No, but Danmand brings up a good point. "Bring 'em on", originally a thoughtless comment by Bush, even by his standards, was enthusiastically taken up by Tommy Franks as a direct challenge to the insurgents. As OTB says, careful what you wish for.red said:
The Truth On Iraq: It's Devastated
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
And now appearing as graffiti in baghdad, and from there to the world press front pages. In fact I was thinking about this line today before getting online...how it has come back to bite. The al-Qaeda camp is fully engaged in media warfare...a war of words and images...psychological warfare.Asterix said:No, but Danmand brings up a good point. "Bring 'em on", originally a thoughtless comment by Bush, even by his standards, was enthusiastically taken up by Tommy Franks as a direct challenge to the insurgents. As OTB says, careful what you wish for.
With Bush as spokesman for the counter effort...could they wish for more?
sure. but the original danmand comment was what I was referring to - and it was a misinterpretation of OTB's comment.Asterix said:No, but Danmand brings up a good point. "Bring 'em on", originally a thoughtless comment by Bush, even by his standards, was enthusiastically taken up by Tommy Franks as a direct challenge to the insurgents. As OTB says, careful what you wish for.
Actually, not. OTB wrote: "The violence that is standing between Iraqi citizens and a better life is not coming from the US. It is coming from people who want to keep, or grab power."red said:sure. but the original danmand comment was what I was referring to - and it was a misinterpretation of OTB's comment.
For OTB and you to put the responsibility for the fighting on the "insurgents", after the americans invaded and occupied their country, is cute, but not credible. I, for one, don't buy the argument.
Okay as no one is asking…I’ll pose the question: ‘What Now McDuff??�
“Terrorism� used to be a tactic. Now it has crystallized into as a political force under the label “Jihad�. Jihad for the first time has managed to engage a world power on a scale that requires reckoning with as a global force. No matter what country we live in, we are all faced with a dangerous terrorist cult attacking and killing civilians and leveraging this method into power attainment.
The world’s remaining superpower, (sorry I have to say it - led by a moron) has blundered by engaging ‘terrorism’ apparently square-on by invading and subsequently destroying a country that actually (it turns out) was a strategic secular opponent of the radical islamic terror-cult leadership. The blunder was compounded when the superpower made moves akin to pouring water on an oil fire, spreading it. In a country where religious extremism as a political force was previously severely dampened, the devastated country has overnight become a crucible for its growth.
Conditions have amalgamated where terrorism has armed, mixed, and multiplied by an unknown magnitude. No longer is it just a case of bombs going off every Autumn in a suburban Paris subway, Jihad is now global cult-phenomena. It is here to stay, and it is quickly shaping the world we live in to a new and different place. Worse, the world economy is *now* totally vulnerable to it and this is (should be) everybodies main concern.
So how do we move forward from here? I believe strongly that the superpower must not ‘dump’ Iraq into the hands of the Jihad. That would be ultra explosive, and tear Iraq to shreds. At the moment there seems no viable approach to the matter. Obviously a military solution will not work….although the superpower will be inclined to solve the problem that way.
If this microcosm of thought could be a legitimate think tank, we would be looking for answers.
“Terrorism� used to be a tactic. Now it has crystallized into as a political force under the label “Jihad�. Jihad for the first time has managed to engage a world power on a scale that requires reckoning with as a global force. No matter what country we live in, we are all faced with a dangerous terrorist cult attacking and killing civilians and leveraging this method into power attainment.
The world’s remaining superpower, (sorry I have to say it - led by a moron) has blundered by engaging ‘terrorism’ apparently square-on by invading and subsequently destroying a country that actually (it turns out) was a strategic secular opponent of the radical islamic terror-cult leadership. The blunder was compounded when the superpower made moves akin to pouring water on an oil fire, spreading it. In a country where religious extremism as a political force was previously severely dampened, the devastated country has overnight become a crucible for its growth.
Conditions have amalgamated where terrorism has armed, mixed, and multiplied by an unknown magnitude. No longer is it just a case of bombs going off every Autumn in a suburban Paris subway, Jihad is now global cult-phenomena. It is here to stay, and it is quickly shaping the world we live in to a new and different place. Worse, the world economy is *now* totally vulnerable to it and this is (should be) everybodies main concern.
So how do we move forward from here? I believe strongly that the superpower must not ‘dump’ Iraq into the hands of the Jihad. That would be ultra explosive, and tear Iraq to shreds. At the moment there seems no viable approach to the matter. Obviously a military solution will not work….although the superpower will be inclined to solve the problem that way.
If this microcosm of thought could be a legitimate think tank, we would be looking for answers.
ok_ but you said this in response to OTB:danmand said:Actually, not. OTB wrote: "The violence that is standing between Iraqi citizens and a better life is not coming from the US. It is coming from people who want to keep, or grab power."
For OTB and you to put the responsibility for the fighting on the "insurgents", after the americans invaded and occupied their country, is cute, but not credible. I, for one, don't buy the argument.
Originally posted by danmand
"Because everybody on this planet should recognize that the US knowns (guided by the God of the white people) what is best for them, and has the moral obligation to invade and occupy any territory it sees fit.
The US military is incapable of violence? "
not quite the equivalent of what OTB said- he never mentioned god, or US always knowing what is right, or anything about a moral obligation to do anything. Its ok to disagree with OTB- i have done it myself, but there is alot of misconstruing by everyone on this board, including myself- i was merely trying to correct you on this one point. with respect to your other point:
You may or may not agree with the insurgents that they had no choice but violence against the americans who are a threat to them. I disagree. Just as I disagree with the american decision to invade because they felt threatened by saddam. In both cases- the violence was unnecessary
bbking said:God of the White People - just a thought Danmand but please try not to be such a blatant idiot - If you're refering to the Christian religion - try to understand this:
There are more believers in Christianity that are non-white
Stop being a bigot.
bbk
You are being in a bit of a foul mood, lately, BB. Has your mommy been bugging you about rent for the basement again? Or is it the phone bill?
PS: I was not referring to christianity.
Nope, couldn't afford the pay cut - would be nice to not fly commercial though.Originally posted by red i don't think OTB is the chief of the american forces though I may be wrong
OTB
Mcluhan,
Be brave and answer your own question - what do YOU think we should DO now? If it makes you feel better feel free to bash Bush all you like but answer the question.
OTB
Be brave and answer your own question - what do YOU think we should DO now? If it makes you feel better feel free to bash Bush all you like but answer the question.
OTB
Swear on your scout's honor that you have read the last two articles I posted, and then email PM me the # of your fav SP and I will answer it. (note, she has to be a screamer lol...if not..we can negotiate the terms...)onthebottom said:Mcluhan,
Be brave and answer your own question - what do YOU think we should DO now? If it makes you feel better feel free to bash Bush all you like but answer the question.
OTB
You must be refering to the god of the secret cult of the albinos. How did you find out?danmand said:...
PS: I was not referring to christianity.
Would this be one of Rangers "no answers"? I don't care what an article says, I asked what you think.Originally posted by Mcluhan Swear on your scout's honor that you have read the last two articles I posted, and then email PM me the # of your fav SP and I will answer it. (note, she has to be a screamer lol...if not..we can negotiate the terms...)
OTB
We'll put you down as a no.Originally posted by danmand Actually, not. OTB wrote: "The violence that is standing between Iraqi citizens and a better life is not coming from the US. It is coming from people who want to keep, or grab power." For OTB and you to put the responsibility for the fighting on the "insurgents", after the americans invaded and occupied their country, is cute, but not credible. I, for one, don't buy the argument.
OTB
Considering the CIA has now called Iraq a magnet for international terrorist activity, you know this how?bbking said:At least with Sadaam gone the Iraqi people are closer to the end of the violence than if he had been allowed to stay in power.
bbk
No, I'm challenging the idea that Iraq automatically becomes better simply because Sadaam is gone. Sorry, but I don't believe that. The US could very possibly leave it in a worse mess than it was before.bbking said:Well if you make the government more stable - which means killing the terror cells dumb enough to jump in front of the US army. Being a magnet doesn't change a thing other than delay the departure of the US Army.
But your one of those who believe that the Iraq ruled by Sadaam would become a pleasant place to live, because how can you make the argument your making without believing that.
bbk
Fair enough, but I also think GWB has put everything on this election, and I've seen very little to encourage me that they are prepared for what might happen next. If this election goes badly, and I truly hope it does not, I don't know what realistic options the US has left.
Reminds me of Redford saying to Newman, before they jumped, "I CANT SWIM!", and Newman answers back, "Don't worry about that, the fall will kill ya!"bbking said:Don't you love it OTB when people like Danmand have little or no clue.
The fact remains that the Iraqi people faced violence from these Sunni hard heads. At least with Sadaam gone the Iraqi people are closer to the end of the violence than if he had been allowed to stay in power.
bbk
I love this "but Saddam is gone argument". Their country is destroyed, there is no end in site to the violence. The 'invasion' killed 100,000 of their CIVILIANS...it's likely to claim another 200,000 before its all over. The US militray is using cluster bombs on civilian populations, the Pentagon's now considering "the Salvador Solution'... but wait!...Saddam is Gone! Saddam Is Gone!
If only this damn country we invaded would get it! And stop shooting back! lol..it's comical to listen to..sorry..tragic is a better word.
...the bottom line is this, the thing most Iraquis overwhelming want is for the US to get the fark out of their country. The rest they will handle, and until that is done, that is what the Iraquis will focus on. Interesting Scenario, the Sunni's do not take part ,the Shia's win overhelmingly. Then the US annulls the election results. How do you think Shias would feel about that ?
Consider that right now it is basically still just the Sunni Triangle, approx 5 million people. If the US does not have the right answers after the election. The Shias will join the party.
Dont forget this thing could still really escalate quite easily.
Consider that right now it is basically still just the Sunni Triangle, approx 5 million people. If the US does not have the right answers after the election. The Shias will join the party.
Dont forget this thing could still really escalate quite easily.
My take on the Iraqi's wanting the US out, is that part of the population is scared shittless about what will happen when they do leave. Others, in their own words "want their country back." I think most are probably so sick of being starved, bombed, shot at, beaten, and of sleeping in their clothes at night, that they will prefer almost any type of government, to get some normalcy into their lives. Relatives of the roughly 110,000 civilians who died probably hate the US with a passion, that would be about 2 million. There's likely another 1,000,000 people who are up in arms just because there's a foreign army breaking down doors in their neighbourhood and hauling them off to jail where they are beaten, some raped, and some killed, etc. War is not pretty and no surprize, this one is just like most others down through time.
The country is a mess. The electricity infrastructure is barely working part time, the water supply to 7 million people is not working. People are paying 100 times the price of gasoline on the black market and being thrown in jail when they get caught buying. Entire cities are destroyed. The sabotage on the oil lines have stopped the flow northward, the boarders are not secured, outside terrorists are flooding into the country to train, fight and then leave again. US and British troops are essentially barricaded in against a resistance that they refer to as insurrection. The reconstruction is not occurring, major contractors have bailed because it’s just too bloody dangerous. The military cannot even secure the road to the airport in the capital city, never mind the rest of Baghdad’s 7,000,000 population.
Is normalcy just on the other side of the elections to be held in two weeks? Very doubtful. I would guess impossible.
The country is a mess. The electricity infrastructure is barely working part time, the water supply to 7 million people is not working. People are paying 100 times the price of gasoline on the black market and being thrown in jail when they get caught buying. Entire cities are destroyed. The sabotage on the oil lines have stopped the flow northward, the boarders are not secured, outside terrorists are flooding into the country to train, fight and then leave again. US and British troops are essentially barricaded in against a resistance that they refer to as insurrection. The reconstruction is not occurring, major contractors have bailed because it’s just too bloody dangerous. The military cannot even secure the road to the airport in the capital city, never mind the rest of Baghdad’s 7,000,000 population.
Is normalcy just on the other side of the elections to be held in two weeks? Very doubtful. I would guess impossible.
