War on Terrorism, Strategic Overview

[92TripleBlack]

Originally Posted by 37L1

Didn't Saddam give $25,000 to families of palestinian homicide bombers?



So what countries are on your list for "negotiations"? Which ones won't you "negotiate" with and why?

And on that list of non-negotiations, on which ones would you use clandestine activity (including assassinations) and who would make your "hit" list?

How would you win the hearts and minds of people who want to be free?

Suggestions:

Depose the dictator, help create a constitution, hold free elections, train their police and military, build infrastructure, help protect them until they can fend for themselves.

Correct, Saddam gave the familes of Suicide bombers money.
Correct, you can't negotiate with someone who does things because they believe it's God's will.
Correct, you can't have a hit list. Builds even more animosity, is illegal, and would give us more of a black eye than anything else. You need to publicly try and ridicule, like we are going to do with Saddam or you just make martyrs, like the Syrians did recently in Lebanon.
Correct, you do these things, and oh, FREE THEM FIRST.

[Bayou Titan]

Originally Posted by 37L1

Didn't Saddam give $25,000 to families of palestinian homicide bombers?

Yep, maybe Bush will hold hands with him too.

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Bayou Titan

Yep, maybe Bush will hold hands with him too.

We saw what Bush did with him, made him hide in a spider hole after kicking the crud out of his army and eliminating his heirs. I guess that was much to your chagrin?

[Bayou Titan]

Originally Posted by 37L1

We saw what Bush did with him, made him hide in a spider hole after kicking the crud out of his army and eliminating his heirs. I guess that was much to your chagrin?

We also saw Bush proclaim "Mission Accomplished" even though the insurgency is no where close to being curtailed.

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Bayou Titan

We also saw Bush proclaim "Mission Accomplished" even though the insurgency is no where close to being curtailed.

The mission was accomplished. Saddam was no longer in power or a threat to anyone else, his army was defeated, the people of Iraq are forming their own government with people they chose through free elections. Again, much to your chagrin.

You aren't secretly rooting for the insurgents are you? I think some of you hate the President so much that some are.

[pagerdaddy]

No there's a poll for you:

If failure in Iraq could secure the election of a Democrat candidate for the Presidency in the next election, wouldn't that be in the best interest of our country?

If the effort in Iraq does eventually fail, I wouldn't be surprised if there are celebrations in some circles here, much like in Palestine when the towers fell.
You know, like the way they get all giddy when there's a school shooting, and they want to push their gun control agenda.

[37L1]

Originally Posted by pagerdaddy

No there's a poll for you:

If failure in Iraq could secure the election of a Democrat candidate for the Presidency in the next election, wouldn't that be in the best interest of our country?

If the effort in Iraq does eventually fail, I wouldn't be surprised if there are celebrations in some circles here, much like in Palestine when the towers fell.
You know, like the way they get all giddy when there's a school shooting, and they want to push their gun control agenda.

Oh, that's what they mean by "support the troops but not the war?"

smoketitan says all that Palestinian celebrating 9/11 was just a hoax "google it." By the way I did, and found documentation that more than one celebration occurred in Palestinan refugee camps during that time.

[bestatchess]

Originally Posted by 37L1

It is a war and it is a war for our survival, or if you would prefer, survivial of our way of life. We had better understand our enemy. It's his way or no way and the only participants in their way of life have to be muslim. If you are not, you are an infidel and should be killed. There is no religious tolerance for other beliefs for the muslim extremist.

I agree with the above quote 100%. Interestingly, Bush does not seem to agree (or perhaps understand), apparently out of some kind of deference to the Saudis. Here is what Bush had to say recently about the Chinese:

Bush said the United States and Australia "can work together to reinforce the need for China to accept certain values as universal: the value of minority rights, the value of freedom for people to speak, the value of freedom of religion -- the same values we share."

Interestingly, Bush does not speak out against the lack of minority rights (e.g. slavery) or religious freedom in Saudi (in fact Saudi has religious cops that constantly oppress its citizens). Bush does not call for an end of this oppression. Morevoer, Bush does not call for an immediate halt to the Saudi-funded spread of radical muslim doctrine throughout the world.

[Bayou Titan]

Originally Posted by 37L1

The mission was accomplished.

Yeah right, and we're still winning the war in Vietnam.

[37L1]

Originally Posted by bestatchess

I agree with the above quote 100%. Interestingly, Bush does not seem to agree (or perhaps understand), apparently out of some kind of deference to the Saudis. Here is what Bush had to say recently about the Chinese:

Bush said the United States and Australia "can work together to reinforce the need for China to accept certain values as universal: the value of minority rights, the value of freedom for people to speak, the value of freedom of religion -- the same values we share."

Interestingly, Bush does not speak out against the lack of minority rights (e.g. slavery) or religious freedom in Saudi (in fact Saudi has religious cops that constantly oppress its citizens). Bush does not call for an end of this oppression. Morevoer, Bush does not call for an immediate halt to the Saudi-funded spread of radical muslim doctrine throughout the world.

OK, and who is? Any liberal democrats elected to Congress asking for this?

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Bayou Titan

Yeah right, and we're still winning the war in Vietnam.

How is that connected outside of your own mind?

Notice who the majority of the targets are now? It isn't our military.

[skromfols]

Notice who the majority of the targets are now? It isn't our military.[/quote]
No the majority of the targets are civilians, but only because they are easier targets. But we've still losing troops every day. And if anyone would like the email address of men and women who are over there I can provide them. I have friends there, and if only one military member a day gets killed, it makes a difference to me if it's one of my friends.

If we attached every country that had a dictator who abused his people we would be at war with China, North Korea, at least 4 African nations, Saudi Arabia, Yeman and a few others. Why did we pick Iraq ? Weapons of mass destruction ?? It's been shown that there were none, yet Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan all either have or are close to having weapons of mass destruction. Why don't we attack them?

The Vice Presidents company, Oops, sorry, he put himself at arms length from them while he's in office, has received a 13 Billion dollar NON-COMPETITIVE contract in Iraq. Is anyone familar with a cost plus, award fee, non competitive contract ?? It's throwing money at a problem with very little accountability. Look at what Brown and Root, a subsiderary (sp?) of Halliburtan has done in the Balkans. Mostly with non-competitive contracts. Bush and Chaney are getting rich(er) off this war, and have no personal family members over there being shot at. So what incentive is in it for them to end it ?? NONE

[37L1]

Originally Posted by skromfols

No the majority of the targets are civilians, but only because they are easier targets. But we've still losing troops every day. And if anyone would like the email address of men and women who are over there I can provide them. I have friends there, and if only one military member a day gets killed, it makes a difference to me if it's one of my friends.

If we attached every country that had a dictator who abused his people we would be at war with China, North Korea, at least 4 African nations, Saudi Arabia, Yeman and a few others. Why did we pick Iraq ? Weapons of mass destruction ?? It's been shown that there were none, yet Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan all either have or are close to having weapons of mass destruction. Why don't we attack them?

The Vice Presidents company, Oops, sorry, he put himself at arms length from them while he's in office, has received a 13 Billion dollar NON-COMPETITIVE contract in Iraq. Is anyone familar with a cost plus, award fee, non competitive contract ?? It's throwing money at a problem with very little accountability. Look at what Brown and Root, a subsiderary (sp?) of Halliburtan has done in the Balkans. Mostly with non-competitive contracts. Bush and Chaney are getting rich(er) off this war, and have no personal family members over there being shot at. So what incentive is in it for them to end it ?? NONE

Didn't the Clinton Administration give the contract to Halliburton when we went into the Balkans????? Why would that be, I wonder?

So your theory is the only reason we invaded Iraq was to enrich Chaney and Bush? That sounds like what you're saying.

Congress approved this "adventure." Congress, Democrat and Republican, received the same information the President and his staff did. The decision to go into Iraq was not made unilaterally by one person alone, lying and duping those pillars of wisdom who now have all the answers in Congress.

Congress, Democrat and Republican, has continued to approve payment of contracts and the cost of supporting our military efforts in Iraq. If the Halliburton contract was illegal, the GAO and Congress could rectify that. They haven't. Ever ask youself why?

How many members of Congress, Democrat or Republican, have personal family members over there being shot at? How many members of Congress, Democrat or Republican, are getting rich(er) off this war? Is there a corrolation? I doubt it.

You can't have it both ways. Some postulate that Bush is a "true believer", foolishly believing we can make Iraq a "Shining Beacon" of democracy in the middle east. Others, such as yourself, believe that Bush is in it only for the oil and the money.

Is it both? Is it one or the other? Is it neither?

Well?

The extremist Muslim/Baathist insurgents attack Iraqi police and Iraqi military, recruits and soldiers alike. They attack political figures of the new Iraqi government. They attack diplomats from other nations. They attack women and children. They attack anyone who cooperates with us and with the new government. Why do you think they do this, simply because they are "easier?"

They are attacking civilian targets not because they are easier. They are doing it as part of their strategy. They are trying to undo what is being built in Iraq. Because they know that with each passing day, Iraq is coming closer to being a self governing, independent and free nation. That is anathema to the extemist/Baathist position. The stakes are very high for them and they know it.

Since we were already in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and cripple the bin Laden Al Qaeda operation there as a result of 9/11, it made sense strategically to have a neighboring nation, Iraq, under our influence as well, logistics, if for no other reason. Having a hostile Iraq on Afghanistan's border would create a more difficult military problem for us there.

We are now on the ground in the middle east in two central countries. We have altered the immediate geopolitical equation for Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Israel. We have shown what we can do militarily. It has already had a profound impact on Libya and, make no mistake, China, North Korea and other nations noticed.

I'm sure you are not suggesting that we should have launched an attack on those nations you listed because you consider them a greater threat. Whether they are or aren't is a matter for conjecture, but one thing for sure, an Iraq being lead by Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat now. And we can influence the way the others behave as a result of our actions there.

[Farmer Fred]

Originally Posted by 37L1

Didn't the Clinton Administration give the contract to Halliburton when we went into the Balkans????? Why would that be, I wonder?

So your theory is the only reason we invaded Iraq was to enrich Chaney and Bush? That sounds like what you're saying.

But Clinton didn't have Cheney in his admin., and the level of outsourcing wasn't nearly as high. That was something Halliburton and Cheney cooked up while he was at the company, and that he brought back to government.

Didn't Bush say something to the effect that his administration wouldn't do anything that even had the appearance of a conflict of interest? This sure does, as does Cheney's lie (yes, clear lie) that he no longer had financial ties to Halliburton when clearly he did.

[skromfols]

Obvisouly this situation is shades of grey. I truly do believe that there were ulterior motives behind the administration invading Iraq. Was it a good thing to do or not, I really can't say, but it's costing way too many lives, both soldier and civilian. Sure we defeated their army, but a well trained troop of boy scouts could have done that. But now what? Iraq is like the tar baby, or more recently, Viet Nam. We had the military might to defeat the VC, but were never able to do so, and I hope I'm wrong, but I see too many similarities between that conflict and this.

The Clinton administration did award contracts to Halliburton in the Balkans, and they were awarded competitively. And anyone who was in the Balkans is aware of the waste, fraud and abuse that took place, and may still be talking place. I had a year to observe Brown and Root at work, and while they did a good job at what they were contracted for, it was a cost plus contract, so they spent money like it was water, and the waste was criminal. They were just starting to look more closely at the cost figures when I left there and I've seen some articles about the government getting some of the costs refunded.

You mention our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to find Bin Laden and the Taliban, and if we would have continued our efforst at the pre Iraq war level I think we would have captured or killed Bin Laden by now. But instead we changed our focus and Bin Laden is still at large. And even finding him now isn't a solution to the problem. The terrorist movement has spread and seems to have gotten stronger since we invaded Iraq, So what do we do now, "Kill them all and let God sort it out?"