Is Terrorism Fine When the USA is Behind it?

[Black Dog]

The basic strategy is to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here.

What does that statement even mean? That the Islamopirates would be storming Venice Beach is the U.S. was not in Iraq? What's more, the London and Madrid bombings show that not every prospective terrorist is going to be drawn to Iraq.

As well, the idea is to have western presence in the region and to protect human rights and freedoms.

Creating failed states doesn't seem like the best way to do that.

A US presence in Iraq will do a number of things. It will occupy the terrorists (success).

By creating fresh new terrorists! Bravo!

It will spread human/women's rights (success).

See above re: failed states.

It will shatter the illusion of peace in the middle east (success).

Yeah, war has a tendancy to do that. Why a state of chaos is pereferable to the status quo ante bellum is unknown.

It will begin to interrupt the constant stream of weaponry from Iran through Syria into southern Lebanon (success).

What success?

It will precipitae a commitment and reaction by thug supporters in both Syria and Iran (success).

And this is a good thing because...

It will allow the USA to take on the root of the hardline Islmofascists worldwide (Iran) in a proxy war without committing troops directly to Iran (success).

There, you lost it completely. Iran is not the root of "Islamofascism". That would be Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Iran isn't all that interested in global jihad, but in regional hegemony. That aside, however, I'm curuious to see how the U..S plans on winning a proxy war wih Iran with a conventional force at the end of its tether, while the other guy has yet to commit a fraction of its resources to the fight. In other words, what kind of proxy war is it when only one side (Iran) is using proxies?

It will demonstrate the lengths to which Islamothug rulers will go to keep women oppressed and hide the virtues of democracy from it's backward society (success).

Like that was ever a secret?

Worldwide Islamo-Terrorism has it's roots in the middle east. The middle east is a place where we have tricked ourselves into ignoring whats happening there. The hardline versions of jihad islamism have been exported from there to places like Somalia, Chechnya, Argentina, London, Paris, Brussels, and yes, New York and Washington. That's a fact. These mysoginistoc f*ckers shoot women in the head or hang them for BEING RAPED.

Yeah. And?

After decades of mid-east peace talks and agreements which have led to no peace, the strategy is to shatter the illusion of those photo-op handshakes between arafat and israel.

Again: why is that desierable? The undeiserability of the status quo doe snot ipso facto make any alternative superior.

The strategy is to be there LONG TERM with a presence and establish societies that don't resemble the year 1135.

As I suspected, this is not a plan, but a serious of tenuously linked, half-baked slogans. It's a cocktail of wishful thinking and retrospective justifications ("Iranian proxy state in Iraq? We totally meant to do that.")

[sharkman]

Iraq and Vietnam have way too much in common -- not just the right wing rhetoric, which is almost EXACTLY the same, but both are wars where nobody on either side really wants us there, there was in Vietnam, no way to win - just like there is no way to win in Iraq -

The largest difference thus far is medical care of casualties in Iraq has cut the death rate dramatically --- and increased the disabled rate by that same number. The other difference is, veterans of Vietnam were unhappy with the VA medical treatment they got but it was 3 times better than what current vets get.

certainly, I understand the rush to dismiss any comparison between the two wars, vietnam looks just so much more reasonable by comparison

Yeah, well the left wing rhetoric is the same, that's for sure. The two wars have big differences to the objective eye. Vietnam was an actual land war with campaigns to drive the enemy back and free more of the country.

Iraq's land war lasted about a week, with mostly a gorilla style terror campaign since then. They know they can't beat the U.S. army face to face, so they dress up as civilians and sneak around looking for stuff to blow up. Why? They figure if they make things difficult long enough, the U.S. will go away and they can have the power. But there's no benefit to Iraqis in merely replacing one dictator with another.

Another Big difference is thus far there is no major power in the region aiding the terrorists. Iran is doing some, and maybe Syria, but not on the scale of China in Viet Nam.

[Guthrie]

Iraq and Vietnam have way too much in common -- not just the right wing rhetoric, which is almost EXACTLY the same, but both are wars where nobody on either side really wants us there, there was in Vietnam, no way to win - just like there is no way to win in Iraq -

The largest difference thus far is medical care of casualties in Iraq has cut the death rate dramatically --- and increased the disabled rate by that same number. The other difference is, veterans of Vietnam were unhappy with the VA medical treatment they got but it was 3 times better than what current vets get.

certainly, I understand the rush to dismiss any comparison between the two wars, vietnam looks just so much more reasonable by comparison

Yeah, well the left wing rhetoric is the same, that's for sure. ...

How so?, please explain.

btw - China was never helping Viet Nam -- in fact, after America left, the Vietnamese had to fend off border attacks by the Chinese --- please get your history straight

[sharkman]

Uh, China did indeed support the North Vietnam effort. And are you referring the hostilities between China and Vietnam which occured in 1979, several years after?

[Guthrie]

Uh, China did indeed support the North Vietnam effort. And are you referring the hostilities between China and Vietnam which occured in 1979, several years after?

your source is incorrect

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Iran has no exit strategy from Iraq and no one in Iran is talking about one. So why is the US left (primarily) talking about quagmires, bogs and exit strategies?

As to Iran, I can't say that I have heard that an exit strategy is a consideration, though they have supported the insurgency.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...70112-voa01.htm

Here is the US' 'exit strategy', and they must have one, or Iraq might someday be designated 'occupied territories' as Palestine has. Quagmires and Vietnam comparisons? Perfectly legitimate if you've read the history. "The 10,000 Day War" by Micheal Maclear sums it up pretty well. An unconventional war in a distand land can't be won like in the old days, because no one ever signs a surrender document. The problem is, the US sees the signing of a troop withdrawl order as said surrender document, so they've screwed themselves.

[sharkman]

Uh, China did indeed support the North Vietnam effort. And are you referring the hostilities between China and Vietnam which occured in 1979, several years after?

your source is incorrect

I think perhaps your memory is off, perhaps you should do a little research.

[August1991]

Uh, China did indeed support the North Vietnam effort. And are you referring the hostilities between China and Vietnam which occured in 1979, several years after?

I think it is fair to say that the Soviet Union largely supported the North Vietnamese. The Americans mined the Haiphong harbour to inderdict Soviet shipments. In 1978, Vietnam joined Comecon, the Soviet Bloc economic zone. Without Soviet assistance, the North would never have defeated the South.

Ho Chi Minh lived for many years in Moscow and was a member of Stalin's Comintern.

[PolyNewbie]

All these wars and terrorism is just our banks trying to implement their systems in other countries so that they can control populations in other countries the same way they do us. They program us through the media and education and enslave us by printing fiat currency and lending it at face value.

The profits form this -the most corrupt monetary system that has ever been created in the history of money are used to control who gets elected, what policies go into place and what wars are fought.

Robert Gaylon Ross (free google video) shows that the "rogue nations" are nations that do not have our banks. The goal of these wars is to implement a Western style democracy which is a banker controlled society that provides people with an illusion of freedom.

The Money Masters free video

The world runs on currency and people who wish to have an understanding of how the world works would do well to understand currency and banking. Everything in this video is fact but these things are carefully skipped over in economics classes because the university professors depend on grants to continue their work. Its a carefully avoised subject in mainstream, but even John Kenneth Galbraith says in his book called "Money" that the USA is essentially controlled by a small group of men. Its given one paragraph.

[Canadian Blue]

Polynewbie I think your nazi/anti semitic theories are getting a bit too much on here.

Besides, you get all of this stuff from Lyndon Larouche, who is basically a neo-fascist.

your source is incorrect

Do you want to elaborate a little bit more tips?

[Catchme]

Just an update on what the US Congress has to think about Bush's acts of terrorism in Iran and Somalia

Ms. Rice’s comments came just a day after the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, issued a sharp warning to the administration about the recent raids against Iranians in Iraq, including one in Erbil early Thursday.

He said the vote to authorize the president to order the use of force to topple Saddam Hussein was not a vehicle for mounting attacks in Iran, even to pursue cells or networks assisting insurgents or sectarian militias. “I just want the record to show — and I would like to have a legal response from the State Department if they think they have authority to pursue networks or anything else across the border into Iran and Iraq — that will generate a constitutional confrontation here in the Senate, I predict to you,” Mr. Biden said.

Congress is not happy

[Canadian Blue]

Just an update on what the US Congress has to think about Bush's acts of terrorism in Iran and Somalia

That's not technically considered "terrorism".

So the US terrorized the terrorists?

[Guthrie]

That's not technically considered "terrorism".

It is, 'technically,' a, 'crime against humanity.'

[Canadian Blue]

If that's a crime against humanity, than so was the entire Allied campaign during World War 2.

A strike on a terrorist camp isn't a crime against humanity. A crime against humanity is a 100 people being massacred simply because they are of a different race. If it wasn't meant to be directed on a civilian's it's not a crime against humanity.

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack[7]:

(a) Murder;

( Extermination;

© Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

[Guthrie]

buffoonery - I've never seen such incredulous buck passing as you clowns offer to defend the indefensible Buschista Junta

'they did it first,' is what I expect from a child caught in a playground scuffle - grow up!

[Canadian Blue]

buffoonery - I've never seen such incredulous buck passing as you clowns offer to defend the indefensible Buschista Junta

Stop getting into a hissy fit because you can't seem to defend your own argument with any actual fact's, except for maybe a sentence or two with nothing to back it up.

'they did it first,' is what I expect from a child caught in a playground scuffle - grow up!

No, the idea of justice being applied to everyone who is responsible should be a virtue. If you want to put Bush on trial for "crimes against humanity", the same should apply to every nation which supplied weapon's to Iraq. The same goes with a playground scuffle, it doesn't matter who did it first, everyone who was involved, and encouraging it should be punished. However you want the kid that's the most powerful who was just backing the other side to be the only one punished.

It's not buffoonery, it's being rational, and looking at an issue from a logical perspective.

Buschista Junta, Bush wasn't instated by a military coup, and Bush has nothing to do with the Sandanistas.

[Guthrie]

"justice?" --- you don't offer an argument of justice, you offer a red herring --- the issue is the Bush administration -- and you want to muddy the waters with crap you have no idea of - WWII was not the brainchild of a demented frat boy seeking retribution for insults to his daddy - any effort to compare the two is nothing but buffoonery - your inability to see that speaks volumes

and yes, the Buschista Junta was installed by a criminal coup - "Sandanistas?" - what have they to do with anything, you are in way over your head and now spewing proper nouns as if they were life savers

[Canadian Blue]

"justice?" --- you don't offer an argument of justice, you offer a red herring --- the issue is the Bush administration -- and you want to muddy the waters with crap you have no idea of - WWII was not the brainchild of a demented frat boy seeking retribution for insults to his daddy - any effort to compare the two is nothing but buffoonery - your inability to see that speaks volumes

That's an accusation with little or no substance. We can't put people on trial for unfounded accusation's with little or no substance.

I like to look at thing's from a logical and rational perspective. Now I'm not a big city lawyer, but I think that you have to come up with a better explaination than that.

I'm not muddying the waters, as history is a great guide in how to deal with problem's such as these. Luckily we have people who look at this in a rational perspective, and who do draw from history in order to make proper decision's.

and yes, the Buschista Junta was installed by a criminal coup - "Sandanistas?" - what have they to do with anything, you are in way over your head and now spewing proper nouns as if they were life savers

Hold on the Bush administration was instated by a military coup, wow another conspiracy theory.

Sandanista's, well I'm guessing that's why your calling Bush a Buschista. Since you don't know what a Sandanista is why don't you just call Bush, well Bush. Even George W Bush would do.

Listen Guthrie I'm sure this level of debate can be expected of rabble.ca, but unfortunately on here we have people who have different perspectives. Personally, I want to see the rationality behind your argument. So far it seems your argument is made up of nothing more but rhetoric, and apparently conspiracy theories.

A criminal coup, that's classic. Were not talking about Norsefire here...

[Guthrie]

No, we're talking about KKKarl Rove, vote fraud and the failure of Al Gore to press the issue at a very important juncture.

what you're talking about is a toss up -- Heads, you can't explain it --- Tails, you don't know, yourself

[PolyNewbie]

Jerry Seinfeld:That Sunnis and Shia wanna kick eachother to shit is unfortunate. But the US has only lost 3000 soldier in the years its been there - hardly an asskicking.

No, its quite a bit more than that. That count only is for soldiers that die on the ground in Iraq. If they die inside helicopters or airplanes they don't get added to the official body count. There are also 100,000 mercenaries over there that are also being killed. There are also many people from poor countries who are being used as cannon fodder in return for US green cards if they survive.

The ass that is being kicked is that of the American people. The war is just part of the grand plan to destroy the US economy.

[geoffrey]

No, its quite a bit more than that. That count only is for soldiers that die on the ground in Iraq. If they die inside helicopters or airplanes they don't get added to the official body count. There are also 100,000 mercenaries over there that are also being killed. There are also many people from poor countries who are being used as cannon fodder in return for US green cards if they survive.

The ass that is being kicked is that of the American people. The war is just part of the grand plan to destroy the US economy.

Do you have any evidence that 100,000 private security workers have been killed in Iraq?

Yikes. Iraq is 1/100 of Vietnam in scale. You people have no idea what your talking about.

[Canadian Blue]

No, we're talking about KKKarl Rove, vote fraud and the failure of Al Gore to press the issue at a very important juncture.

How is Karl Rove a part of the Ku Klux Klan?

As for the failure of Al Gore to press the issue, what was he supposed to do, as the supreme court voted in favor of Bush, call for a revolution.

what you're talking about is a toss up -- Heads, you can't explain it --- Tails, you don't know, yourself

No sphincterboy [assuming your a male], I think the funny thing is that you attack people for not having your knowledge, yet somehow you can't make any response longer than two sentences.

[Catchme]

Jerry Seinfeld:That Sunnis and Shia wanna kick eachother to shit is unfortunate. But the US has only lost 3000 soldier in the years its been there - hardly an asskicking.

No, its quite a bit more than that. That count only is for soldiers that die on the ground in Iraq. If they die inside helicopters or airplanes they don't get added to the official body count. There are also 100,000 mercenaries over there that are also being killed. There are also many people from poor countries who are being used as cannon fodder in return for US green cards if they survive.

The ass that is being kicked is that of the American people. The war is just part of the grand plan to destroy the US economy.

Those who have not died, body counts are now taken up by severe injuries based upon body armour coverage. As in suvivors having a high disability issues such as: 2 or more missing limbs, genetalia gone, faces missing etc.

For petes sake they are not even out of Iraq and they have Iraq veterans living on the street.

Plus, that Green Card cannon fodder is nasty business!

[Canadian Blue]

No, its quite a bit more than that. That count only is for soldiers that die on the ground in Iraq. If they die inside helicopters or airplanes they don't get added to the official body count. There are also 100,000 mercenaries over there that are also being killed. There are also many people from poor countries who are being used as cannon fodder in return for US green cards if they survive.

The ass that is being kicked is that of the American people. The war is just part of the grand plan to destroy the US economy.

Well I don't really listen to you except for your anti-government theories which are close to those of Timothy McVeigh.

When I attempted to join the US Military, I had no green card. The answer I got was unless I was a native or a dual citizen, I couldn't join any branch of the US Military.

[Guthrie]

...

No sphincterboy [assuming your a male], I think the funny thing is that you attack people for not having your knowledge, yet somehow you can't make any response longer than two sentences.

I don't attack people for lacking my knowledge, I only point out when the ignorant peddle hate and fear as if it were fact. As for length, I've always believed the old truism, 'brevity is the soul of wit,' moreover, I respond, in places like this, in like kind (I am sure I mentioned this before) and there hasn't been a claim from any of the slugs who attack me, requiring nor indeed, worth more than two sentences.