lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 22, 2008 10:55:55 GMT -4
When they state their motives for various attacks the policies of the targeted nation are first and foremost. I’ve never seen them say they attacked US targets because of their resentment of Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Madonna or Hollywood. Odd if it were the case they haven’t targeted soft targets associated with these and other American cultural exports in their home countries. A couple of suicide bombings would certainly be bad for business. Their stated reasons and their actual motives may not be the same thing. And I believe they have attacked American cultural exports in their own countries. I’d like to see a reference to any significant attacks by AQ or related groups attacking targets tied to American or other western country’s cultural exports. Barring any other evidence the only way we can judge what their motives were is their: 1) targets and 2) stated reasons – that would include public pronouncements, martyrdom videos, confessions and intercepted communications. I don’t know of any instances of them saying “we attacked X target because ‘we hate their freedoms’ or ‘we want to establish a worldwide caliphate’. The government in Iran has nothing to do with AQ they are enemies. It should have been clear I meant countries other than Iraq since were discussing the consequences of it being taken over. As previously stated it is hard to imagine the whole country coming under AQ control. If that happens the fault would be of the Bush administration. Iran probably wouldn’t be controlled by fundamentalist today if the US hadn’t engineered the coup to remove the democratically elected government there. Since they have thus far been unable to take over any country other than Afghanistan when it had no central government it seems unlikely to happen anywhere else independent of what happens in Iraq. Transferring manpower and other resources to Afghanistan would go a long way to improving the situation there. We can’t know that OBL won’t have a change of heart, tell his followers to “give peace a change”, renounce violence and sing “Peace Train” on stage with “the artist formally known as Cat Stevens” but I wouldn’t count on it. There is no evidence Bush continuing Clinton and his father’s containment policy would have had negative let alone “catastrophic consequences”, certainly nothing approaching the current situation. There were no WMD’s or even a real WMD program, there were no significant ties to AQ or similar groups. As for Afghanistan, bringing it up is a straw man since I never opposed what Bush did their other than to complain that resources that could better be used there are being wasted in Iraq. . As to “what Al Qaeda would have been doing if it hadn't been concentrating its efforts in Iraq” that’s hard to say on one hand they are devoting most of their resources their but so is the US and the US’s presence there has been a boon to them in terms of donations, recruitment and popular support. The most likely answer seems to be not much different from what they have been doing outside Iraq since the invasion. Most of their post 203 attacks have been in retaliation for the invasion. Over 4400 coalition troops have been killed since the invasion* that doesn’t count Iraqis and I don’t think it counts military contractors. It’s unlikely that AQ would have killed 4400 more westerners than they have since March 2003 if we hadn’t invaded. This is ignoring the hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced in Iraq since we invaded. * icasualties.org/oif/ The main reason violence is down is because the US has more troops there. I wouldn’t consider that progress because if troop levels went down the violence would probably be close to what is was before. IMO the US should set up a time table for pulling out. This would put pressure on the anti-AQ Iraqis to get their act together. A reasonable solution would be removing all but token ground forces in 2 years or so but possibly maintain air and naval support. If they Iraqis can’t stop AQ at that point they are unlikely to ever be able to do so. If they know the US will only leave when things are stabilized there is no real incentive for them to stop AQ themselves. The situation isn’t really analogous no one attacked American troops in those countries since they capitulated at the end of WW2. If it were like Saudi Arabia or Japan or Germany were US forces are stationed in peaceful countries and aren’t responsible for security I wouldn’t oppose it. What sort of resources would land locked, natural resource poor central Iraq offer them especially if they had a restive Shiite minority to deal with?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 22, 2008 12:40:59 GMT -4
I’d like to see a reference to any significant attacks by AQ or related groups attacking targets tied to American or other western country’s cultural exports. I'll have to see if I can find any. 9/11, of course, involved an attack on American commercial institutions, like the WTC bombings before it. OBL has stated several times that he intends to establish a worldwide caliphate. You said "similar groups". I consider the Islamic religious zealots who have taken over Iran to be similar to the Islamic religious zealots who make up the leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, despite their doctrinal differences. I don't see why. Afghanistan came under Taliban control quite easily. Democratically elected government? Perhaps you subscribe to an unnusual definition of what constitutes a democratic election? One that only allows one candidate on the ballot and punishes those who don't vote "yes"? In that case, however, the question then simply becomes, "was Saddam a worse leader than Al Qaeda would be?" Tough call for the Iraqis. On the contrary, Iraq suffered considerably under the containment policy, and over a longer term than the current war has lasted. If Saddam had been allowed to continue in power that suffering may well have eventually reached the levels the concentrated conflict of the war has developed in a shorter time. Having your tooth pulled out quickly is more painful in the short term, but a better solution than letting it rot in your mouth for twenty years. Actually WMDs were found in Iraq - just no new manufacture WMDs - they were stocks left over from before the first Gulf War, and left undestroyed in violation of that war's cease fire agreement. Dual-purpose facilities and the technicians necessary to re-create Saddam's WMD programs on short notice (once the world had turned its attention elsewhere) where also present. Iraq supported terrorism in Palestein openly and directly, and had allowed other terrorists to find refuge there. I include Afghanistan for completeness. Except that we have also killed a lot of their leadership and rank-and-file as well, and caused them to alienate the Iraqis to the point that their support there has plumeted. So the invastion hasn't been an unmitigated blessing for Al Qaeda. And none of them in the U.S. That means President Bush has succeeded in protecting the U.S. homeland. They killed more than 3,000 in a single day in 2001. And give Al Qaeda a date to "wait it out" to. So they go quiet and prepare their forces for the day the U.S. leaves, and then topple the Iraqi government in a matter of days by unleashing it all at once. The Iraqi government is feeling pressure to get their act together. They have merely to look at the Democratic leadership in Congress to feel it. This is essentially what is happening now. The Iraqi security forces have now proven effective on their own, with only air and some logistics support. That assumes that they feel fine about us doing all the work for them. If I were an Iraqi I would want Iraq to stand on its own regardless of how well the U.S. was handling security for us. Not entirely correct. The Nazis had an organized insurgency plan called "Werwolf". They continued resistance until as late as 1950, though it didn't reach the level Al Qaeda has and there are arguments today over just how many attacks they actually caused. In Japan there was no armed resistance primarily because we had used nukes on them - that display of military power combined with the Emperor's surrender effectively prevented an uprising. To get an analgous situation in Iraq we would have had to destroy most of their infrastructure (and had a beloved national leader express their desire to surrender peacefully). And that's the sort of arrangement I'm talking about. Manpower, for one thing. All the munitions that have been funneled into the country over the past five years by Iran and Syria to help the insurgency, for another.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 24, 2008 10:08:03 GMT -4
I’d like to see a reference to any significant attacks by AQ or related groups attacking targets tied to American or other western country’s cultural exports. I'll have to see if I can find any. 9/11, of course, involved an attack on American commercial institutions, like the WTC bombings before it. In both cases (1993/2001) the stated reasons for the attacks was the US’s Middle Eastern policy especially regarding Israel. Targeting the WTC is not evidence for the thesis they attacked the US because “they hate us for our freedoms” query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDD1E31F93BA15750C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all … and Ann Coulter says she wants to convert all non-Christians I don’t think either one expects to accomplish those goals, he said 9/11, the Cole and embassy bombings etc were due actions taken by the US government that offended him. I guess it depends on how you define similar. It might not be a coincidence that the only example of a reasonably stable government being over thrown by Muslim fundamentalists happened in a non-Arab overwhelmingly Shiite country. I.E. it could be due to factors unique to the local culture. Also the Iranian revolution had the backing of secular and moderate Islamist groups, it’s unlikely their counter parts in other Muslim countries would work with AQ (or vice-versa). I’ve already gone over the differences between the two countries. If you disagree with my analysis refute it rather just ignore it. ?? Are you talking about the current regime? I was referring to the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq. He was made Prime Minister by the democratically elected parliament. According to a study published in the Lancet in 2006 about 650,000 more Iraqis died between the beginning of the invasion in March 20003 and June/July 2006 than would have if death rates had been the same as when Saddam was in power. Though criticized by the American, British and Iraqi governments I don’t know of anyone with an applicable background in statistics/social sciences/epidemiology who has questioned it. How many more can we presume have died in the last 2 years? www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html Perhaps, but I doubt it, see above. The above was contradicted by the CIA and Senate Intelligence Committee (both GOP controlled). Even the Bush administration gave up trying to claim Iraq presented a real WMD threat. I’d particularly like to see a reference for the underlined claim. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313 Which still leaves the question of whether the threat AQ poses for the US and it allies has gone up or down due to the invasion. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about that, there are too many contradictory factors to reach a firm conclusion That’s one way of looking at it, others are that: - no foreign power had attacked the US mainland for 186 years but 8 months after Bush was sworn in the US suffered the worst terrorist attack in history. Attacks by AQ like groups in the US were few and far between before Bush became president. The only one that comes to mind in the decade before 9/11 is the WTC bombing. Do you have any evidence that but for the invasion of Iraq there would have been attacks in the US after March 2003, aren’t we debating the consequences of the invasion and potential consequence of a pull out? Actually slightly less than 3000. That was however by several fold the deadliest terrorist attack ever thus it seems unlikely they would be so “successful” in the future especially in light of increased security measures. As above do you have any evidence the invasion prevented or at least reduced the risk of such attacks? I never said this was a perfecrt option only that it's the least disasterous. If the anti-AQ Iraqis really have the potential to fend for themselves they should be able to defend themselves against such a scenario especially if they have air, naval and perhaps some logistical support from the US. Then you should have no objection to US ground forces being pulled out even sooner. If what you say is true why does the US have 140,000 – 155,000 ground troops there? Are they all doing logistical support? I think you are getting you info from the same source as John McCain. firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/30/1086713.aspx Why risk getting your supporters/troops killed when someone else will do the job for you? Such pride didn’t seem to deter Western Europe from letting the US be largely responsible for protecting it from the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War. I’d never heard of this before and it seems there was good reason for it according to Wikipedia Antony Beevor and Earl F. Ziemke have argued that Werwolf never amounted to a serious threat, in fact they are regarded by them as barely having existed. This view is supported by the RAND Corporation, which surveyed the history of U.S. occupations with an eye to advising on Iraq. According to a study by former Ambassador James Dobbins and a team of RAND researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany was zero.[6] German historian Golo Mann, in his The History of Germany Since 1789 (1984) also states that "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign."[7]
In his Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944–1946 (1998)[1], historian Alexander Perry Biddiscombe asserts that after retreating to the Black Forest and the Harz mountains, the Werwolf continued resisting the occupation until at least 1947, possibly to 1949–50. However, he characterizes the German post-surrender resistance as "minor"[8], We did destroy a lot of Iraq’s infrastructure. Also your thesis that “in Japan there was no armed resistance primarily because we had used nukes on them” seems unlikely, do have evidence of any would be resistance leaders who backed off because of the A-bomb? What did they fear, we would nuke any location resistance popped up? The “why” in this case isn’t relevant to out discussion. But it seems that ‘sort of arrangement’ is not going to happen anytime in the near future Iran is funneling weapons to its Shiite allies and certainly won’t arm AQ or allied groups. Who in Syria is supplying AQ with munitions and why? Is it possible they might stop if the US mostly or entirely pulled out? They would need a good numb r of fighters/organizers/leaders just control their chuck of Iraq, would there be a net increase or decrease in the manpower available to attack the US and it allies?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 24, 2008 10:09:41 GMT -4
LO/others-
What happened to wdmundt? Did he quit the forum?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 24, 2008 11:08:44 GMT -4
LO/others- What happened to wdmundt? Did he quit the forum? From what I understand, wdmundt deleted his account.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 24, 2008 12:15:53 GMT -4
In both cases (1993/2001) the stated reasons for the attacks was the US’s Middle Eastern policy especially regarding Israel. Isn't an attack on our foreign policy technically an attack on our sovereignty, and thus our freedoms, anyway? I don't think either is going to accomplish them either - that doesn't make OBL any less dangerous. In fact having an unacheivable goal may make him more desperate and therefore more dangerous. Part of those actions he objected to was stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. He objects to the presence of those troops primarily because they are non-muslim. They are non-muslim because the U.S. has religious freedom. Therefore he objects to the U.S. because of our religious freedom. It's a round about way of hating our freedoms, but that is what it boils down to.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 24, 2008 16:48:10 GMT -4
Getting back to the subject of the thread momentarily, there is now criticism of Sen. Obama going around not that he might secretly be a muslim, but that he is too anti-muslim. It's not the Right saying it though - it's the New York Times. Reportedly he even refused an offer by Rep. Keith Ellison (the only Muslim in Congress) to speak in an Iowa mosuqe, "becauase it might stir controversy."
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jul 8, 2008 2:34:30 GMT -4
So what does it matter if he's a Muslim? Is there some kind of rule that Muslims can't be presidents? Here here! Does anyone read (and fact check the translation they've read) the gosh darned "scriptures" for themselves anymore? Mistranslations, misinterpretations abound, for one, and, IMHO, if there is a God as the big three Abrahamic religions see it, I'm sure he's very, very disappointed in what "his word" has wrought. Maybe God did talk to folks one on one back then, and now is mute, but that's always seemed illogical and just silly lol There might well be a God...or some entity serving a similar role...and I'm at fault for WANTING to believe it, but faith never has, never will, never can change reality. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Taoist, Shinto whatever...it's more about our need to believe than the real world.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 8, 2008 11:01:12 GMT -4
Here here! Does anyone read (and fact check the translation they've read) the gosh darned "scriptures" for themselves anymore? Mistranslations, misinterpretations abound, for one, and, IMHO, if there is a God as the big three Abrahamic religions see it, I'm sure he's very, very disappointed in what "his word" has wrought. Maybe God did talk to folks one on one back then, and now is mute, but that's always seemed illogical and just silly lol Actually my own position is that God continues to speak just as he did then, and that if miracles have seemed to cease then it is because of man's lack of faith, not because God has changed; but it's a subject for a different thread. Wrong on all counts. You're not at fault for wanting to believe in God, and faith is a powerful force that has changed people in the past and will continue to change them in the future. But again, if we want to talk about religion this isn't the thread for it. There are plenty of those in the "Beyond Belief" section.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 15, 2008 22:37:14 GMT -4
Well, you might have an argument about some on the right being willing to say anything about Obama, but apparently the left has no sense of humor at all about him. The New Yorker (hardly a right wing publication) published a satirical cover showing Obama dressed as a muslim, giving bones to Michelle Obama dressed as a '60s Black Panther type, with the flag in the Oval Office fire place and Osama Bin Laden over the mantel. It was meant to satirize exactly the issue wdmundt started this thread about - extreme right wing views of Obama and his presidential candidacy. Instead it's causing a stir on both sides, but especially the left. “Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image,” wrote media blogger Rachel Sklar at the Huffington Post. “Unfortunately, most Americans won't be underlining passages from political articles this week. … As such, the cover itself, and the over-the-top discourse it will inspire, will probably do more to reinforce rather than challenge the smears," said John Nichols for Nation magazine. A spokesman for the Obama campaign called the cover “tasteless and offensive.” Apparently none of these people got the joke. Rather like certain religious groups who over-racted about cartoons depicting a religious figure a short while ago.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 15, 2008 22:53:24 GMT -4
What a cover! Tisk - tisk. That's freedom in America for ya!
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 16, 2008 14:22:10 GMT -4
The funny thing is that two women in my office, who are Dems and strong Hillary supporters believe (without much exaggeration) that Obama is the Manchurian Candidate of revolutionary Islam.
On a somewhat related topic, I saw my first Nobama - 08" bumper sticker today.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 16, 2008 14:58:11 GMT -4
Yes, a catchy bumper sticker is really going to make up for the utter failure of conservative ideology in the last 8 years.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 16, 2008 15:10:43 GMT -4
If there has been a failure in government over the past 8 years it has been because of a failure to adhere to conservative idealogy, not because of it. The Republican congress, in particular, was thrown out in 2006 because they had forgotten the "small government" ideals of Reagan and Gingrich and tried to spend their way to a permanent majority.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 16, 2008 15:39:35 GMT -4
Yes, a catchy bumper sticker is really going to make up for the utter failure of conservative ideology in the last 8 years. Electing Obama won't make up for it either. Conservatism these days is not a particularly good government. Both Dems and Reps just bring different group of rent seekers wanting to expand the government.
|
|