora.

So where are we still, after all this debate over technicalities?
You don't dispute that Al Qaida has played right into the PNAC's hands, you ducked the issue of how we could have him surrounded and let him go, and the violence in Iraq isn't being conducted as if it was from a group whos primary objective was to fight America.

So bringing it back around to the topic, I assume that's OK with you, contrary to your initial assertion that losing this war will result in the terrorists pressing their advantage and doing us serious harm, all indications are that what we're doing in Iraq and elsewhere has spit to do with protecting us from terrorists because number one, the terrorists don't seem to be too concerned with anything but giving us pretexts for war and two, we don't seem too concerned with anything but using those pretexts to achieve other strategic goals and the economic goals of certain corporations. That's hard to ignore when it's a matter of record that the bad guy used to work for the CIA.


I see nothing else for Iraq but 3 autonomous regions.

That is a logical goal for the PNAC to pursue and so I do not necessarily disagree. A Shi'ite nation of Arab majority being asborbed by mainly Persian Iran for its mineral wealth would be a great excuse to bring things to a head with Iran, separating Kurdistan would probably result in eventual problems with Turkey and a Turkish conquest, giving Turkey something to offer the EU and establishing western territorial presence in the middle east, and Sunni central Iraq would become a land-locked failed state which could be left to its own devices, bypassing serious strategic problems if we were willing to accept the moral problems with the decision.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I don't think it's accurate to compare the war in Iraq with Vietnam, or even the Cold War for that matter. Many peoples across the globe have embraced Islamic terrorism for a number of reasons. The terrorists fighting in the Phillipines have their own particular motives that are separate and distinct from those fighting in Pakistan, Gaza, and Iraq.

Too me, it seems much more useful to compare the War on Terror to the War on Drugs. Both are interdiction programs, and neither one works very well. Even worse, the Bush administration sees Iraq as the central front in the War on Terror. This is like invading Columbia with the belief that eradicating coc aine growers there will cause a total collapse of the illegal drug market. Stupid.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by Flatwoods]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   


posted by Flatwoods

I don't think it's accurate to compare the war in Iraq with Vietnam, or even the Cold War for that matter. Many peoples across the globe have embraced Islamic terrorism for a number of reasons. [Edited by Don W]



S T O P right there, Mr F/W. The phrase “ . . Islamic terrorism . . “ is too imprecise, too broad a brush, too much loaded words. Those words are often used to associate 1.2 billion Muslims in 2006 with outages that took place in the 700s around the Mediterranean Sea. American leaders seek to connect the Nine Eleven Event with Muslims around the world. Guilt by association. As in the overtly disingenuous question, “Where are the moderate Muslims?”

That haughtiness completely overlooks the historical genocidal conquest of the ancient land of Israel recorded in the Old Testament. It ignores completely the indiscriminate savagery recommended, encouraged and rewarded by various reigning Pope’s. Christian armies in the Middle Ages four major Crusades for Christ in Palestine committed endless atrocities and many were completely gratuitous. In more recent times, while we are showing so much [feigned] concern over “innocent people.” I must remind you of our own actions in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I argue the West determined in the 1940s; There are no innocent people!

Indonesia, for example, with the largest population of Muslims, is 3,000 miles distant to the Persian Gulf. The gratuitous reference to “Islam” is not accidental. There are those abroad in our land who want to see a war of religions, a war or clash of civilizations. I name Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell along with George W. Bush, among others, but not all for the same reasons.

Terrorism is a form of fighting or resistance, usually clandestine, and most often used by a politically excluded, weak and nearly helpless group against a much larger, better organized, better equipped group which usually enjoys the status of being “legal.” it is the weapon of last resort. I assure you - if any assurance is needed - that every Arab father and mother dreads the day their son will volunteer to become a suicide bomber to carry the struggle to the enemy. As for the $25,000 given to the families by Saddam or Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, it is an Arab custom and it is not a quid pro quo as the all too disingenuous (or ignorant) American leaders and major news media would have you believe.

Let us struggle against terrorism, but let us not declare war on Islam. Mohammad did not invent war, violence or terrorism. For that honor, try Joshua among others. Violence is a blight on humanity and unfortunately, too many Americans seem to be rather comfortable with it, as long as it is practiced elsewhere and on others. Shame!


[edit on 1/7/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   


posted by Flatwoods
The terrorists fighting in the Philippines have their own particular motives


Mostly religious. Catholic Philippines is trying to subdue the Muslims who are a majority on the large island of Mindanao where the resistance is taking place. Forced conversion to Christianity is the Philippines's goal. History. Mindanao converted to Islam in the 13th century. Spain took the Philippines in the 16th century and attempted unsuccessfully to subdue the Muslims until the US took the Philippines from Spain in 1898. Then the US Army fought the Mindanao Muslims - who wanted to be free of Manila - until 1908, when we gave up and cut and ran. The origin of the 1911 Army .45 pistol is ascribed to the Philippine Insurrection as we had labeled it. Note: In those olden days, anybody who rejected US rule was an insurrectionist! Similar to today’s terrorist.



The terrorists fighting in Pakistan . .


After the 1947 division of India and Pakistan, the 10% Europan educated Pakistanis have kept control of the 90% natives. As is frequently the case in Western people, religion is secondary to wealth. In Pakistan where poverty is the rule, religion is the major source of comfort. President Muschariff walks a tightrope, how to maintain control of the majority of Pakistani’s who find common cause with al Qaeda.



The terrorists fighting in Gaza . .


In 1948, Western people feeling great remorse over the Holocaust, agreed to allow surviving Zionists to take control of part of the British League of Nations Mandate known as Palestine. “Palestine” is supposed to be a Roman alliteration of the Latin word for Philistines. In European eyes Palestine was best suited for growing rocks, so how could the persons inhabiting the land really care if part of it was just taken away from them? And so began the confiscation of land from the Arabs and transferred to Jewish people, a group not all that high in Arab esteem before1948. This process goes on today. The United States for several reasons has either instigated, backed or allowed this land grabbing process to go on for 58 years. I fear we are nearing the time when we shall get our comeuppance. I attribute the Nine Eleven Event to this.



The terrorists fighting in Iraq . .


Gee? How many different groups in Iraq are practicing terrorism? From time to time the Coalition Forces are caught with blood on their hands. I am reluctant to say "innocent" blood for reasons mentioned elsewhere. We hear the Iraqi police are deeply infiltrated by persons we call terrorists. The Brits recently took over a Iraqi Police Detachment and fired all 4 brigade commanders. And a sizeable number of lower ranking officers. We know there are Shia militias who kill, murder and torture Iraqi Sunni for being Sunni. I guess the makes them terrorists. We know there are Sunni groups who kill, murder and torture Iraqi Shia for being Shia. I guess that makes them terrorists. There are foreigners in Iraq. One of them, a Jordanian named al Zarqawi, changed the name of his smallish group to “al Qaeda in Iraq” and now, every time this group of Jordanians is mentioned ill informed Americans see as confirmation that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were blood brothers. Feeding conspiracy promulgators.

Discrediting the truth. Oh, I’m personally positive al Zarqawi was murdered after the was captured last year, on orders out of the Oval Office. No more Saddam trials!


[edit on 1/7/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
In response to donwhite,

I'm not exactly sure what your point was, but I'm pretty sure you only managed to re-inforce the legitimacy of the term "Islamic Terrorism". Like I said, many peoples across the globe have embraced Islamic terrorism for a number of reasons. Even if you count Coalition military operations, 99% of the bombs detonated at any one time today are done by terrorists in the name of ISLAM.

*Note: I define terrorism as violence committed solely against un-armed civilians for political purposes.

Hence the popular lexicon: Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists ARE Muslims.

By the way, you missed the entire point of my argument. What I was trying to say is that not all Islamic terrorists are allied: rather they tend to fight for their own separate political purposes. This goes against the increasing popular view of terrorism that is now being projected by the political right in America - namely that Islamic terrorists all share the same goal of destroying Western democracy.

But then again, I wouldn't expect someone as politically closeted as yourself to be aware of this.



[edit on 7-1-2007 by Flatwoods]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   


posted by Flatwoods

In response “ . . many peoples have embraced Islamic terrorism for a number of reasons . . 99% of the bombs detonated at any one time are done by terrorists in the name of ISLAM. [Edited by Don W]



Wrong. I think juxtaposing “Islam” and “Terrorist” is misleading. I know the distinction but not everyone does. The religion of the terrorists is irrelevant to the issues we face in Iraq and Afghan.



Note: I define terrorism as violence committed solely against un-armed civilians for political purposes.



I can only repeat that labeling a person a “terrorist” in 2006 does not add to the conversation. It distinctly detracts from conveying information. For me, I recognize that “one man’s hero is another man’s terrorist” and vice versa. As somebody once asked, “What’s in a name?”



“ . . you missed the point of my argument. I was say that not all Islamic terrorists are allied: rather they tend to fight for their own separate political purposes. This goes against the popular view of terrorism that is being projected by the political right in America - namely that Islamic terrorists all share the same goal of destroying Western democracy.
[Edited Don W]



Those you referred to are terrorists but not because they are Muslims. In the cases you mentioned, each of them has legitimate complaints that it is not in the “interest “ of the US or other Western powers to acknowledge. That they employ terrorism is what I explained above, the weapon of last resort. When a B52 flies 4,000 miles at 40,000 feet, to drop 100 500 pound bombs on the unsuspecting Vietnamese below, there can be no greater act of terror than that. We’ve engaged in terror ever since we had the first war with the Native Americans, in 1623. Almost without interruption.

Heroism is what your men do to the enemy; terrorism is what your emery does to you.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
While, as I have argued at some length, the parallels to the Cold War are imperfect, the fractious nature of an enemy painted as monolithic by American politicians is fairly analogous, as is the false belief in a domino theory in each case (though I don't understand you to be arguing that particular aspect). The Vietnamese were far more nationalist than communist and had significant historical issues with the Chinese, just as a there are significant differences between the motives of the Taliban and Fatah. Communism proved a convenient front for many distinct movements, both nationalist and otherwise, just as "Islam" provides for terrorists.

I believe the key to the misunderstanding which DonW had with you (and which I initially was confused by also) was that you contrasted "Islamic Terrorism" with communism, meaning to imply factionism but in fact implying unity, since contrast with communism, which historically was anything but monolithic, naturally implies monolithic Islam, which is also inaccurate.

There is further confusion in the claim that "most terrorists are Muslims". That seems to be a statement in favor of unity, and is not entirely fair, in that it groups unlike movements which share few or no common goals in many cases just because they happen to call themselves a certain thing (but don't necessarily respect that label when adopted by other groups).

Most people with two arms are not terrorists, but most terrorists do have two arms (until Israel finds out where they live). People with two arms are not the problem though.


The war on drugs however does make a reasonably good analogy in some respects, but may not be as practical since the United States has failed to make any honest effort at fighting that particular war, and as such there are few positive inferences as to approach which can be drawn.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
It was never my intention to imply unity of purpose among Muslim terrorists. To the contrary, I was trying to counter the popular arguments made by conservatives today who DO IMPLY a common purpose among Muslim terrorists.

Lately I've heard them compare Islamic jihad to the buildup of Nazi milatarism just prior to WWII, implying that the situation is one and the same, and that America must "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here". I strongly disagree with that viewpoint, for the reasons I've cited in my prior postings.

That being said, I must argue that modern terrorism, in terms of hijackings and suicide bombings, is a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. Remember, suicide bombers don't just walk off the street. They are carefully chosen by their "handlers". These suicide bombers are then subjected to weeks, and sometimes months of intense Islamic doctrination in order to prepare them for their attack. To say that Islam plays no part is to deny widely published fact.

I also believe that it is wrong to equate a nation's military action with terrorism. The issue in this case is one of accountability; a military that fights on behalf of it's people is projecting the implied consent of that people, and must answer to them. Because of this, coalition forces go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, sometimes placing it's own soldiers at risk to do so. And please don't try and tell me this isn't the case - all one needs to do is ask any modern soldier or marine, and they'll tell you the same. There are occasions in which soldiers disobey the rules, and they face appropriate discipline as a result. An example of this is Haditha, in which U.S. Marines are now on trial, and may go to prison or face execution, for the murders of civilians in that town.

Terrorists, on the other hand, answer to no governmental authority whatsoever! When was the last time a Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al-Queda fighter was put on trial by his own peers for intentionally causing civilian casualties? It's never happened, as far as I know. This is because terrorists make absolutely NO distinction between civilian and military targets.

And one final point, the one that makes me angriest of all. When was the last time you saw schoolchildren in the West being taught to hate another race or nationality? That isn't allowed here. Hell, THAT ISN'T EVEN ALLOWED IN ISRAEL! Yet such an abomination can be easily found among the schools and madrassas in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and most other Middle Eastern countries. That pretty much says it all, in my opinion. Any people who would sanction such viewpoints being taught to children are, in my opinion, barbarians...pure and simple.





[edit on 8-1-2007 by Flatwoods]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   
In response to donwhite,

You stated the following:



In the cases you mentioned, each of them has legitimate complaints that it is not in the “interest “ of the US or other Western powers to acknowledge.



You and I are in agreement on this point. The pervasive ignorance among Westerners with regard to their own foreign policy is an ongoing problem. It is the very same point that Professor Ward Churchill has tried to illustrate(rather bluntly and untactfully, in my opinion).



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatwoods
It was never my intention to imply unity of purpose among Muslim terrorists.

That I understand. It seems however, given the contrast you made, that you see communism as monolithic, hence you rejection of parallels. My point was that this flaw created confusion and that it's hard to blame DonW for that.


I strongly disagree with that viewpoint, for the reasons I've cited in my prior postings.

We agree on this.


That being said, I must argue that modern terrorism, in terms of hijackings and suicide bombings, is a uniquely Muslim phenomenon.

I argue that it's a uniquely two-armed phenomenon then. Correlation does not imply causation.
I cannot help observing that the phenomenon is strongest in areas that were important to the Cold War, where both sides built 3rd party covert operations among the locals.
Any religion can be bent to these purposes. Look at the Irish Republican Army, the Lords Resistance Army, the Zionist militias before Israeli independence, Hindu Mahasabha, etc.

The the coinciding but unrelated root of the Muslim face of terrorism and the Cold War which fed it lies in the Caliphate.

Within 125 years of the Prophet Mohammed's time, everything from Pakistan to Morocco and also Spain had fallen under Islamic rule.

The whole character of the middle east is fairly well explained by the aftermath of this event. From the Med to Iraq, things went to went to hell in a handbasket because they spent so many centuries under Turkish rule, then a little more time under European rule, and thus we get the unprecedented states which exist today and seem incapable of holding themselves together except by the same mechanism which held them together under foreign occupation: force.
Iran and Turkey returned to home rule long ago and have emerged reasonably strong as Muslim nations go.
Then there's central Asia... the wild wild east.

These people were born into the crossroads of the whole world of whoopass and governments just never lasted around there. From Pakistan to Kazakhstan government changed with alarming regularity. Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Mongols, Russians, Brits, Indians, More Russians...
You get the picture.

Now what happens when you take an Islamic empire, break it up into pieces, and never leave it under one government for more than a couple of centuries at a time, then suddenly introduce home rule? You get a lot of Muslims fighting over who is in charge.

The very same thing happened to Africa, including non-Muslim areas South of the Sahara, when the Europeans left; we just don't pay attention to their wars.


To say that Islam plays no part is to deny widely published fact.

But is Islam the cause? I can use my arms to kill somebody but I didn't kill them because I have arms.


I also believe that it is wrong to equate a nation's military action with terrorism. The issue in this case is one of accountability; a military that fights on behalf of it's people is projecting the implied consent of that people, and must answer to them.

That concept was considered extremely radical less then 300 years ago, and strains credibility today. Most wars in history were not fought under democracy or accountability to the people, and while this has osstensibly changed, one need look no further than Iraq to test that theory.
War is an unavoidably statist exercise in that rather than difusing burdens for the good of every individual it concentrates them for the indirect benefit of some individuals via the good of the state.


Because of this, coalition forces go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, sometimes placing it's own soldiers at risk to do so.

Only direct casualties. Our government has been incredibly reckless about the use of smart munitions against civilian infrastructure, meaning that long after the war is over, civilians are killed as a consequence of the damage the war caused. It has been argued rather persuasively on numerous occasions that smart bombs have actually mainstreamed total war by making it less conspicuous.


And please don't try and tell me this isn't the case - all one needs to do is ask any modern soldier or marine,

eh hem. I think I might have something to say about that.


Terrorists, on the other hand, answer to no governmental authority whatsoever! When was the last time a Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al-Queda fighter was put on trial by his own peers for intentionally causing civilian casualties?

And yet Hamas is running a democratic government by the will of the people. They are absolved under your criteria. They aren't being tried because they had the implied consent of the people- the people don't want them tried.


And one final point, the one that makes me angriest of all. When was the last time you saw schoolchildren in the West being taught to hate another race or nationality?

You don't have a Television do you?
As for the last time I personally saw it... I saw it throughout my education (I'm class of 2001). Mexicans and Blacks had serious issues at the schools I came up in, and White students didn't always stay on the sidelines either.


That isn't allowed here. Hell, THAT ISN'T EVEN ALLOWED IN ISRAEL!

Makes you wonder where all of this hate is coming from, doesn't it? Allowed or not, somebody is obviously teaching our kids this stuff.




top topics



 
0

log in

join