Re-Thinking Military Strategy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]hedo wrote:
OK Genius…Are you saying he didn’t mean a “Global Test” when he said “Global Test”.[/quote]

Of course he meant “global test” when he said “global test,” but global test as to what?

It was the Bush camp who lied and said he wanted a global test before going to war. That’s not what Kerry said. Here’s the quote:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

This was just another attempt from the Bush camp to mischaracterize what he said.

In case reading comprehension is an issue, he said the “global test” is whether your citizens and the world understand what you did (yes, “did”, past tense, as in - already happened) and why you did it.

If you actually read the quote or watched the debate instead of getting all of Kerry’s positions from the Bush camp then you’d understand this in about two seconds.

122

Here’s a link to that debate’s transcript if you want to read for yourselves: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

123

ProX,

“I would think that would take priority over whether some guy in baseball took anabolics. Let’s see…War…Baseball. Ah, I can see how they are equally balanced. Yes, I will point that out and it isn’t illogical to do so.”

So would I. And so would Bush. And so would Congress. And so we all do.

Simply embarrassing. I can explain it to you, but I can’t make you get it. The question between steroid regulation and soldiers’ welfare is not an either-or question. It is not a trade off. There is no dilemma of having to decide one or the other.

Moreover, no one anywhere has suggested that steroid regulation has a higher priority than the war in Iraq. It’s not even inferable. There is no evidence that Bush or Congress thinks MLB steroid testing is more important than supplying the military with what they need.

In sum, to suggest that steroid regulation is a bigger priority than the war in Iraq is unsubstantiated and flatly stupid.

“Ok, mistaken intel does not mean the same as false intel. Yes, I can see the large difference there. thank you for pointing that out to me before I let that huge mistake slip by.”

Your dull sarcasm aside, there is a huge difference. The difference is between bad faith and good faith. I believe Bush acted in good faith on mistaken information, you think Bush acted in bad faith by using information he knew to be false.

“Are you truly saying that had the WTC tragedy not occurred that we would have invaded at the exact same time that we did?”

Of course not, ProX - keep up. 9/11 had everything to do with when and why we invaded Iraq. After 9/11, we don’t have the luxury of being complacent any longer. We recongized our vulnerability. Everything - including our perception of external threats and what to do about them - changed.

“Please enlighten me with how we were about to go to war before the 9/11 and let me know about the plans that were in place on 9/10 to hit Saddam.”

We weren’t - your naivete of how the US and the West generally was transformed by the attacks of 9/11 is staggering. Policies change in accordance with developing realities. Surely you must know this. The old policy - appease, ignore, and send them a check - created a 9/11 disaster. We had to learn the hard way. And hopefully we have.

Of course, many tin-foil hatted Bush critics swear that we were ready to march troops into Baghdad the moment Bush took office. Truth is, Iraq had been a big priority for a long time, certainly through the end of Clinton’s second term. I do think Bush was considering ending the charade of never-ending no-fly zone enforcement while the UN fiddled. But make no mistake: 9/11 is certainly the engine behind toppling Saddam, no question. Just not for the speculative reasons you posit.

124

Skyring,

“If you actually read the quote or watched the debate instead of getting all of Kerry’s positions from the Bush camp then you’d understand this in about two seconds.”

I saw the debates and read the transcript and believed when Kerry said ‘global test’, he meant ‘global test’, ie. multilateral approval.

Question: you think Kerry would give the same tortured answer you gave for his ‘global test’ phrase if he was sitting in front of European leaders at a summit?

Me neither.

Kerry wanted it both ways - he would always talk about more multilateralism, and then, even when it was completely out of context, he would drop a canned ‘I’ll never cede America’s defense to anyone else…’ etc.

In the end, he couldn’t have it both ways, and I think that’s why he is on the outside looking in.

125

[quote]Jeffy wrote:

the George W. Bush Monument to World Democracy[/quote]

HAHAHAHA

That’s the funniest shit I’ve read in a long, long time.

126

Skyring

You can insult my intelligence all you want but I am sure you would fail to measure up in any way you could possible imagine. That being said. He said what he said. Your interpetation lacks merit. As it did for Senator Kerry.

So unlike many of your peers let’s try and argue the facts. It is a classic liberal technique that after you are bested in debate ,that you then attack your opponent. It’s failed in the last two elections and in countless other races. Give it a rest.

Insulting a stranger you have never met speaks more of your character and intelligence, or lack thereof, then mine. (How’s that for grammar…did they go over complex grammar in Comp I yet?)

Have you followed Kerry’s record. Do you know what he stands for?
Do you think for one minute he is not an internationalist ,in word and spirit. Have you seen him speak before he was running for president? Do you know what his positions were? Kerry would have made sure the military was never used unless approved by the UN. God forbid if an ally objected. He would have made Clinton seem like he had a pair.

I am sure when I was in third grade you weren’t even an afterthought. Your writing speaks of arrogance and contempt. Like a student that thinks merely reading a textbook makes him wordly and knowledgable. It doesn’t.
Your apologist, Mr. Kerry, made some of the biggest mistakes of his career during the debates. He actually told people what he believed, before he corrected himself, it turned enough people to their senses for him to be defeated. Thankfully.

My God it’s like arguing the meaning of the word “is” with Billy Boy. You guys will never get it.

127

[quote]hedo wrote:
Insulting a stranger you have never met speaks more of your character and intelligence, or lack thereof, then mine. (How’s that for grammar…did they go over complex grammar in Comp I yet?)[/quote]

Actually, you should have used ‘than’ but I never questioned your grammar as you seem to imply.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Have you followed Kerry’s record. Do you know what he stands for?
Do you think for one minute he is not an internationalist ,in word and spirit. Have you seen him speak before he was running for president? Do you know what his positions were? Kerry would have made sure the military was never used unless approved by the UN. God forbid if an ally objected. He would have made Clinton seem like he had a pair.[/quote]

That still does not alter the meaning of the quote in question.

[quote]hedo wrote:
I am sure when I was in third grade you weren’t even an afterthought. Your writing speaks of arrogance and contempt. Like a student that thinks merely reading a textbook makes him wordly and knowledgable. It doesn’t.
Your apologist, Mr. Kerry, made some of the biggest mistakes of his career during the debates. He actually told people what he believed, before he corrected himself, it turned enough people to their senses for him to be defeated. Thankfully.[/quote]

If I was arrogant then I sincerely apologize. That was not my intent. However, it still does not give you the right to attack me. So please don’t.

After watching the debates I noticed something. The only people who thought Kerry meant “a global test for sending troops” from the comment he made were people who did not watch the debates, or those right-wingers who only listen to their own side.

Did I say I was a Kerry supporter? Did I say I was a Bush supporter? I never claimed to be either. I was only trying to point out an inaccuracy.

128

Thunder,

and

I presume you realize that there are other interpretations of these situations even without dipping into the party politics pot?

For example, it’s pretty easy to imagine that a good whomping in Afghanistan, tigher border controls, the patriot act, the creation of a homeland security department and extra billions for the CIA and FBI might have done the job. Especially given cooperation in Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries.

I mean, spending the billions used to finance the war on security measures and intelligence very possibly would also have resulted in zero attacks since 9/11 also.

All I’m saying, without party politics, is that it may not have been necessary to invade Iraq to protect the US. Heck, looked at one way, the number of casualties in Iraq is represents a very large human loss due to terrorism.

I know a lot of people believe it is a good and just cause, I’m not trying to say it isn’t. Just realize that the cost in lives might have been avoidable without serious risk of another strike in a post Afghanistan world. After 9/11 the Bush administration wasn’t in the mood to find out – I’ll leave it to other people to politicize this.

Something I would like to say, is stop trying to equate not liking the idea of invading Iraq with appeasement. Especially for those that favored Afghanistan, it simply isn’t so. It is not a fair characterization and it is used a lot.

129

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Simply embarrassing. I can explain it to you, but I can’t make you get it. The question between steroid regulation and soldiers’ welfare is not an either-or question. It is not a trade off. There is no dilemma of having to decide one or the other.[/quote]

Contrary to how retarded you seem to think I am, I have never written that this was an either or situation. In my opinion, that is just one more example of ridiculous “causes” this current administration seems to go after with full force instead of dealing with problems that are actually REAL problems concerning the wellfare of the American people. If troops don’t have the armor they need…and please, you would have to be in the dark to not have known this for a while considering it was reported many claimed that they were sent bullet proof vests as gifts LAST Christmas because they didn’t have what they needed…why is it even an issue? Why is it that as soon as this info hit the ears of anyone in power that troops were not IMMEDIATELY provided with what they needed? No one here seems to be stupid enough to think that everything is an either or situation. The problem is the lame issues that this administration tackles at the expense of those that would seem to cry out for more needed attention.

How are you going to tell me what I think? I believe that Bush acted hastily on the information he had. I don’t think it was a move in bad faith, simply one that he wasn’t willing to wait around and even attempt to check out to see if it was absolutely true or not. IT WAS NOT TRUE. Unlike you, I will not gloss over that error because lives were at stake. That doesn’t mean that I think Saddam should remain in power. It doesn’t mean that I don’t consider the safety of America to be a great concern. It means I understand a rush to judgement when I see one and you clearly don’t.

[quote]

The old policy - appease, ignore, and send them a check - created a 9/11 disaster. We had to learn the hard way. And hopefully we have.[/quote]

You honestly think that 9/11 occurred because we appeased the desires of other countries? Your logic is that 9/11 would not have occurred if Saddam had not been in power? That line of thinking completely skips over that MISTAKEN Intel that you mentioned earlier. We were attacked because America is hated by many religious nuts from that area of the world…who are now branched out to all areas of the globe. This war has not gotten rid of Terrorism. I hate to burst any glass housed dreamed filled bubbles you may have, but all we have done is sent this “cause” underground even further. This war ONLY has merit if looked at from the vantage point that Saddam was a madman who needed to be removed. It does not have merit as a terrorist terminator.

[quote]
Of course, many tin-foil hatted Bush critics swear that we were ready to march troops into Baghdad the moment Bush took office. Truth is, Iraq had been a big priority for a long time, certainly through the end of Clinton’s second term. I do think Bush was considering ending the charade of never-ending no-fly zone enforcement while the UN fiddled. But make no mistake: 9/11 is certainly the engine behind toppling Saddam, no question. Just not for the speculative reasons you posit. [/quote]

Just one question, what is the tin-foil nonsense you keep mentioning? Did you pull this from some right-wing early morning radio station? It would help if you actually used insults that made sense. I am sure many would disagree with Iraq being that large of a priority that it warranted not rechecking and confirming intel, going against the UN (with bad intel, mind you…it wouldn’t have been a bad thing had the intel been correct), and creating the connection in the minds of Americans that this war equalled the destruction of terrorism.

130

Vroom -

Let me take a shot at this without dipping into partisanship, may I?

There are basically two schools of thought on the invasion of Iraq.

There are those that are of the opinion that Iraq was unneccessary. Like you said, me might have saved billions by not going to war, and not have had another terrorist attack.

There are also those of this opinion that think we were lied to, and went to war to settle a score.
I’m not an expert of this line of thinking, so if I generealized too much, someone please let me know.

The other school of thought, of which I am one, didn’t want to take a chance on being complacent again. The UN, the US Congress, the President, and many of the world leaders all believed that Sadaam was in posession of WMDs.
There was no guarantee that he wouldn’t a.) use them himself as he had in the past, or b.) sell them to the highesst bidder such as a terror cell bent on attacking the U.S. this group didn’t want to take a chance on a maybe, or maybe not. 9/11 was enough of a wake up call to realize that, unless we take the fight to the terroists and their supporters, the fight will be brought to us. So we support the war.

131

Tin foil hats is a reference to a Mel Gibson movie from a few years ago. In it the character believed in conspiracy theories and protected himself from government spying by lining his clothes and apartment with tin foil. He was psychotic. The punch line of the film was the government actually was spying on him and he had to run! I don’t think the foil worked.

As to Armor. I hope they get what they need. Military procurement is notorious for being slow. They need an emergency but of the body armor. As to vehicles. Soldiers since WWI hav always modified them. Even in GW I front line Abrams crews put sandbags on the front of their vehicles to protect against AT rounds.

The Bradley is too heavy for the inner city. The Hummer too light. The Stryker seems like a good compromise. They can’t just create them out of thin air however. It takes time to build them or transfer them. In the meantime the field crews need to modify them as best they can. They should make sure they have welders and equipment on the scene to modify vehicles. I am sure they do.

132

Did you actually watch the movie?

133

vroom stated: “All I’m saying, without party politics, is that it may not have been necessary to invade Iraq to protect the US. Heck, looked at one way, the number of casualties in Iraq is represents a very large human loss due to terrorism.”

“Without party politics.” LOL vroom you just recited by verse the liberal decocratic stance on the war in Iraq. Way to keep your record going bro!

134

Vroom,

“I presume you realize that there are other interpretations of these situations even without dipping into the party politics pot?”

Of course there are. I’m arguing my side of things. Anyone is more than welcome to argue theirs.

“All I’m saying, without party politics, is that it may not have been necessary to invade Iraq to protect the US.”

Absolutely true. But that is the entire essence of the problem - it may not have been necessary. But then it may have been. Decisionmakers don’t have the luxury of knowing the answer. So, they assess the risks and then make tough choices based on their risk-tolerance.

Vroom, I really do appreciate your approach here, but you miss the point. No one knows what was necessary to solve this problem. There were infinite alternatives - and no guarantees. All you’re doing is suggesting something else might have worked.

And to that, I say, that’s not good enough. Not invading Iraq might have worked, but was it worth the risk if it didn’t? Not invading Afghanistan may have worked - for all I know, the attacks of 9/11 could have theoretically incensed true Muslims to take out al-Qaeda from the inside in a rage that they were polluting Islam - but would I be willing to take the risk of US security on the possibility that not invading Afghanistan might have worked?

“Something I would like to say, is stop trying to equate not liking the idea of invading Iraq with appeasement.”

To be fair, often when I say refer to appeasement, I am not referring to Iraq per se - I am meaning as a general rule since 1979.

What I will say is that I think appeasement is a valid term for people that wanted to keep giving Saddam a pass on his obligations, whether they be inspections or resolutions. For those that continued to triangulate and give Saddam the benefit of the doubt when he was a serial transgressor of all that was required of him is, by any definition, appeasement. Just as Chamberlain’s treatment of Hitler in Munich over the Versailles violations was textbook appeasement, treating Saddam the same way merits the same shame.

135

ProX,

“Contrary to how retarded you seem to think I am”

I don’t think you’re retarded, I think you are naive.

“I have never written that this was an either or situation.”

ProX wrote:

“I also liked the part about how our soldiers in the field don’t have the needed armour to shield against attacks…but we have more than enough resources to make sure Barry Bonds doesn’t break any more records.”

Could have fooled me.

“In my opinion, that is just one more example of ridiculous “causes” this current administration seems to go after with full force instead of dealing with problems that are actually REAL problems concerning the wellfare of the American people.”

You’re getting caught up in media reporting, not in what the administration is focusing on. By the way, the steroid regulation issue emerged primarily from Congress. That aside, you can’t use what is front page news on CNN to believe what the administration is focusing on. The steroid regulation of MLB was a hot news story, something fresh for the journalists to get all lathered up about. There is no indication that the Bush administration isn’t working on REAL problems while the media prances around the latest, greatest topic out of DC.

“If troops don’t have the armour they need…and please, you would have to be in the dark to not have known this for a while considering it was reported many claimed that they were sent bullet proof vests as gifts LAST Christmas because they didn’t have what they needed…why is it even an issue? Why is it that as soon as this info hit the ears of anyone in power that troops were not IMMEDIATELY provided with what they needed?”

I completely agree.

“I don’t think it was a move in bad faith, simply one that he wasn’t willing to wait around and even attempt to check out to see if it was absolutely true or not.”

Then I retract. I believed you thought Bush purposely manipulated intel to his ends. I must have been thinking of someone else.

“Unlike you, I will not gloss over that error because lives were at stake.”

I don’t gloss over it all. I have relative through marriage who lost his life serving in Iraq. The issue was never WMD, but the threat of WMD - and that was a risk we just wouldn’t take.

“You honestly think that 9/11 occurred because we appeased the desires of other countries?”

Largely, yes. Ever since 1979 when we first were introduced to Islamism, there has been a ‘give them what they want and apologize to them’ method of dealing with them and their state sponsors. Had we realized that the old rules of war apply here - they are our enemy and we should treat them as such - I believe the terror threat would be diminished. Face it, we slept while they plotted our doom.

“Your logic is that 9/11 would not have occurred if Saddam had not been in power?”

Uh, no. You’re getting ahead of yourself again. But Saddam was part and parcel of this backwards Arabist (and neo-Persian) mindset of wanting to re-establish a pan-caliphate over the lost boundaries of the Muslim Empire.

“That line of thinking completely skips over that MISTAKEN Intel that you mentioned earlier.”

N/A

“I hate to burst any glass housed dreamed filled bubbles you may have, but all we have done is sent this “cause” underground even further.”

Terrorism is already underground - that is the only way it exists. If a state sponsor openly conducted this kind of violence, how long do you think they would be around? Terror is successful because it is underground, so driving it further underground is silly - it can’t go further underground.

“This war ONLY has merit if looked at from the vantage point that Saddam was a madman who needed to be removed. It does not have merit as a terrorist terminator.”

It shuts down a weapons clearinghouse for terrorists. Further, it demonstrates power projection. Guess what, ProX - now Islamist groups and their nebulous state sponsors know one thing unequivocally: attacking the US means more dead Arabs. Islamists have always thought we didn’t have the mettle to fight, that we were lazy and decadent. They know otherwise.

“Just one question, what is the tin-foil nonsense you keep mentioning? Did you pull this from some right-wing early morning radio station?”

Tin-foil hat: used to shield one’s brain from the mind-reading devices of the government and the conspiracy at large.

Btw, I wasn’t referring to you - just nutty, conspiracy-minded Bush critics. I didn’t assume you were in that group merely by referencing them.

136

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Largely, yes. Ever since 1979 when we first were introduced to Islamism, there has been a ‘give them what they want and apologize to them’ method of dealing with them and their state sponsors. Had we realized that the old rules of war apply here - they are our enemy and we should treat them as such - I believe the terror threat would be diminished. Face it, we slept while they plotted our doom.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but where did you get this history lesson? I only ask because I grew up listening to recorded past because my dad was a history teacher. In 1956, after being used in both world wars, regular production of sarin ceased in the United States. Between 1980 and 1988, Iraq and Iran both employed sarin in their war. Now, correct if I am wrong, but didn’t they get that sarin production knowledge from us? We weren’t sleeping during this time. We were creating allies and playing the game of politics like we always have. Did that end up biting us in the ass? Yes, it did because during the 1990-91 Gulf War, Iraq still had large stockpiles available for chemical warfare and Saddam was a murder-happy nutcase. None of this was a surprise, however, except to those who don’t follow history. That means it is a little mis-guided to claim that 9/11 happened because we appeased other countries. 9/11 happened because we are seen as “western devils” by many of islamic faith in that region, not because we were sleeping at the wheel and had no clue what was going on in that part of the world.

The problem with thinking like that is the fact that these people are not afraid to die like many of us from “western civilization”. The fear of more Arabs dying would seem to have much less effect in light of that.

137

Thunder,

Your last post was devastating.

Keep up the good work.

JeffR

138

the reason we are seen as “western devils?”
one word: I-S-R-A-E-L.
for just one minute, put aside your dislike of arafat, your loathing for hamas, and your hatred for arabs in general (some of you). the people of palestine are a powerful symbol for the arab world. nothing wrong with the occasional police action/bombing campaign, but if we really want to diffuse the time bomb (remember, the iranians and israelis have nukes!) that is the middle east we need to refocus on the palestinian/israel question. like it or not, there are millions of palestinians who don’t support terrorism, but are being punished as if they are terrorists. when F-16s bomb your village or AH-64 Apaches fire Hellfire missiles into your grandfather’s tiny home (as happened to one of my best friends), its hard to not assign a little bit of the blame onto the US. that said, most palestinians still hold on to hope that the US (the world’s greatest symbol of hope and freedom) will intervene in a fair way. however, until that happens, the situation is fuel to the psychopathic fire of bin laden and his shitdick buddies.
and to answer any “flamers,” the democratic, pro-west political movement amongst the palestinians is alive and well: in israeli prisons! the israelis let hamas members back onto the streets while keeping those advocating peaceful resolution in jail! why? pro-western, democratic revolutionaries are far, far more dangerous than shitbags who suicide bomb malls; pro-western, democratic revolutionaries can create change and bring peace to the region.

139

Why don’t you ask the families of those Israelis killed in a cafe while eating lunch, or on a bus going to school, or in church worshiping to put aside Hamas, or Arafat, or any of the other jack-booted thugs responsible so much innocent blood shed?

If Palestine were truly “a powerful symbol for the arab world”, why don’t they support them with more than lip service? Why is it that the only land suitable for a Palestinian state happens to belong to Israel? There is far better land for them if those that see the palestinians as such a ‘symbol’, would just give it to them. Instead, the Arab world wants it to come from Israel.

140

News Flash - The Arabs have been at war with the Jews since the days of Mohammed.

It is much bigger then Israel vs. the Arabs. Israel at this moment in time is the most free state in the Middle East. The Palestinians are treated better by the Israeli’s then they would be in any other state in the Middle East.

A State and peace has been offered to them before. They choose not to accept it.

With Arafat gone they have chance. The people are the innocent pawns in this charade. The people are the ones who need to speak. When they cheer over innocents getting killed they lose all sympathy.