I am going to state an opinion as a student of James Dunnigan. I mean this as a person who has read all of his books and seen him lecture a half a dozen times in NYC.
He is not stating that we won a clear and decisive victory in Vietnam. What he did was draw an analogy. He was trying to state that we never lost a major battle in Vietnam and killed many more then we lost, but the perception of the public is that we “lost the war”. This was written in the context of an article trying to determine the metrics of victory against the war on terrorism.
Before you defame a well known military affairs scholar try and learn a little aboout the guy. He doesn’t favor any political party and has criticized both the left and the right with equal vigor. And by the way, as I stated before, I am pretty sure he is a Democrat. He lives in NYC and he has described himself as " pretty much a Southern Democrat" in a lecture to the world affairs council.[/quote]
I understand your point. I still read that differently. We agree to disagree.
I also disagree with Dunnigan regarding the western worlds role in fostering radical Islam. We can not take all the blame but to say we are faultless is intellectually dishonest at the very least.
I wish Nixon had invaded Saudi Arabia during the oil embargo. It is a safe bet that invading Saudi Arabia would have turned out as messy as Iraq has turned out thus far.
Saudi Arabia has an unemployment rate of 14% (an honest estimate is closer to 30%). The House of Saud uses Wahabism funding to keep their populace busy while the House of Saud retains the profit from the sale of oil.
The real irony is the Bin Laden family has been made extremely wealthy from the House of Saud’s hording of the oil sale revenues. Osama’s father started the engineering firm that has benefited from the House of Saud but blames the western world for the woes of poor Muslims.
More pressure must be exerted on the House of Saud by our country to stop funding Wahabism period. Our country must also demand that Saudi Arabia implement a true democracy (after cleansing Saudi Arabia of Wahabism).
Reality trumps ideology. This will never happen or it will not happen fast enough.
[quote]effR wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Back on topic guys.
This is a very funny thread. Really it is.
eff claims Iraq wasn’t invaded over the WMD only. There were “many reasons”.
And to proove his point, he quotes one of Dubious’ speeches.
The only problem is, WMD are mentioned in every paragraph of that speech. I challenge eff to point out 1 single paragraph that doesn’t try to put WMD in Saddams hands or tries to link him with Al Quada and the 9/11 attacks. We know these claims are false now. So later on Dubious changed his tune and claimed he had “other reasons”. And eff believed him."
Hey Wreckless, I wondered when you’Ld get over the shock.
Anyway, I have a quick question: Is English your first language? If it isn’t then I have phrase for you to look up: I don’t think it means what you are trying to say.
If it is your first language, then you are one sorry, little european.
[/quote]
Well, no it isn’t. What’s the phrase you wanted me to look up?
We not only have electricity, we teach our kids evolutionism. You should look it up. Or doesn’t your political officer allow you to read these evil books?
Anyway, there were NO links between Al Quada and Saddam. There were NO links between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Repeating the same old lies over and over again might convince you, but it doens’t make them the truth. Remember that? The truth? Perhaps you should look it up.
Now you’ve got me worried.
That’s it? You claim this paragraph?
Haha, you must be pretty desperate to claim this one. Sorry, can’t give it to you.
Great threat to peace? Not WMD by any chance? Nope, can’t give you this one either.
[quote]
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability – even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. [/quote]
Sorry, linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. We now know that’s a lie. So far you’ve got zero, don’t you?
[quote]
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.[/quote]
Again, unfounded. Still zero I’m afraid.
[quote]
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network. [/quote]
“Instruments of mass death and destruction”. Nope, not this one either.
“mush room cloud”. Sorry, you failed once more.
[quote]
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people – and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.[/quote]
“the worst”? As in mushroom cloud? Sorry bro, still no go.
And that “firing upon American and Britisch pilot” is another lie. They turned on their radar and lit them up. They didn’t fire at them. But who’s counting the lies.
You know what? I don’t have time to go over this again.
I’ll have to ask the same question again. Did you ever bother to read this speech? Did you bother to read it after I asked you to? Doesn’t look like it to me. Perhaps you didn’t understand it. Well, Dubious doesn’t use that many difficult words, so that can’t be it.
So what other reasons did he have?
The link with Al Quada?
The link with “other terrorist”?
Why not invade Saudi Arabia then ? ? ?
Could you answer this 1 simple question? Why not invade Saudi Arabia?