Is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism ?

[mcelrah]

Our choices may well be a chaotic Iraq,?or a chaotic Iraq AND a broken Army.? Yup, based on his track record, if Bush says it, it's probably wrong.? I don't think there is a requirement for the opposition party to come up with an optimal way to clean up?the administration's mess.? As Colin Powell said:? "it's like pottery barn - you broke it, you own it".? Problem is, this isn't going to be a defeat like Vietnam, where we just go home and lick our wounds;? this will be like Vietnam, but with CONSEQUENCES.
The defeat will not be averted by "the power of positive thinking" or slogans about "victory".? Perhaps the Iraqis will surprise us and muddle through, but the history of the U.S. invasion and occupation and inevitable withdrawal?is a decidedly unfunny comedy of errors.? - Hugh

Flying Lobster <in_a_cloud@hotmail.com> wrote:

Marco Zee wrote:
Mike stated:

Reply:

Ok Mike, you are a realist...so what are you suggesting that we realistically do? What "something else" is it that "needs to be done"? Murtha and others want immediate withdrawal, McCain wants to increase the number of troops, Bush will probably decrease troop levels thru 2006....so what is your "next step" in this conflict?

Do you want zero troops (Murtha), more troops (McCain), or some form of gradual drawdown of troops (Bush)? I'm betting that you want some form of gradual withdrawal, just not Bush's gradual withdrawal. Or perhaps you are the one who will finally come up with the "better Victory Plan for Iraq" as others have failed to offer.

Marco
(end of quote)


I already submitted my better plan which you failed to acknoweldge or discuss. That removes that plate off the table, marco.

marcochickenhawkeoNeo-ConGanja-BushMan

[MikeBalk]

I like the "let's-get-out-before-we-screw-things-up-worse" option. It is
time to stop, as I have said. So Bush has finally agreed with others,
because Murtha and others are finally speaking up. Pulling people out of
Iraq. As Hugh mentioned, we have to pull people out, because we don't have
anyone to send back in. Our troops are the best in the world, but they are
volunteers, and won't stand to stay there forever. So they come home. We
are withdrawing. When Bush's critics say we should withdraw, they are
defeatists. What is it called when Bush brings the troops home?

You wanted specific plans. If I were king, I would have let the UN handle
Sadam. I agreed going into Afghanistan- definite link between 9/11 and
terrorists.

But as you say, what would you do now? Since Bush decided to go into Iraq,
I would have planned it better. But since that was messed up and that is
the situation you give me, I would have sent more troops immediately when
things started going downhill. But since that was messed up and that is the
situation you give me, I would have hired more Iraqis to help in the
reconstruction. But since that was messed up and that is the situation you
give me, I would bring troops home gradually but consistently. Bush has
made
'timetable' into a naughty word because it would give the insurgency
something to look forward to. But it would also give the Iraqi people
something to look forward to also, and there are more Iraqi civilians than
insurgents.

Reality is that we will have some presence in Iraq for many years to come.
Winning a war is defined by beating a population into submission. As far as
I know that was never our goal in Iraq, so there is no way to declare a
military victory.




-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 2:23 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism ?


Mike stated:

Reply:

Ok Mike, you are a realist...so what are you suggesting that we
realistically do? What "something else" is it that "needs to be done"?
Murtha and others want immediate withdrawal, McCain wants to increase the
number of troops, Bush will probably decrease troop levels thru 2006....so
what is your "next step" in this conflict?

Do you want zero troops (Murtha), more troops (McCain), or some form of
gradual drawdown of troops (Bush)? I'm betting that you want some form of
gradual withdrawal, just not Bush's gradual withdrawal. Or perhaps you are
the one who will finally come up with the "better Victory Plan for Iraq" as
others have failed to offer.

Marco

[Marco Zee]

Mike stated: << I would bring troops home gradually but consistently>>

Fair enough....glad to hear you are onboard for the Bush Plan, or some variant of it.

As for the defeatist question you raised, Dean, Murtha, and Pelosi have stated that we have already lost the war, or that we have no chance of winning the war, and the war was unjustified and based on lies anyways, and therefore base their withdrawal policy on how to escape Iraq immediately, or at least ASAP, regardless of what evils and consequences befall the Iraqi's. Even that snake Kerry ran out the next day and claimed that "we ALL want victory first" before withdrawing, completely contradicting the three mentioned earlier.

So, a few simple questions for everyone:

1) Have we been defeated in Iraq?

2) If not, are we in the process of being defeated?

3) If not, are we in the endless process of a no-win/no-lose quagmire without any options for winning or losing?

4) If not, are we in the process of winning the war and the peace?

I would argue that #4 is correct, and would base any future troop allocations on this premise.

But clearly, the goals and timetables posed by different persons derive mostly from their perspectives and personal perceptions of the war, as categorized by the above questions.

I look forward to hearing from whence you all perceive?

Marco

PS: Christy, I want to hear from you in particular even if you are a girl LOL

[Marco Zee]

For those who believe we are not fighting Al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq:

No. 2 al-Qaida Leader in Iraq Arrested
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer

32 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi forces have arrested the second most senior operative in al-Qaida in Iraq, and the group now suffers from a "serious leadership crisis," the national security adviser said Sunday.

Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, was arrested a few days ago, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said, adding that his arrest also led to the capture or death of 11 other top al-Qaida in Iraq figures and nine lower-level members.

He was the second most important al-Qaida in Iraq leader after Abu Ayyub al-Masri, al-Rubaie said. Al-Masri succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad on June 7.

[deveil]

trees vs. forest

[Marco Zee]

Glad to hear that you agree that Al-Qaida is operating in Iraq.

It is hard to believe that others cannot "accept" this reality.

[deveil]

Glad to hear that you agree that Al-Qaida is operating in Iraq.

It is hard to believe that others cannot "accept" this reality.

"others" -could you name me one, just one such person?!
seriously! one person who says/said "Al-Qaida is (NOT) operating in Iraq"
no weasel wording, no equivocating, no convoluted inferring.

(come on marc! i generally count on you to blast him on the blatant or esoteric bs. what'd you do? fall in love or something? you in jail? off ffighting in someone's army?) oh well.

[mcelrah]

See Slate article at link. IF you get past the title "Bush's latest stupid speech" there is an important fundamental point: Islamic terrorists do NOT, as Bush et al. assert, pose an existential and philosophical threat to the U.S. and the global system like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did. They are ankle-biters (yes, even if they set off a dirty bomb in downtown DC and kill 10,000 - we kill 45,000 every year in auto crashes) and their philosophy has no traction with the vast majority who WANT all the trappings of modernity - MTV, Big Macs, cars, casual clothes. If AQ et al. were an existential threat with the power of a modern nation-state, then Bush would have increased the size of the armed forces (re-introduced conscription), sold war bonds, raised taxes, instituted rationing - all things he has emphatically declined to do. The GWOT is being conducted on the cheap, with no/no disruption of Business (capitalized on purpose) as usual.

http://www.slate.com/id/2148742/

You may have to copy and paste to get it to work...

- Hugh

[deveil]

. Business (capitalized on purpose) as usual.
- Hugh

i would infer, therefore, that you won't (upon being retired) be moving to georgia or alabama in order to 'cash in' with the military-industrial-complex (Business (capitalized...)?
(jes stirrin the pot - don't mean nuthing by it )
[i believe it was pres/gen eisenhower(sp?) who coined that term?]

[mcelrah]

I am a card-carrying member of the military-industrial complex. Would love to really retire and go flying every day, but I have a kid to put through college. My point is just that for all the misplaced rhetoric about a "War on Terror", we are far from asking anyone outside the professional military to make any sacrifices in this war - except sacrifices of civil liberty protections!
Have you seen the new book on the Green Zone that's being excerpted in the Post? Turns out one reason we screwed up the occupation so bad was that the provisional authority was staffed with political hacks... - Hugh

[deveil]

I am a card-carrying member of the military-industrial complex. Would love to really retire and go flying every day, but I have a kid to put through college. My point is just that for all the misplaced rhetoric about a "War on Terror", we are far from asking anyone outside the professional military to make any sacrifices in this war - except sacrifices of civil liberty protections!
Have you seen the new book on the Green Zone that's being excerpted in the Post? Turns out one reason we screwed up the occupation so bad was that the provisional authority was staffed with political hacks... - Hugh

...and , oddly, we come full circle
( vis-a-vis marcaronyman).
just what Is the meaning of "is".

if a person is of some thing, Is the person that thing (!)

you are of the military, to be sure.
have you
(or do you conspire to)
become immorally, filthy rich
due to your exploitation of that fact?

(with brain yet abathe in caffeine, i'm gambling that that will make sense, to even me, a half hour from now.

[mcelrah]

I devoutly and shamelessly wish to become filthy rich, but it has not worked out that way. I remain an only moderately soiled wage slave. The scandal of the military industrial complex is not so much that people get rich off it (some do, but most just get upper middle class prosperity), but that it produces so many expensive flops. To my mind, it is a toss-up which is more wasteful: government or the franchise retail/entertainment/suburban sprawl/consumer programming machine...
- Hugh

[huddlec]

Marco is back. The stock market must be up. To change the subject, check out this http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 604092.ece
Looks like Bush is seeing the writing on the wall, at least on global climate change.
Christy

[deveil]

I devoutly and shamelessly wish to become filthy rich, but it has not worked out that way. I remain an only moderately soiled wage slave. The scandal of the military industrial complex is not so much that people get rich off it (some do, but most just get upper middle class prosperity), but that it produces so many expensive flops. To my mind, it is a toss-up which is more wasteful: government or the franchise retail/entertainment/suburban sprawl/consumer programming machine...
- Hugh

immorally, filthy rich
due to your exploitation of that fact?

i meant the two modifiers (immorally, 'filthy') to be read together, thus immoral-and-filthy-rich defining (and creating) a separate and unique subset, distinct from either 'filthy'-rich or immorally-rich.

damn! quit making me work so damn hard
still haven't consumed my requisite 2 gallons of coffee yet, and the cranium is starting to smoke like the bar on shawns chain saw ( )

[deveil]

I devoutly and shamelessly wish to become filthy rich, but it has not worked out that way. I remain an only moderately soiled wage slave. The scandal of the military industrial complex is not so much that people get rich off it (some do, but most just get upper middle class prosperity), but that it produces so many expensive flops. To my mind, it is a toss-up which is more wasteful: government or the franchise retail/entertainment/suburban sprawl/consumer programming machine...
- Hugh

immorally, filthy rich
due to your exploitation of that fact?

i meant the two modifiers (immorally, 'filthy') to be read together, thus immoral-and-filthy-rich defining (and creating) a separate and unique subset, distinct from either 'filthy'-rich or immorally-rich.

" so many expensive flops" can be argued (as i meant to imply or infer or slur or stumble towards) to be the result of the immoral thingy.

damn! quit making me work so damn hard
still haven't consumed my requisite 2 gallons of coffee yet, and the cranium is starting to smoke like the bar on shawns chain saw ( )

[deveil]

. Business (capitalized on purpose) as usual.
- Hugh

i would infer, therefore, that you won't (upon being retired) be moving to georgia or alabama in order to 'cash in' with the military-industrial-complex (Business (capitalized...)?
(jes stirrin the pot - don't mean nuthing by it )
[i believe it was pres/gen eisenhower(sp?) who coined that term?]

attempting a forestall-ation (you (I?) got me feeling defensive (you Know how Sensitive i am)) - and going back to solid ground, with what i know my intentions to have been:
i was playing on the capitalized business phrase and actually intending a mild compliment, in that my personal 'take', would to Not be inclined, to question or doubt your personal or proffessional ethics.
i'd assumed that perhaps that had 'come through' in prior postings.

and you Completely ignored all the effort and fun in the 'full circle' and 'Is' stuff! i thought That stuff was at least a Bit entertaining!

and NO, i'm not calling you a muther$#*%ing boyscout.
and No, i'm not saying that wealth is bad or
that all paths to wealth Have to be evil or immoral.

and just because, immediately after making the last post, a helicopter flew over the house and our power went out, doesn't mean i'm Always paranoid.

damn, what a tough audience.

[mcelrah]

I'm thinking multiple five-figure-a-night callgirls and champagne bubblebaths. Immoral and filthy! - Hugh
P.S. Keep buying those lottery tix - I would love to go to my high school and college reunions to reveal that I had gotten stinkin' rich through pure dumb luck!

[deveil]

stinkin' rich through pure dumb luck!

or by virtue of having been born with the proverbial silver spoon
(or, as in shrubs case, a silver foot (as put forth by anne richards was it?) in ones mouth?

[Flying Lobster]

I guess its time I make a statement so that we can all be entertained by more insipid political head-in-the-sand dogma.

Only a complete total fool could possily believe that there is a stick of dynamite's chance in hell that democracy is evolving in any positive way in a country where sectarian violence takes a 100 lives a day in the form of brutal killings featuring barbaric mutilations and decapitations. This is sheer, utter stupidity.

This administration is so far over its head in understanding the global complexities of this new age of country-less enemies that it is doubtful it could mediate conflicts at recess of a kindergarten school.

The wonder of it all is that the Dems continue to let the RePubes cast them in the roll of "cut-and-run." This is possible only because the Repubes know they can exploit the general public's willingness to believe their deceptive soundbites which are wrapped in meaningless wrapping called "domestic security."

There is an even more sinister, ironic aspect to all this.

Eventually, the years of deception and flawed policy will come home to roost and the voters will exact revenge at the polls on the Repubes.

There is no doubt that there are evil people around the world who would love nothing more than to kill as many innocent Americans--maybe westerns, at this point--as they possibly can. There is also little doubt that our military must be relied upon to help safeguard our freedoms and protect our security.

This war in Iraq has once again created a huge gulf of mistrust between America's people and its government. It has also severely eroded the military's readiness and capability to confront a major conflict anywhere with combat-ready hardware and soldiers. Recruitment and retention is down. The ultimate cost and its long-term effects are incalcuable at this point.

At this point, the only possible solution in Iraq is to cede the southern portion to the Shia (Iran) and establish independent states in the north for Kurds and Sunnis. Just like in Vietnam--how many more thousands of people must loose their lives before the administration can bite it's pride and admit--at least to itself--it made a mistake?

The government in Iran and the fundamental ayatollahs behind it are the real threat in the region. It is doubtful that we can confront it if necessary--and they know it. The ironic part is when the pendulum of public opinion finally swings against the administration--will we be ready and willing to respond appropriately when the next real crisis confronts us?

marc

[Flying Lobster]

Mike stated: <<I>>

Fair enough....glad to hear you are onboard for the Bush Plan, or some variant of it.

As for the defeatist question you raised, Dean, Murtha, and Pelosi have stated that we have already lost the war, or that we have no chance of winning the war, and the war was unjustified and based on lies anyways, and therefore base their withdrawal policy on how to escape Iraq immediately, or at least ASAP, regardless of what evils and consequences befall the Iraqi's. Even that snake Kerry ran out the next day and claimed that "we ALL want victory first" before withdrawing, completely contradicting the three mentioned earlier.

So, a few simple questions for everyone:

1) Have we been defeated in Iraq?

2) If not, are we in the process of being defeated?

3) If not, are we in the endless process of a no-win/no-lose quagmire without any options for winning or losing?

4) If not, are we in the process of winning the war and the peace?

I would argue that #4 is correct, and would base any future troop allocations on this premise.

But clearly, the goals and timetables posed by different persons derive mostly from their perspectives and personal perceptions of the war, as categorized by the above questions.

I look forward to hearing from whence you all perceive?

Marco

PS: Christy, I want to hear from you in particular even if you are a girl LOL

The lives lost and money squandred on not merely personal perceptions, as you so flippantly trivialize.

marc

[deveil]

This administration is so far over its head in understanding the global complexities of this new age of country-less enemies that it is doubtful it could mediate conflicts at recess of a kindergarten school.

The wonder of it all is that the Dems continue to let the RePubes cast them in the roll of "cut-and-run."
marc

it may have been noticed that good ole boy bill 'bj' clinton has popped up on the air waves a lot lately.
is it just my biased ears, or is the boy sounding pretty damn sane?

i mean, i even saw bill oreilley(sp?) state that his (bj's) had been a successful presidency!
and that even though he (oreally) liked rumsffield, rumsfield would have to be viewed as a failure!

[deveil]

h-e-e-r-e kitty, kitty.
Whoops! wrong topic line ( )

[Marco Zee]

Marc stated: "I guess its time I make a statement so that we can all be entertained by more insipid political head-in-the-sand dogma. "

Marc, keep posting, we are always thoroughly entertained by your "more insipid political head-in-the-sand dogma".

[Marco Zee]

Here's a repost from 12/05....seems kinda appropriate considering the debates in the House today. Hugh contended back in 12/05 that we were already defeated...I guess its taking a LONG TIME to admit we were defeated back in '05.

Marco

Mike stated: <<I>>

Fair enough....glad to hear you are onboard for the Bush Plan, or some variant of it.

As for the defeatist question you raised, Dean, Murtha, and Pelosi have stated that we have already lost the war, or that we have no chance of winning the war, and the war was unjustified and based on lies anyways, and therefore base their withdrawal policy on how to escape Iraq immediately, or at least ASAP, regardless of what evils and consequences befall the Iraqi's. Even that snake Kerry ran out the next day and claimed that "we ALL want victory first" before withdrawing, completely contradicting the three mentioned earlier.

So, a few simple questions for everyone:

1) Have we been defeated in Iraq?

2) If not, are we in the process of being defeated?

3) If not, are we in the endless process of a no-win/no-lose quagmire without any options for winning or losing?

4) If not, are we in the process of winning the war and the peace?

I would argue that #4 is correct, and would base any future troop allocations on this premise.

But clearly, the goals and timetables posed by different persons derive mostly from their perspectives and personal perceptions of the war, as categorized by the above questions.

I look forward to hearing from whence you all perceive?

Marco

PS: Christy, I want to hear from you in particular even if you are a girl LOL

[deveil]

[quote="Marco Zee"]Here's a repost from 12/05....seems kinda appropriate considering the debates in the House today. Hugh contended back in 12/05 that we were already defeated...I guess its taking a LONG TIME to admit we were defeated back in '05.

Marco

[quote="Marco Zee"]

best tread lightly, i recently discoverd a trove of old posts on my computer.