Darkhawk28
Diamond Member
I was told once that "blowback" was a term that was made up by Michael Moore.:roll:
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
New Grave Sites in IRaq
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I was told once that "blowback" was a term that was made up by Michael Moore.:roll:
Wrong. That is how you would the history to be, isn't it? Unfortunately, many Americans buy this BS about US directly supporting the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
We and Saudi Arabia sent the funds to Pakistan to give the aid and money to the fighters, no matter who it was. Pakistan chose the radical sunni islamists so they would work for Pakistan in the future, possibly. Also they wanted to create a favorable regime in Afghanistan. We simply gave the aid to Pakistan and it was Pakistan who chose who to give it to.
At that time, the CIA wanted to simply kill Russians any way they could. We simply said to Pakistan, here is the money and give it to whoever will kill the Russians and drive them out of Afghanistan.
Korea was a stupid war? Vietnam was a stupid war? The first Iraq war was a stoopid war?
Vietnam was a failure because it was run by politicians, not military leaders. If it had been run by generals and commanders, we would have won, no doubt.
Right, many conservatives did oppose the Iraq war, but they were the isolationist kind. I too opposed the Iraq war, although I'm not a conservative, on the ground that it would divert attention from Afghanistan. I was right, our attention is completely off of Afghanistan while things get more out of control there. Its not a good situation.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
No, that was "blow-me".
Here's some 'Blowback' for you
See item # 7 -
7. Blowback: cases of groups supported by outsiders during a conflict who later turn to terrorism (and attack their sponsors)
Odd Arne Westad (LSE) spoke on US support to Islamic fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s, some of whom later turned against the US. He began by noting that the international research agenda has changed: the general assumption now, among many who would never have said so before September 11, is that "Terrorism is the problem, the state is the solution". Terrorism often grows out of civil war and civil unrest among divergent nationalities with a history of difficult interaction. Islamic fighters may embrace Western organisational models while fervently rejecting Western politics and ideas. In the 1970s, Marxist and Islamist movements emerged in Afghanistan among a small educated elite. The reason why the communists won over the Islamists and seized power in 1978 was because of better organisation, and later they could hold on to power because of Soviet support. In 1979 the Soviets directly intervened and the civil war became internationalised. British and US support for the Islamists started, we now know, already before the Soviet intervention, but increased tremendously afterwards. Washington was afraid that the Islamists could not beat the communists by themselves and stepped up support in cooperation with Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia. Some 80% of US support went to the most radical Islamists, and likely contributed to the subsequent blowback. CIA supported training camps for Muslims in other parts of the world who volunteered for the struggle in Afghanistan, the biggest of which was in Egypt. Troops were recruited from North Africa, Saudi Arabia and Southeast Asia. Pakistanis, however, were banned from taking part by the Pakistani government. Most of the operatives joining Al-Qaeda from 1988-89 onwards had a background in CIA-funded camps in the 1980s. The question of financing is important. It was easy for the White House to get money from Congress to support the struggle in Afghanistan, and few in the Establishment had qualms about the money being re-directed to radical Islamists: the most effective fighters were needed to get the job done. In addition there may have been a strange ideological affinity. Committed American Christians felt that although the fighters in Afghanistan belonged to another religion, at least they took their faith seriously. The US does not seem to have realised how anti-American the groups they supported were. It was thought at the time that Islamism was conservative and anti-communist, and the US leaders in the 1980s were also conservative anti-communists.
Third point -- Why did the Bushwhacko drop the ball while chasing Bin Laden in Afghanistan?
We were right to be there, chasing Osama for 9/11. Instead, Bush pulled troops out to chase Saddam based on the fairytale that he was somehow as much involved with Al Quaeda and terrorism as Bin Ladin, but he forgot to get the original, real bad guy. :|
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
You won't get a single direct argument against the morality of removing Hussein from power. Instead, you'll hear a lot of whining about, "This wasn't why *I* thought we went to war!" Or, "So-and-so is worse, why didn't we go there first! Oil! Oil! Oil!" Yawn.
All that aside, thankfully the U.S. has a president that practices pragmatism and has deposed a dictator and centralized the Western/terrorist conflict in a place where they can be fought against by the regular army, instead of letting those terrorists disperse and step up a distributed attack network instead. Fortunately for us, the blow to the symbolic heart of the culture many of these people associate with is too grating on the nerves to ignore.
kage69
Lifer
I doubt Bush can even spell pragmatism, let alone practice it. The need to be in Iraq so enemy combatants could be fought with a regular army doesn't wash. First, we can kill them with a variety of means, the regular armed forces just being one of them. Second, we had already established ourselves in Afghanistan - better the attacks happen elsewhere than at home, as they say, right? Well Afghanistan fits this bill. Seeing as how it's population is far less than that of Iraq, you'd think a military wary of "collateral damage" would realize this. The jihadists flew in from all over to fight the Russians there, they were doing the same thing with us. Saddam's regime had al Qaeda operatives killed, as he considered them a threat. We have had terrorists networks spring up in our own country, and in allied countries as well. Guess the plan ain't working so well, add to it we all just heard that attacks soared in 2004...
Yep, good ol pragmatism... :roll:
Red Dawn
Elite Member
Actually we could have. I don't know if Viet Nam would have been better off because I think that there still would be American Troops and Vietnamese citizens dieing there to this day if we had won.
We should have never betrayed Ho Chi Minh in the first place but supporting French Colonialism there.
This is so simple to explain. I fault the Bush Whitehouse for not beating this into the media and the lefty crap artist more.
We were attacked multiple times during the last administration and then a severe blow was dealt during this one (911). We decided we could no longer let people like Sadam slide any longer. He was on probtion from the world community after he invaded Kuwait. One of the conditions on him not being destroyed the first time around was that the U.N. would have unfedderd access to his weapon programs and to investigate the possibility of said programs. After thirteen years and constant non compliance by the beloved Saddam we did what we said we would do. Even then there was another chance given and he still did not comply. Maybe the Bush camp beat on the WMD threat too much to get the U.N. and the Democrats too get on board but it was not the only reason. It was not a lie it was faulty intelligence although maybe overstated. The middle east has been a festering soar on this world too long and it is time to help them move ahead with the rest of us. We did know that Saddam was supporting the familys of terrorist whos family members were blowing themselves and Israeli civilians to pieces. We did find warehouses/factories of bomb vest in Iraq. The best arguement the left have is maybe we should have waited twenty years before we acted.
If we were wrong about WMD's then Saddam could have easily cleared that whole mess up but he chose not to. We know for a fact that he had them, we could never get in and verify if they were disposed of hidden or what. Seeing all the armorment we found buried in the sand that he was not supposed to have, it is still a possibility that he hid much greater weapons or sent them to other allies.
All the rest of the crap you guys are slinging is just nonsense.
We were attacked multiple times during the last administration and then a severe blow was dealt during this one (911). We decided we could no longer let people like Sadam slide any longer. He was on probtion from the world community after he invaded Kuwait. One of the conditions on him not being destroyed the first time around was that the U.N. would have unfedderd access to his weapon programs and to investigate the possibility of said programs. After thirteen years and constant non compliance by the beloved Saddam we did what we said we would do. Even then there was another chance given and he still did not comply. Maybe the Bush camp beat on the WMD threat too much to get the U.N. and the Democrats too get on board but it was not the only reason. It was not a lie it was faulty intelligence although maybe overstated. The middle east has been a festering soar on this world too long and it is time to help them move ahead with the rest of us. We did know that Saddam was supporting the familys of terrorist whos family members were blowing themselves and Israeli civilians to pieces. We did find warehouses/factories of bomb vest in Iraq. The best arguement the left have is maybe we should have waited twenty years before we acted.
If we were wrong about WMD's then Saddam could have easily cleared that whole mess up but he chose not to. We know for a fact that he had them, we could never get in and verify if they were disposed of hidden or what. Seeing all the armorment we found buried in the sand that he was not supposed to have, it is still a possibility that he hid much greater weapons or sent them to other allies.
All the rest of the crap you guys are slinging is just nonsense.
Bush needed a foot in the door to go to Iraq. He couldn't do it for "humanitarian reasons" because those are not objective or quantitative. You can't measure how many lives you will save by removing the dictator and you can't make an exit strategy based on "we'll be done when x amount of lives are saved" (not that there ever was an evident exit strategy though) because how will you know when you have achieved your goal? People just wouldn't go for that sort of thing, its too subjective and qualitative. You CAN go in based on something that's objective and that you can measure such as "how many WMD's we will find/recover/destroy." This gives you a clearly quantitative and objective based goal. Much more likely people would go for it when you have a material goal that people can see and touch. Whether or not it was a lie is irrelevant now that we are there. We are there and we can't just leave without creating a huge vaccuum and leaving utter chaos worse than what it is now. What's done is done. So lets stop focusing on whether or not he lied and focus on how are we gonna put an end to it. And hopefully now more people will know to take whatever Bush says with a grain of salt and a pound of scrutiny from now on. One thing is for certain. We'll never have to wonder what the consequences of inaction in Iraq would have been.
Darkhawk28
Diamond Member
Bush doesn't deserve to be believed with anything.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
The irony of the situation is that had America used genocide as the justification for entering this war, it would have opened an entire can of worms in the UN of conflicts across the globe where genocide is occurring, yet the world is unwilling or unable to do much of anything about it.
There is no doubt that Saddam was a ruthless and evil man...there is also no doubt that America is partially responsible for sustaining his power base after supporting him during the Iran/Iraq War.
The Iraqi people are certainly not sad to see Saddam go, and their anger towards is America is predominatly directed at us remaining as an occupational force.
There is no doubt that Saddam was a ruthless and evil man...there is also no doubt that America is partially responsible for sustaining his power base after supporting him during the Iran/Iraq War.
The Iraqi people are certainly not sad to see Saddam go, and their anger towards is America is predominatly directed at us remaining as an occupational force.
slurmsmackenzie
Golden Member
uh.... that's what i said.
korea:
we get NK out or SK and MCA decides to take over the whole country (to the dismay of the chinese of course) which costs thousands upon thousands of american lives due to long supply lines and the NK winter. so what does china joe do? the same damn thing and it costs many thousands of chinese their lives. = stoopid war
vietnam: you cleared that one up, so i won't bother.
iraq I: the rich kuwaitis are saved while sadaam stays and poor iraqis continue to die.
and btw.... winning a war doesn't make it a good experience. the north won the civil war... would you call that a good experience?
Please explain what Saddam had to do with any of the "multiple" attacks you mention. Especially 9/11.
From what I've read in every report that's been produced so far, Saddam had NOTHING to do with any of the attacks. Do you have some information that the U.S. government hasn't seen? You should send it to the White House. Bush needs it desperately.
Add to that the fact that there were no "terrorists" in Iraq before the U.S. invasion and you have exactly no excuse for attacking Iraq, a nation that not only DIDN'T attack the U.S. but in fact a nation that COULDN'T attack the U.S. even if it wanted to.
It also seems as though you don't keep up with the news. A report was released this week that states Saddam didn't move any weapons from Iraq. The only conclusion left after no WMD was found in Iraq and after no WMD was moved from Iraq is that the WMD simply didn't exist. Yet people keep insisting on making the erroneous connection. Dick Cheney for example. And you.
Same old ridiculous excuses. Same old phony excuses. In case you haven't heard, it's all been proven false. All lies. No matter how many times you and Cheney keep repeating them.
From what I've read in every report that's been produced so far, Saddam had NOTHING to do with any of the attacks. Do you have some information that the U.S. government hasn't seen? You should send it to the White House. Bush needs it desperately.
Add to that the fact that there were no "terrorists" in Iraq before the U.S. invasion and you have exactly no excuse for attacking Iraq, a nation that not only DIDN'T attack the U.S. but in fact a nation that COULDN'T attack the U.S. even if it wanted to.
It also seems as though you don't keep up with the news. A report was released this week that states Saddam didn't move any weapons from Iraq. The only conclusion left after no WMD was found in Iraq and after no WMD was moved from Iraq is that the WMD simply didn't exist. Yet people keep insisting on making the erroneous connection. Dick Cheney for example. And you.
Same old ridiculous excuses. Same old phony excuses. In case you haven't heard, it's all been proven false. All lies. No matter how many times you and Cheney keep repeating them.
DragonMasterAlex
Banned
Well, you're right. It ISN'T the reason we were fed by the government. I believe, if I might be so bold, that EK's point is that this SHOULD have been the reason, and that it is reason enough in itself.
Jason
DragonMasterAlex
Banned
:thumbsup:
I agree: we should have had forces on the ground to stop the genocide and bombers overhead to take out those who were committing the genocide.
Jason
DragonMasterAlex
Banned
It was *already* justified. That Bush and company failed to use this as the PRIMARY reason to take Saddam out isn't our fault, nor are their failures to do so justification for leaving a murderous dictator in power.
Jason
DragonMasterAlex
Banned
I would have supported it. In fact, I've said from day one that MY reasons are precisely for this.
Jason
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
