Hi Jay! > > If we were doing the same things in Iraq that we did in Vietnam (which > you > > obviously think is an appropriate analogy), you'd be right. However, we > > are not doing the same things. > > I'll direct you to the writing of David Hackworth on that one. > > Oh, and William Lind over on Lew Rockwell
10-14 years in Vietnam (depending on how you count). How many elections? Less than 2 years in Iraq before we hold national elections--and there have been all kinds of local elections already. Compared to that, everything else is small potatoes. > > I know you want a number. But a number isn' t appropriate, here. > > Progress or lack thereof is the determining factor. Progress toward > > self-determination and self-government is what makes the difference. > > Should FDR have thrown in the towel after 5,000 casualties? 10,000? > That > > wouldn't have gotten him past Pearl Harbor, Bataan and Corregidor! > > > Saddam was an Iraqi problem, not an American one. Toppling him is worth 0 > American lives. > > WWII is not a good Analogy either - if anything it's worse than Viet Nam - > Japan Attacked the US (Arguably after provocation from and with > foreknowledge by FDR) > > Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It had no WMDs and no weapons systems > that could attack the United States. And what did Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco have to do with Pearl Harbor? FDR shortchanged our forces in the Pacific, in Guadalcanal and New Guinea to carry out attacks on people who had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl and didn't even offer the kinds of support to the Japanese that Saddam offered to Al Qaeda. > If he was such a threat why didn't Iran and Saudi Arabia join the attack? > Why were Turks 98% against the war? Plenty of reasons--that could have nothing to do with the level of threat he represented. > > They hated Saddam but apparently they saw no threat from the guy. The > Kurds > hated him and saw a threat but Saddam's use of Chemical weapons against > these people raised at best lukewarm words and no actions from the U.S. > and > Tacit approval from the Turks. Hmm. Different President said nothing. So what? > There was no relationship between Saddam and Osama no matter how many > times > the pop-conservatives repeat it (That's the Big Lie as seen on the History > Channel) Actually, that's "the Big Lie." No evidence exists that Saddam was aware that Al Qaeda was planning anything like 9/11. But plenty of evidence exists of a "relationship" between them. Far more of a "relationship" than Germany and Japan ever had. > Osama actually petitioned the Saudi Arabian Government to be allowed to > lead > a campaign against Saddam in 1990. So? He's not capable of changing his mind? Somehow that negates all the evidence that there were meetings between his people and Saddam and between Saddam's people and him? > 9/11 wasn't about Iraq and Iraq was not involved. So attacking Iraq in > 2003 > using 9/11 as an excuse makes no sense. It's the Chewbacca defense. It > just makes no sense. The rationale for Iraq wasn't revenge for 9/11, it was to prevent a repeat. > > If you think the January 30 elections in Iraq are going to be a sham, > did > > you also think the same of the Afghan elections before they were held? > > I *don't care*. Afghanistan Democracy or lack thereof is an Afghanistan > question, not worth a single American life. It is worth quite a few American lives if Afghanistan Democracy prevents further attacks on American civilians. > Al Qaeda and fanatical Fundamentalist Muslim terror groups are who > attacked > us. Killing them is what our military should be doing. It is. And it's getting Afghanis and Iraqis to do some of the killing, too. > Installing puppet governments got us into this mess. I doubt installing > Puppet governments is going to get us out. That's why the elections are so important. > So I suppose based on that statement no, I don't have a lot of faith in > the > Afghanistan Elections. Nor the Jan 30 Iraqi ones. Oh, give 'em a decade or so--they'll hate us the way the French and Germans do and elect politicians to match. And it will be victory. :-) > This shows that > > more and more Sunnis are deciding that their best bet for achieving > their > > goals will lie in the political not military realm. > > I hope you're right about that. I can't help but think learning the names > of some of these folks and actually talking with them before the invasion > might have been a little smarter. > > And here's something to consider for you - November was the bloodiest > month > in quite some time with more attacks and more American Casualties - no > "Insurgent" or guerilla army can operate for long with out the support of > the native population. Actually November picked up because we went after them. It was also probably the bloodiest month (by far!) for the insurgents. > If Guerilla and "Insurgent" activity is picking up then thats evidence > right > there that they are getting more support from everyday Iraqis So, why are they blowing that support by attacking everyday Iraqis? > >>IMHO Their democracy or lack thereof isn't our problem and isn't worth > >>spending American lives on. > > > > When their society can generate young men who want to fly airplanes into > > our buildings, it becomes our problem. > > Then why aren't we Bombing Saudi Arabia? The Hijackers were mostly Saudis! Who trained in Iraq and Afghanistan. > > Actually, the evidence points to greater foreign involvement and > > resources. > > Again, there's no way they could operate without support from the Iraqi > people. A true statement if you insert "some of" before "the Iraqi people." Mao Tse Dung figured 5% participation by the people was necessary for guerillas to operate. > > Can I take this as a prediction? Jay P. Hailey has predicted that Iraq > > will split up into three separate states without a central government as > > soon as the American forces leave? > > Sure. Yeah. I'll go for that. That or a failed state Cool! I'll have to keep this email around. > > I'm sure they've also noticed who is sending in all he car bombs, etc. > > that have killed far more civilians. > > You sound really certain about that. How can we get any good information > about how Iraqis are thinking? Oh, I expect we will on about January 31. :-) > Anything that support my POV that they hate us, you'll write off as Biased > Liberal propaganda > > Anything that supports your POV that the Iraq war is working I might well > write off as Conservative Denial. > > Where can we find some information that doesn't have an agenda behind it? > > I am not sure it's out there. I am not sure ANYONE WANTS agenda free > information. Was the Afghanistan election close enough to "agenda free information" on the will of the people there? > > Oh, the troops keep finding them. Found some more in Fallujah last > week. > > (Of course, I defy anyone to point me to a speech or major public > > pronouncement made before the war where the administration claimed that > > Iraq HAD WMDs. > > Oh, easy. OK. I'll concede that the administration claimed that Saddam had Chem and Bio. But, on the other hand, they've found Chem weapons. So, especially given the opportunity that Saddam had for getting rid of stuff at the last moment or shipping it to Syria, I'd say the administration comes out about right. > I'd advise you to take everything Rush Limbaugh and his fleet of > Pop-Conservative clone mouth pieces say with a grain of salt. They lie > like > rugs. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter even (Sadly) G. Gordon Liddy > > They lie and have no, none, nada, zip nothing in the way of principles. Said by the man who seems to drink from Michael Moore's pot of kool aide. > > The claim was always that Iraq had WMD programs and materiels which had > > not been sufficiently accounted for and destroyed.) > > Yeah but The inspectors, including Scott Ritter, a US Marine and Long term > inspector said they weren't there, something he maintains to this day. Which explains why the inspectors were kicked out in '98 and when they went back in in '03 got less and less cooperation as it became obvious that France was going to veto Security Council action no matter what. > The CIA was also uncertain. Sure. Even before the war the argument was between those who said that we were supposed to essentially convict Saddam beyond a reasonable doubt (like in a court of law) and those who said he'd signed an agreement that said he'd get inspected to prove he'd complied by destroying everything--thus the burden of proof was on him. First group lost the argument. Now they want to resurrect it and pretend that was the argument all along. > > As for the terrorist ties, from Ansar al Islam causing trouble for the > > Kurds in the north to Abu Nidal, and al Zarqawi in Baghdad, to $25,000 > > payments to the families of Palestinian "suicide bombers" in the West > Bank > > and Gaza, these, and more, were all documented before the war, and were > > confirmed after. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam > > Seems it was confirmed in a negative sense Um. The page you referred to has the "alleged" leader of Ansar al-Islam, who had lived in Norway for 13 years, "rejecting" the claims made by US and saying that Colin Powell's presentation "was met with widespread skepticism". This constitutes "confirmed in a negative sense?" And isn't wikipedia the thing where anyone can post and replace an earlier entry? So maybe I'm looking at the same thing you are and maybe not (and that could be true even if you look back later and see the same thing as before.) > > > Does he did for more information or different points of view? No > > > he systematically eliminates everyone who sends him bad news. > > You don't know that. You are simply parroting the liberal press line. > Do > > you really think that Condoleeza Rice (who supposedly tutored him on > > foreign policy during the 2000 campaign) is suddenly going to turn into > a > > mushy "yes-woman?" C'mon, you really believe that? > > Hell, Yes. She's the one who backed a way bthat has killed 1200 americans > with a mystical mushroom cloud that wasn't coming. I see. So she favored the war which means she won't give him bad news. > So to call her a Yes Woman to Bush may not be appropriate but she toes the > Neo-Con line pretty well and never seems to tell them no. In other words, she doesn't run to the press every time she brings bad news to the President so you think it doesn't happen. > > It's one thing to get rid of people who are giving you contrary points > of > > view. It's another to get rid of people who have given you consistently > > bad advice > > "You break it, You Bought It" was bad advice? As if? In the post to which you were responding, I gave several examples of bad advice. Actually, if you think "You break it, you bought it" is good advice and you also think that American policies of supporting dictators in the Middle East caused the problems we have coming from there, then the logical conclusion would be that the US needs to go in and clean up the WHOLE mess. That would be every country from Iran to Tunisia with the possible exception of Turkey and Israel. But I say both premises are bogus. > > and who are consistently leaking things to the press in a way that > damages > > your agenda. > > If that agenda is stupid and leads to unwarranted death and enhances the > power of our enemies.... Then the opposition party can take care of pointing out the folly of the actions and the people can un-elect the guy in charge. [I was speaking of the need for a State Dept. shakeup and concluded with:] > > I'm hoping that Dr. Rice will do the honors. > > Yeah, but Rumsfeld also had a habit of not listening to experience people. > General Anthony Zinni for example, or even Collin Powell who were advising > that the war in Iraq would be longer, bloodier and more difficult than his > optimistic projections. Yes and similar "experienced people" told him the Afghanistan campaign wouldn't work. And I already detailed "Saint Colin's" contributions to the lack of troops in Iraq. > >>Iraq is a disaster for the United States. The idea of benevolent > hegemony > >>is the most egregious and vile miscarriage of American policy ever. > > > > 911 was a disaster. Iraq is on its way to being a victory--costly, > messy, > > yes. But a victory, non-the-less. > > Above you accused me of parroting the Liberal media > > Well here it sounds to me just exactly like you're parroting Whitehouse > Talking points and Pop-Conservative drivel. Hmm. 3000 people dead (we were lucky it wasn't 50,000) with no countervailing accomplishment. That is a disaster. 1200 dead to kill a whole lot of terrorists and free 50 million people. That is a victory. And that's merely a "talking point"?? Seems to merely be a bit of context. > >>American needs to worry about being free inside our own borders. Not > >>about > >>this "National Greatness" fascism. > > > > You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Jay! The fascists and Nazis > invaded > > countries so they could loot them and run them. The US invaded to > > establish democracy where none existed before and has sacrificed blood > and > > treasure to do so. You're smart enough to know the difference. > > I am Ashamed of my country for invading other countries and lying about > why > they're doing it. > > And you ought to be ashamed for falling for the lies. Oh. So what's the truth? Blood for oil? (Already taken, that was the UN's gig.) > > So, are you now making another prediction? That there will NOT be an > > election in Iraq? That Bush was just talking about elections there to > be > > able to get re-elected himself? > > > I am making a prediction - The pro-Amewrican Candidate will win the > election and this will be followed by more violence and chaos. Basically > it > will be more of the same while the U.S. tries to prop up a ruler the > Iraqis > don't want and don't trust (See the Diem regime in Viet Nam) See elections in Viet Nam. Oh wait. There weren't any. > Or - > > an Anti-American Candidate will win the election. Following which the > U.S. > government will sadly announce that the election was too tainted and > corrupted by terrorists and corruption and the result must be discarded > until "order and safety are more assured". > > There's only about eight weeks and we'll see what happens. Actually, my understanding is that the elections are for people who will be writing the new Iraq Constitution. Is there also some kind of an election for the guys to run the country? Alright, I'll make a counter-prediction. Violence continues through the election although violence sufficient to disrupt voting gets confined to a smaller area than is affected right now. After the election, violence will continue at close to the level it was at right before the election and gradually be reduced. About mid-year it will be relatively quiet with occasional spurts of violence--perhaps slightly more disruption to Iraqi society than the Bader-Meinhof gang wrought in the 1970s in Germany. It will continue to drop as more Iraqi police and NG come online and as US troops withdraw to more of a supporting role. After a bunch of last-minute deals, a constitution gets hammered together and the Iraqi people vote for it by a narrow margin. They then elect new leaders to form a government under that constitution. At least 30% probability: Syria and Iran fold and do a Gaddhafi--turning everything over to either the US or the IAEA. The CIA is "totally surprised" by the extent of the weapons programs. Probably Syria first. Then, Iran will notice that North Korea is looking pretty shaky and decide it doesn't want to be the only enemy the US has. Democrats and Libertarians start worrying about a constitutional amendment repealing term limits. Another 30% probability: The people of Iran manage to depose the mullahs and set up their government under their existing constitution (without the mullahs having Supreme Court-like power) and elect a leadership which shuts down the WMD program. Syria folds (as above) since it realizes that the US doesn't need to worry about Iran. Ds and Ls worry about term limits. Otherwise, the US conducts extended raids into Iran destroying most of its military capability and most of its WMD capability. Then leaves it for the people of Iran to sort out. At which point Syria folds, knowing it is next. D's and L's continue and expand anti-war antics setting up for 62 Republican Senators after 2006. (Ok, sorry, I probably didn't need to include the gratuitous gloating. :-) Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
