-
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.
Two Iraqi generals suspected of complicity in attack on US GIs (re: Karbala attack)
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dphantom
Diamond Member
I doubt anyone wants war with anyone. But unlike you, we will not rollover and beg them not to behead us. We will take a stand and "not go quielty into the night". Besides, it is my brothers and sisters who will do the dying, not you who sit in a comfortable safe home criticizing without comprehension what must be done to secure Western Civilization.
Sometimes it is diplomacy, sometimes it is war. If diplomacy fails, then war is the final resort of diplomats. Hopefullty it will not come to that. If it does, I hope we have better leadeship than what we have had so far in this new global war - WWIV.
Lemon law
Lifer
Finally something we can half way agree on---Sometimes it is diplomacy, sometimes it is war. If diplomacy fails, then war is the final resort of diplomats. Hopefullty it will not come to that. If it does, I hope we have better leadeship than what we have had so far in this new global war - WWIV.
Under GWB&co there is NO diplomacy.-----but the way to reduce the influence of your great white fear---islamic fascists---is to negotiate with the more moderate islamic elements who want peace, prosperity, and a stable world----Saddam Hussein was an anomaly that was very much a creation of past US policy---due to the bungling of GWB&co. we now have created a greater danger.---that can now only be repaired by diplomatic means.
In terms of a WW4---its unwinnable for anyone----if the might of US military power can't occupy Iraq---how is it going to occupy Iran---or all the other nations we would have to occupy?
But if the USA does get froggie---the winner will be China, India, and Russia---and other powers wise enough to stay out of the fight.
We do need better leadership---on that we can agree.----after WW2 we had leadership able to covert former enemies into allies---and we can do the same with Iran and Iraq.
Under GWB&co there is NO diplomacy.-----but the way to reduce the influence of your great white fear---islamic fascists---is to negotiate with the more moderate islamic elements who want peace, prosperity, and a stable world----Saddam Hussein was an anomaly that was very much a creation of past US policy---due to the bungling of GWB&co. we now have created a greater danger.---that can now only be repaired by diplomatic means.
In terms of a WW4---its unwinnable for anyone----if the might of US military power can't occupy Iraq---how is it going to occupy Iran---or all the other nations we would have to occupy?
But if the USA does get froggie---the winner will be China, India, and Russia---and other powers wise enough to stay out of the fight.
We do need better leadership---on that we can agree.----after WW2 we had leadership able to covert former enemies into allies---and we can do the same with Iran and Iraq.
dphantom
Diamond Member
I would disagree on two of your points. there has been diplomacy, just not very good. Excellent for Afghanistan, good in the former Yugoslavia, poor in building a case for Iraq. Good in Iran as we are letting the Europeans hang themselves.
The second is that WW4 is unwinnable. We must win it. I do not want to live in a nation or world dominated by the type of islam we saw in Afghanistan or Somalia until very recently. If we lose, forget about all those very liberal notions like abortion, gay rights etc...
So I would suggest that we all do our part to fight this scourge. We do not have th eright leadeship today, IMO. But we cannot walk away from Iraq now as distasteful as staying may be. We will be viewed as weak, and the Islamic fascists will take full advantage fo that weakness. And our allies will have second and third thoughts about ever helping us again.
We gave our word to Iraquis we would not abandon them like we did in the Shia uprising after GW1. We have to find a way to win this now.
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
You right wingers claim you want to fight the global war on terror but conversely support the worst detractor to that effort, GWB. He's harmed us more with his retarded policies than anything the terrorists could have done. Rather than taking advantage of World sympathy for the U.S. following 9/11, he squandered the success of Afghanistan while going after non-existent WMD in Iraq. He has compounded that mistake at every turn and now we've got nothing to show for it but more dead bodies piling up ever day, billions of dollars flying out the window and increased stature and power for those who want to harm us. It's disgraceful what the Republicans have done to this country. Anyone accusing Lemon or anyone else of being unpatriotic and worse for not supporting Bush and his idiotic policies can go the hell.
And FTR, I served 6 years in the armed forces. So don't even start that crap with me.
And FTR, I served 6 years in the armed forces. So don't even start that crap with me.
dphantom
Diamond Member
You don't read the posts very well do you???
I do not see anywhere anyone accusing Lemon of being unpatriotic. Lemon and I have disagreements, but hopefully can have a civil discourse on that.
You should also note that very few are unabashed supporters of the President. I have been among many others critical of the mistakes his admin has made over the last 3 years or so. That does not mean that the war on terror is not justified. it just needs more competent and able leadership.
I am not seeing anyone of any party affiliation with a clear sense of purpose and committment to eliminating this menace.
I will buy that fighting the war on terror is justified, what I will not buy is that invading Iraq was justified by the war on terror. Afghanistan, absolutely, it has been shown that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were/are joined at the hip in a symbiotic relationship where neither would have gotten where they are today w/o the other. But al-Qaeda and Saddam had no love lost for each other. Saddam knew that radical Islam would take power away from him and his Baathist minions and give it to the Imams, just like in Iran. And the radical Muslims abhorred what they saw as grotesque, western influenced 'progressiveness' where women could work, drive and wear clothes that allowed people to tell that they were, in fact, a woman.
So here we sit, after the boondoggle of the invasion with a crisis that is spiraling out of control. The whole reason there are terrorists running loose in Iraq is that our invasion brought them out. And now we have the very Iraqi military that we need to train to have any chance of getting out killing our soldiers. And this is not the first time members of the new Iraqi army have killed their US counterparts.
There was I time when, even though I never supported the invasion, I felt we had created the mess so we needed to clean it up. I am past that now. I think we need to transition out. The terrorists in Iraq are not the ones we need to worry about, they just want to blow up each other. We need to concentrate on those real threats to our country. We have armed men attacking NG troops on the Mexican border. Gee, if a bunch of armed drug smugglers can push their way into the country don't you think a band of terrorists could, too? Yet we feel compelled to waste money in Iraq that should be going to truely making our country safe.
Lemon law
Lifer
To dphantom,
Who writes---That does not mean that the war on terror is not justified. it just needs more competent and able leadership.
While I do thank you for not assuming me unpatriotic, we still have some fundamental disagreements over how you fight terrorism. And with you, I do agree it can be done in a civil manner.
There is a tendency to regard a nation as under good or bad leadership---and the notion that if you can remove a Saddam or a Hitler before they lead their greater nation to war does have some historical precedent.-------but unfortunately, that latter lesson has exactly zero to do with terrorism.
Terrorism is a 6000 year old tactic and belongs to no ideology. Its seeds are in us all. And its a choice and its a tactic that is easily mislabeled.
But terrorism's sometime non-violent kissing cousin is anarchy---which has been the inevitable result of the majahadeens victory over the Russians, the US victory over the Taliban in the same country, and the later US removal of Saddam in Iraq.----all of these events created anarchy---and without sufficient occupying troops in two of these cases, the anarchy became fossilized.---------and with no central government the man and woman on the street is unprotected from thugs in the indigenous population. When the US was missing in action, local Iraqi
of Afghani strong men will step up and say---join me and I will protect you---which soon jumps into get the opposite sect or side before they get us.---pretty soon these local strong men who picked up power when it was laying out in the street waiting to be picked up have built a power base and will oppose any central government that will threaten their position. Ironically, the Taliban was the Afghani's peoples answer to this government by local thugs.---and when the US removed the Taliban who were not terrorists---its back to a civil war and government by thuggery everywhere except certain areas of downtown Kabul.
Classic terrorism occurs when you have an established government often maintained by outside forces. Which the larger population has negative faith in---and the larger population would prefer anarchy to the government they have. Only when you have that situation can a small number of terrorists run around throwing bombs without the local population blowing the whistle on them. The larger government can have all the power in the world---the Russian tzar's and the Shah of Iran are classic examples of this---but when the people give up on the bastards---they are doomed. The Israeli government is another example---and with a military hegemony that can't be beat---for many Arabs its an intolerable situation---they can't beat them militarily, Israel refuses to moderate their position, and once any middle negotiated ground vanishes---terrorism is inevitable. And will stay inevitable until the local population sees more hope in building a future compared to the current situation---and sooner or later, history tells us they will find tactics to make the oppressors howl.---and if you walk an inch in Palestinian shoes, I very much doubt any you would fail to have terrorist sympathies.
Ireland somewhat shows us the way---as they have used various terrorists tactics ever since the English annexed them 400 or so years ago--it may have been a religious war, but it also divided the country along economic lines---only recently has Ireland achieved full employment---and suddenly the economic injustices vanished and peace becomes possible.
In short---only when injustice thrives does terrorism thrive. And it really thrives when all voices in the middle vanish and only hardliners on either side remain.
Who writes---That does not mean that the war on terror is not justified. it just needs more competent and able leadership.
While I do thank you for not assuming me unpatriotic, we still have some fundamental disagreements over how you fight terrorism. And with you, I do agree it can be done in a civil manner.
There is a tendency to regard a nation as under good or bad leadership---and the notion that if you can remove a Saddam or a Hitler before they lead their greater nation to war does have some historical precedent.-------but unfortunately, that latter lesson has exactly zero to do with terrorism.
Terrorism is a 6000 year old tactic and belongs to no ideology. Its seeds are in us all. And its a choice and its a tactic that is easily mislabeled.
But terrorism's sometime non-violent kissing cousin is anarchy---which has been the inevitable result of the majahadeens victory over the Russians, the US victory over the Taliban in the same country, and the later US removal of Saddam in Iraq.----all of these events created anarchy---and without sufficient occupying troops in two of these cases, the anarchy became fossilized.---------and with no central government the man and woman on the street is unprotected from thugs in the indigenous population. When the US was missing in action, local Iraqi
of Afghani strong men will step up and say---join me and I will protect you---which soon jumps into get the opposite sect or side before they get us.---pretty soon these local strong men who picked up power when it was laying out in the street waiting to be picked up have built a power base and will oppose any central government that will threaten their position. Ironically, the Taliban was the Afghani's peoples answer to this government by local thugs.---and when the US removed the Taliban who were not terrorists---its back to a civil war and government by thuggery everywhere except certain areas of downtown Kabul.
Classic terrorism occurs when you have an established government often maintained by outside forces. Which the larger population has negative faith in---and the larger population would prefer anarchy to the government they have. Only when you have that situation can a small number of terrorists run around throwing bombs without the local population blowing the whistle on them. The larger government can have all the power in the world---the Russian tzar's and the Shah of Iran are classic examples of this---but when the people give up on the bastards---they are doomed. The Israeli government is another example---and with a military hegemony that can't be beat---for many Arabs its an intolerable situation---they can't beat them militarily, Israel refuses to moderate their position, and once any middle negotiated ground vanishes---terrorism is inevitable. And will stay inevitable until the local population sees more hope in building a future compared to the current situation---and sooner or later, history tells us they will find tactics to make the oppressors howl.---and if you walk an inch in Palestinian shoes, I very much doubt any you would fail to have terrorist sympathies.
Ireland somewhat shows us the way---as they have used various terrorists tactics ever since the English annexed them 400 or so years ago--it may have been a religious war, but it also divided the country along economic lines---only recently has Ireland achieved full employment---and suddenly the economic injustices vanished and peace becomes possible.
In short---only when injustice thrives does terrorism thrive. And it really thrives when all voices in the middle vanish and only hardliners on either side remain.
Lemon Law,
I don't understand your world purview. I made an oath, numerous times, now. There are hundreds of thousands of others that took that same oath. You may not understand that I'm not some defeatist, fatalistic person that looks at media polls in order to decide if I'll re-enlist.
20 years means that I've served through a lot of questions concerning our nation's foreign and domestic policies. I?ve been a participant in quite a few, too. There was always controversy surrounding all of it. From all sides of the political spectrum. There still is.
I was at a gas station March 2003 when the Iraq invasion kicked off. I walked in on a conversation between a customer and the cashier concerning the invasion. The customer saw me in uniform, turned and asked, "How long do you think we'll be there?' Without pause, I replied, "20 years." Then I bought 6 - 20 ounce Diet Valves (excellent caffeine content and there was this awesome sale.) He was absolutely silent. I knew what he was asking. He wanted to know how many weeks the invasion would take. But I don't think he didn't really understood, precisely, what he was asking.
I have a grasp of what my nation faces. I get it. My nation faces a formidable opponent at a critical juncture in world history and I will fight, and train and lead others to fight my nation's enemies. What you may not understand is that, despite the politicization, scandals, polarization and popular opinion de jour - I'm not fighting an 'ocean' or a 'tide'. I?m a Soldier serving in the United States Army and I have some work to do.
Goodnight.
I don't understand your world purview. I made an oath, numerous times, now. There are hundreds of thousands of others that took that same oath. You may not understand that I'm not some defeatist, fatalistic person that looks at media polls in order to decide if I'll re-enlist.
20 years means that I've served through a lot of questions concerning our nation's foreign and domestic policies. I?ve been a participant in quite a few, too. There was always controversy surrounding all of it. From all sides of the political spectrum. There still is.
I was at a gas station March 2003 when the Iraq invasion kicked off. I walked in on a conversation between a customer and the cashier concerning the invasion. The customer saw me in uniform, turned and asked, "How long do you think we'll be there?' Without pause, I replied, "20 years." Then I bought 6 - 20 ounce Diet Valves (excellent caffeine content and there was this awesome sale.) He was absolutely silent. I knew what he was asking. He wanted to know how many weeks the invasion would take. But I don't think he didn't really understood, precisely, what he was asking.
I have a grasp of what my nation faces. I get it. My nation faces a formidable opponent at a critical juncture in world history and I will fight, and train and lead others to fight my nation's enemies. What you may not understand is that, despite the politicization, scandals, polarization and popular opinion de jour - I'm not fighting an 'ocean' or a 'tide'. I?m a Soldier serving in the United States Army and I have some work to do.
Goodnight.
Jaskalas
Lifer
I know you love to prop up foreign right wing authoritarians, but to tell us Iraq was not our enemy? You stoop too far, and I'll loan you four simple reasons. Kuwait, genocide, chemical weapons history, and a broken cease fire.
The truth is it was the weakest, least (once proven) threatening hostile country, but Saddam was hostile after Kuwait. Let us say the problem is that they were not a threat. I?ll accept we failed to recognize that accurately, but now we have North Korea and Iran and all you want to do is prevent action.
So it?s apparently not a matter, to you, if they?re a threat or not. You don?t believe there is a WoT, you don?t believe there is radical Islam with control of several countries and developing nuclear technology amidst sworn vows to kill us from their god given mandate.
I can understand this feeling, that Iraq, Iran, and other rogue nations aren?t our enemy. It?s cause you?re too busy demonizing us, you?ve got nothing left to bother with foreign threats, the only threat you intend to stop is us, and you play perfectly into the hands of those who will one day fulfill their sworn vows to kill us.
Stop working to neutralize this country and start helping us with ways to effectively fight back, or else the upcoming global war will be the death of all of us. You can start by recognizing that there even is a war.
1) Let's look to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice on Saddam, shall we? Let's start in 2001 with their own words:
2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
2) Kuwait: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html
3) Genocide: Uh...Darfur? Heard of it? Where is your outcry to invade the Sudan, eh? Yeah, I thought so. Freakin' hypocrite.
As for the Kurds, need I remind you of the following FACTS?
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Note that the US established normal diplomatic ties with Saddam AFTER the incident at Tal Anfar. Rumsfeld himself shook Saddam's hand AFTER that incident while Poppy was the V.P. Why no war crimes trial then, eh? Hmmmm??? Cat got your tongue?
Oh, do I also need to remind you that the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons pre-cursors in the 80s? I hope I don't have to remind you. Surely you're aware of this but just choose to ignore it.
Oh, this is gonna be good.
Proof?
I'm not demonizing us. I'm merely pointing out that the US involvement in the Middle East for decades is not consequence-free. You can't pick and choose your dictator and toss him aside when the political winds change. And now look at one of the consequences: bin Laden/Zawahiri are now going after the US. Who are they you might ask? Oh, they were the ones behind the 9/11 attacks. You know...the reason we're in Iraq even though it had nothing to do with those attacks.
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
-
-
