A Real Leader In Tough Times

[Nbadan]

http://bushcheated04.com/war.gif

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,293307,00.jpg

Yes, those are real medals

http://archiv.radio.cz/pictures/nato/clark1.jpg

Bosnia-Kosovo Conflict under Clark - 0 dead, Iraq - 1952 dead

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/mayor80/Clark.jpg

Bring Our Boys Home Winners Clark!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v514/crunchyfrog/435074119SNESDN_ph.jpg

All Is Good in the World

[Cant_Be_Faded]

America is safer today because we invaded Iraq?????????
HOW DO YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS SHIT????
What the fuck??!?!??? So fucking safe that he called for a reinstatement of the Patriot Act and is still drooling over the opportunity to ratify Patriot Act II????


So fucking safe that we still cannot watch Fox News without seeing "Terror Alert: Elevated" every other day?

How can people actually follow and vote for this douche bag?!??

The very fact that we found NO WMD's makes our pre-emptive strike against Iraq totally unjustified....yet we stayed there and produced more bull shit reasons to do it

[mookie2001]

I don't like Bush







in case any of yall have never read one of my political posts

[Cant_Be_Faded]

gutless gutless republicans


I defy anyone in this fucking forum to give me one real positive thing that republicans have done for this country, with conservative (not liberal) actions

one, please
give me faith that my country is not going this far into the shitter

[xrayzebra]

America is safer today because we invaded Iraq?????????
HOW DO YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS SHIT????
What the fuck??!?!??? So fucking safe that he called for a reinstatement of the Patriot Act and is still drooling over the opportunity to ratify Patriot Act II????


So fucking safe that we still cannot watch Fox News without seeing "Terror Alert: Elevated" every other day?

How can people actually follow and vote for this douche bag?!??

The very fact that we found NO WMD's makes our pre-emptive strike against Iraq totally unjustified....yet we stayed there and produced more bull shit reasons to do it

Another one who knows how to express himself in mixed company! Gee, isn't it great to have someone who know how to express themselves?

[SWC Bonfire]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v514/crunchyfrog/435074119SNESDN_ph.jpg

You had your chance... the primary voters in the Democratic party chose Kerry instead because he was "electable".

[Vashner]

NBADan .. you are a complete moron..

I used to work for Air Force Material Command.. And I know from the inside...

This general is a complete pussy.. he wears eyeliner...

The guy is a looser.. if you want a military that cowers under the sheets like a little cry baby this would be a good leader.. .for whimps like Dan that get scared of a
little butterfly or roach...

Kosovo? He presided over some F15 bombing runs.. big fucking deal. He was not the pilots or crew that did the bombing...

How the fuck can you compare a limited air campaign to a prolonged ground war?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

(if you are not the person im thinking of then forgive my ignorance)

Funny Vashner, how you are so quick to use your former service to make it seem like you're billy bad ass, and how the common marines are such stalwart soldiers who know their duty is to die, yet you just make fun of a General (and coincidentally while trying to defend conserving and attack liberating)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Another one who knows how to express himself in mixed company! Gee, isn't it great to have someone who know how to express themselves?


Sorry but the rage and malice within me due to the words, actions, results, and turn of events caused by this administration knows no bounds anymore.

[SWC Bonfire]

What is funny is that Wesley Clark IS actually a pretty politically moderate person and would be acceptable to most Americans, so he probably disagrees with about 90% of what Nbadan posts.

[Marcus Bryant]

Funny how Clark's genius move to avoid casualties in Kosovo was to fight the war from 30,000 feet above.

That wasn't possible in Iraq.

Try again.

[boutons]

"from 30,000 feet above."

I remember a huge debate, controversy in Congress about the US committing ground forces in the Balkans, the US feeling the Balkans were a European problem first, to be handled by the Europeans. Clark was not given a free hand to intervene in whichever way he wanted.

What wasn't possible in Iraq was US success because dubya/Repubs/wolfy/rummy preferred to give $Bs to the rich and corpy while to fighting the war on the cheap without enough ground forces and equipment.

Try again.

[RandomGuy]

You had your chance... the primary voters in the Democratic party chose Kerry instead because he was "electable".


Yup. Dumb. I still get irritated when I think about that. Draft dodger vs. Major General.

Kind of hard to claim he was *soft* on anything. pfft. :pctoss

[Marcus Bryant]

"from 30,000 feet above."

I remember a huge debate, controversy in Congress about the US committing ground forces in the Balkans, the US feeling the Balkans were a European problem first, to be handled by the Europeans. Clark was not given a free hand to intervene in whichever way he wanted.

What wasn't possible in Iraq was US success because dubya/Repubs/wolfy/rummy preferred to give $Bs to the rich and corpy while to fighting the war on the cheap without enough ground forces and equipment.

Try again.


Bullshit. He certainly had his choice.

[RandomGuy]

Funny how Clark's genius move to avoid casualties in Kosovo was to fight the war from 30,000 feet above.

That wasn't possible in Iraq.

Try again.

I could tell ya how we could have avoided casualties in Iraq...

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, not go there in the first place and pray that leaving Hussein in charge didn't come back to haunt the US. With administrations of both parties in agreement that Hussein had to go over the last decade or so I didn't have a problem with the decision to take him out. There was already a strong case to take him out prior to 9-11.

[RandomGuy]

Sure, not go there in the first place and pray that leaving Hussein in charge didn't come back to haunt the US. With administrations of both parties in agreement that Hussein had to go over the last decade or so I didn't have a problem with the decision to take him out. There was already a strong case to take him out prior to 9-11.

Aaah, you assume that what I meant was that we shouldn't have invaded. Taking Hussein out didn't cause all the casualties, the post-war insurgency did.

This insurgency could have been mitigated by an administration with enough sense and competence to plan for it.

Bush's incompetence has killed, and is killing our soldiers. I honestly think he should be impeached for this. Clinton gets a BJ and gets impeached, but Bush's killing of our troops is OK, because he's a republican. :bang

[RandomGuy]

As evidence, the numbers speak for themselves.

http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends_files/image001.gif


16,837 Total U.S. Casualties

1,935 Dead 14,902 Wounded
Data for weeks ending: Saturday 10/1/2005 Tuesday 10/4/2005 (Latest DOD Update)
Since Baghdad Fell: 1,813 Dead 93.7% of Total

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Sure, not go there in the first place and pray that leaving Hussein in charge didn't come back to haunt the US. With administrations of both parties in agreement that Hussein had to go over the last decade or so I didn't have a problem with the decision to take him out. There was already a strong case to take him out prior to 9-11.


That's arguable, but surely you will admit the general american public had no wish or desire (as a whole) to go to war with Iraq pre-9/11


What pisses off most non-retarded americans is this administrations inability or unwillingness to admit their mistakes and cut their losses while they are ahead, or admit that their foreign policy has been sucking ass for decades.

Terrorism changes the game, the rules, everything when it comes to war.

But terrorism always has a political objective, a motive...
If the U.S. ensured that all these rogue factions and al-qaeda's had a proper voice in the world political forum, do you really think those terrorists would attack us like they have been?

Regardless of how much brainwashing has been done, nothing changes the fact that those muslim/muslim radicals are still people, and sure there are crazy megalomaniacs who want to see americans dead, but the majority are a political faction at heart with politcal aims, and if the administration would open their gutless conservative eyes and realize there were other solutions to this fiasco other than pleasing dumbass redneck fuckheads by going to WAR, then I would never scoff at the gayness of conservatives in power.

ever.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images/attack_1.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Lack of enough body armor is yet another way in which the Bush Administration's negligence is killing and has directly killed our soldiers.

The piss poor planning of this whole post-war occupation is symptomatic of this administration from the get-go, yet how do Republicans reward this incompetance: loyalty.

Bush apologists arguably put loyalty to the party above their loyalty to the country. They blind themselves to his mistakes because he is "their" guy and can do no wrong. Holding your political party above your duty of citizenship is traitorous.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Bush apologists arguably put loyalty to the party above their loyalty to the country. They blind themselves to his mistakes because he is "their" guy and can do no wrong. Holding your political party above your duty of citizenship is traitorous.



I agree with this.

[Marcus Bryant]

What if someone is not loyal to any party but thought it had to be done and that invariably some things cannot be adequately prepared for? Insurgents do not employ standard military tactics.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=RandomGuy]
This insurgency could have been mitigated by an administration with enough sense and competence to plan for it.
RG, stating that the administration didn't have enough sense and was incompetent is an opinion that can't be proven so isn't this a case of hindsight being 20/20? Are there substantiated pre-invasion arguements from any source predicting a prolonged and sustained insurgency and a means of dealing with it?

If the charges can't be persuasively argued by showing ignorance and a blatant disregard of some preexisting and proven effective methodology in handling an unknown quantity (and I don't see how it can) then what's the point of the charge?

almost midnight here, bedtime :)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What if someone is not loyal to any party but thought it had to be done and that invariably some things cannot be adequately prepared for? Insurgents do not employ standard military tactics.

I don't know, what if?

To me it seems a little gay and pompous to tell your people you're going to engage in war for one reason, tell them you fucked up but have another reason to stay anyways, for bush to say we have many battle ready, trained iraqi units when his fucking general says one day previous we have ONE, why can't they realize this shit is costing life and we're not fucking winning....
"Last throes" ring any bells? Why must they keep lying to us?
It's absurd.


I dont even konw how long we've been at war already, but you think during this time (i mean, if this conservative regime IS so competent) of war, they'd also be finding non-violent political ways to appease those regimes from which the insurgents and terrorists spring from.

[Marcus Bryant]

So the US should appease its enemies?

This is why we need an asshole in the White House. To save the American people from themselves.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Are there substantiated pre-invasion arguements from any source predicting a prolonged and sustained insurgency and a means of dealing with it?

If by "substantiated" you mean 100% non-religious, non-anti-conservative non-anti-Bush, and 100% of what you already decide you believe in, then no.


But if you consult anyone with a political military background, all they need to do is point to a history book.
Since when did American marines and weaponry become so advanced that we can subdue an entire country and its people in a short and uneventful time frame?

It doesn't work that way. Wake up.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So the US should appease its enemies?

This is why we need an asshole in the White House. To save the American people from themselves.


Let me rephrase

not to appease them

but give them a voice, to let them know they are being heard, without them having to resort to guerilla tactics and terrorism to be heard.

Is that better?

That last statement is retarded though.

[Marcus Bryant]

Exactly. It does not work that way. Either this nation deals with threats to its national security or it goes back to the bipartisan policy of the prior three decades of trying to wish this particular threat away.

[Marcus Bryant]

Let me rephrase

not to appease them

but give them a voice, to let them know they are being heard, without them having to resort to guerilla tactics and terrorism to be heard.

Is that better?

That last statement is retarded though.


Retarded is doing half of the job and not pressing forward.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Retarded is doing half of the job and not pressing forward.


Only a warmonger looks at continuing a war as pressing forward.


A peaceful politican could just as easily label a withdrawal and political (not physical) action as moving forward as well.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Exactly. It does not work that way. Either this nation deals with threats to its national security or it goes back to the bipartisan policy of the prior three decades of trying to wish this particular threat away.


But at what point does the cost of defending this national security outweigh the benefits?

I think we've passed that point, especially when we hear shit about this insurgency possibly lasting 10-15 more years.

Honestly Marcus, do you want us to be at war that long? Is it that important to you for us to destroy a country and set up a government of our chosing? What will it take for you to realize we need to get out of there and find other nonphysical ways to dealing with this 'threat' ?

[jochhejaam]

If by "substantiated" you mean 100% non-religious, non-anti-conservative non-anti-Bush, and 100% of what you already decide you believe in, then no.

????? :lol
Another brilliant reply by you CBF, that's why the answer was directed to and adult and not to you. :lol

[mookie2001]

But at what point does the cost of defending this national security outweigh the benefits?

I think we've passed that point, especially when we hear shit about this insurgency possibly lasting 10-15 more years.

Honestly Marcus, do you want us to be at war that long? Is it that important to you for us to destroy a country and set up a government of our chosing? What will it take for you to realize we need to get out of there and find other nonphysical ways to dealing with this 'threat' ?





I don't know, what if?

To me it seems a little gay and pompous to tell your people you're going to engage in war for one reason, tell them you fucked up but have another reason to stay anyways, for bush to say we have many battle ready, trained iraqi units when his fucking general says one day previous we have ONE, why can't they realize this shit is costing life and we're not fucking winning....
"Last throes" ring any bells? Why must they keep lying to us?
It's absurd.


I dont even konw how long we've been at war already, but you think during this time (i mean, if this conservative regime IS so competent) of war, they'd also be finding non-violent political ways to appease those regimes from which the insurgents and terrorists spring from.and with that, I would have to say
owned.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

????? :lol
Another brilliant reply by you CBF, that's why the answer was directed to and adult and not to you. :lol


okay im a kid but you're still an american disgrace with "i never admit mistakes nor change my mind about anything" tattooed across your swashbuckling face

[Marcus Bryant]

Only a warmonger looks at continuing a war as pressing forward.


When the other option is appeasement and wishing the threat away, sure, it is pressing forward.





A peaceful politican could just as easily label a withdrawal and political (not physical) action as moving forward as well.


Worked in '75, didn't it?

Sometimes "peace" doesn't work.

[Marcus Bryant]

But at what point does the cost of defending this national security outweigh the benefits?

I think we've passed that point, especially when we hear shit about this insurgency possibly lasting 10-15 more years.


So when does the threat end? It isn't an imaginary threat, as we've seen over the course of the last few decades.



Honestly Marcus, do you want us to be at war that long? Is it that important to you for us to destroy a country and set up a government of our chosing? What will it take for you to realize we need to get out of there and find other nonphysical ways to dealing with this 'threat' ?

What peaceful method was not attempted from the early 70s through 9-11-01?

[boutons]

murderous, criminal is doing the wrong job, th ewrong war, wrong country, lying about it, while the real enemies run free.

[Marcus Bryant]

It seems that any war is the "wrong" war as long as the president is a Republican. Most of us need something more than that rationale.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

When the other option is appeasement and wishing the threat away, sure, it is pressing forward.






Worked in '75, didn't it?

Sometimes "peace" doesn't work.


marcus i said i didn't mean appeasement, so using that to defend your point is meaningless


You still didnt answer my question. How long till the costs outweigh the benefits? In your opinion, how many years or how many lives will it take for you to realize being bogged down in Iraq is costing alot of money and lives?

You did say once you weren't a hardcore neocon didnt you? Because they tend to be chickenhawks....

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It seems that any war is the "wrong" war as long as the president is a Republican. Most of us need something more than that rationale.



pre-emptively striking a weaker state on false intelligence and not announcing any major foreign policy changes leads me to believe this war is unjust


not the idiot son-of-an-asshole president we have

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So when does the threat end?


Good point, it doesn't end with what we are doing. Marcus those radical dickhead muslims are foaming at the mouth over what we're doing over there because its adding more fuel to their jihad fire.

do you think they'll have more or less recruits to insurgent and terrorist regimes if their houses and familes and work places have been destroyed by american artillery or fire?

If we had a decent policy the threat will never 'end' but it would be alleviated and would never reach the potency required to take drastic actions such as limiting freedoms and murdering shitloads of iraqis.

[scott]

Are there substantiated pre-invasion arguements from any source predicting a prolonged and sustained insurgency and a means of dealing with it?

Please correct me if I'm taking this out of context and am interpreting it wrong... but are you suggesting that because no one predicted a prolonged and sustained insurgency, no one bothered to think of a plan to deal with it?

[Marcus Bryant]

Good point, it doesn't end with what we are doing. Marcus those radical dickhead muslims are foaming at the mouth over what we're doing over there because its adding more fuel to their jihad fire.

do you think they'll have more or less recruits to insurgent and terrorist regimes if their houses and familes and work places have been destroyed by american artillery or fire?

If we had a decent policy the threat will never 'end' but it would be alleviated and would never reach the potency required to take drastic actions such as limiting freedoms and murdering shitloads of iraqis.


They were pissed at the US before the war. Now they are attacking those of their own faith who don't agree with them.

Would the US rather fight its enemies on their own turf or in lower Manhattan?

[Marcus Bryant]

marcus i said i didn't mean appeasement, so using that to defend your point is meaningless

You wrote it.



You still didnt answer my question. How long till the costs outweigh the benefits? In your opinion, how many years or how many lives will it take for you to realize being bogged down in Iraq is costing alot of money and lives?


So the US should give up and not deal with the threat because it might cost something? You know what costs something? Not taking the threat seriously and shying away from doing something about it today. We saw how well that worked over the last three decades.



You did say once you weren't a hardcore neocon didnt you? Because they tend to be chickenhawks....

That's cute. Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You wrote it.
And I changed it. Would you like me to edit the first post too?




That's cute. Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion?


ahhh, resorting to the patented marcus bryant 'i contribute more to the forum than you' bit. clever.





So the US should give up and not deal with the threat because it might cost something? You know what costs something? Not taking the threat seriously and shying away from doing something about it today. We saw how well that worked over the last three decades.

That's two times in a row that you avoided answering the question, so let's make it three (gee avoiding the question, you DID say you weren't republican, right?)

"What will it take for Marcus Bryant to say the costs of this war are outweighing the benefits?"

[Marcus Bryant]

And I changed it. Would you like me to edit the first post too?


So what are you offering besides appeasement?




ahhh, resorting to the patented marcus bryant 'i contribute more to the forum than you' bit. clever.

You are reading a bit much into that, to say the least. Nice try, though.




That's two times in a row that you avoided answering the question, so let's make it three (gee avoiding the question, you DID say you weren't republican, right?)

More cuteness.



"What will it take for Marcus Bryant to say the costs of this war are outweighing the benefits?"

Perhaps when that is the case. What is the cost of not taking a determined and proactive move against this nation's enemies? As we've seen, that cost is at least a few thousand dead on US soil.

Democrat, Republican, Socialist or whatever, it's rather clear that this nation cannot repeat its past mistakes.

But, I know, we have a Republican president. Try something fresh for a change.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

But what exactly to you is an outweighing cost?




-------------

you say we need to go to war because we've been attacked on us soil, etc
i say what if we stop the war now?

then you assume we'll get attacked again, or this will increase probability of attacks

so far it makes sense...however...


if we are to continue this war, and got attacked while at war, would you use this for reason to stay at war and start more wars, or see it as evidence that maybe war is not working like you thought it would?

I've heard people use this argument and take the former stance on this question. It's like you use attacks on us to justify anything.

[Marcus Bryant]

That is the purpose. We are not discussing something extreme such as the use of a nuclear strike against a state or a massive conventional war with the potential for hundreds of thousands of military casualties. Rather, we are discussing the proper method to utilize against Islamic militants hellbent on hitting American targets anyway they can. This is not a pretty war but there is not the shiny, happy avenue of peaceful negotiation left. We can forget about trying to ignore the problem so that it takes care of itself. This nation has tried those means again and again and again.

Sometimes force is the only method adequate to address threats to national security. Let us not forget that the last time the US dealt with an attack upon its shores it entered into a war that resulted in four years of combat, hundreds of thousands of American casualties, and a much greater economic cost. That was also with a much smaller general population.

A successful surprise strike in the heart of US political and economic power after a couple of decades of unanwsered strikes against the US is an effective recruiting tool for the enemies of this nation. Having to fight the world's best military on the ground is quite another. Having to resort to killing fellow believers and generating resentment within your broader faith is not. No one wants to join a losing movement.

A decent op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/opinion/11haykel.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%2 0Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors) today (or yesterday) in the NY Times summed it up. Here's a quote:


The simple fact is that many jihadis believe the war in Iraq is not going well. Too many Muslims are being killed. Images of that slaughter, conveyed by satellite television and the Internet throughout the Muslim world, are eroding global support for the jihadi cause. There are strong indications from jihadi Web sites and online journals, confirmed by conversations I have had while doing research among Salafis, or scriptural literalists, that the suicide attacks are turning many Muslims against the jihadis altogether.

[boutons]

But no Arab or Sunni cleric or top politician is condeming the Sunni slaughter of Shiites in Iraq. Total silence, because the Muslims know how violent and ruthless the jihadis are, even against other Muslims.

Meanwhile, the Brits have made a second accusation that Iran is training insurgents in Basra. With the Shiites being the majority in Iraq, Shiite Iran will end up, sooner or later, controlling Iraq. Thank you, dubya.

======================================


October 12, 2005
Op-Ed Columnist

Silence and Suicide
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

If I were editor of this newspaper, I would have led last Thursday's issue with the news report, under a big headline, saying that a Sunni Muslim suicide bomber attacked the Shiite mosque in Hilla, Iraq, on Wednesday - the Shiites' first day of Ramadan - and blew himself up, killing at least 25 worshipers and wounding more than 87. The worshipers had come to the mosque not only to mark the start of the Muslim holy month, but also to mourn a Shiite restaurant owner who had been killed by insurgents a few days earlier. According to The A.P., "The explosion hit the Husseiniyat Ibn al-Nama mosque, ripping through strings of light bulbs and green and red flags hung around the entrance to celebrate the start of the holy month."

This attack, which got scant attention, deserved much, much more because it's the essence of the terrorism problem we now face. When a Sunni Muslim jihadist blows up a Shiite mosque - a mosque - during Ramadan - Ramadan - and virtually no one in the Sunni world utters a word of condemnation, it means there is no controlling moral authority in the Sunni Muslim community anymore.

When Sunni Muslim insurgents have no respect for the sanctity of Muslim lives, Muslim houses of worship or Muslim holy days - and no one from their own wider Sunni community really moves to restrain or censure them - then there are no boundaries anymore. No one is safe. Anything goes, against anyone, anywhere. If the Sunni Muslim world does not act to halt this genocidal ethnic-cleansing campaign against the Shiites of Iraq, which this week included a teacher's being dragged from a classroom and shot in front of his students, the Sunni world will eventually be consumed by this very violence. A civilization that tolerates suicide bombing is itself committing suicide.

Inexplicably to me, the Bush team, which has finally settled on the right rationale for the war in Iraq - to help Arabs carve out a space in the heart of their world where they can create a decent, progressive future, instead of drifting aimlessly under autocrats and worshiping a glorious past - is equally silent. Instead of going to the U.N. and seeking a resolution declaring the Sunni terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his ilk war criminals, it sends Karen Hughes around the Arab world to get flagellated by Sunni Muslim women for how awful we are.

The Bush team calls that "public diplomacy." I call it losing a public relations war to mass murderers.

Yes, we, too, are hypocrites. I think the U.S. abuses of prisoners of war in Iraq and Afghanistan (we apparently tortured to death scores of prisoners in our custody) is a lasting blot on us all. But at least we have news media, a religious elite and courts that are exposing this, and a Senate majority that is now acting to bring it to a halt.

As Human Rights Watch noted in an Oct. 3 report, U.S. abuses in Iraq cannot justify the deliberate attacks by Iraqi insurgents on civilians, which "are serious violations of international humanitarian law - war crimes - and in some cases they are crimes against humanity. ... Not only should all insurgent groups in Iraq cease such attacks, but the political and religious leaders in Iraq and other countries who have expressed support for the insurgency should condemn the targeting of civilians."

But try to find an Arab head of state, or a major Sunni Arab cleric, who has consistently and repeatedly condemned Zarqawi or bin Laden by name. There are very, very few. Oh, yes, they arrest these jihadists in their own countries. But they rarely take them on - head on - in the war of ideas, because they are afraid of their own Sunni fundamentalists, many of whom tacitly support the war on Shiites.

And that is a real problem. Because there is only one way to stop this terrorism we are seeing from Indonesia to Iraq and from Madrid to London: it takes a village. It will stop only when the religious and political leaders, and parents, in these Sunni Muslim communities delegitimize it and anyone who engages in it.

Western leaders keep saying after every terrorist attack, "This is not about Islam." Sorry, but this is all about Islam. It is about a war within Islam between a jihadist-fascist minority engaged in crimes against humanity in the name of Islam, and a passive Sunni silent majority. Many of those Sunnis, I'm sure, are appalled by the violence against Iraqi civilians, but are too afraid, too morally leaderless or too quietly anti-Shiite to act.

As I said, a civilization that tolerates suicide-genocide will eventually be devoured by its extremists from within - and quarantined by its friends from abroad.

[Marcus Bryant]

So the militants are turning Muslims against their movement. Good.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Rather, we are discussing the proper method to utilize against Islamic militants hellbent on hitting American targets anyway they can.

But why are they hellbent? I believe that they would not be hellbent at this point in time if we had our eyes a little more open in the past.



This is not a pretty war but there is not the shiny, happy avenue of peaceful negotiation left.
That is a valid argument, but again, if most americans are thinking like you and dont even have a standard set for when a war gets too costly....then this is another vietnam in the making.


We can forget about trying to ignore the problem so that it takes care of itself.
Who said anything about ignoring the problem? Is the problem that they are hellbent on attacking us? Or is the problem that these factions believe their only resort to acheiving political agendas is terror? You seem to think the former, I think the latter.


This nation has tried those means again and again and again.
Give me a few examples. I'm not doubting, just asking.


Sometimes force is the only method adequate to address threats to national security.
Let us not forget that the last time the US dealt with an attack upon its shores it entered into a war that resulted in four years of combat, hundreds of thousands of American casualties, and a much greater economic cost. That was also with a much smaller general population.

A successful surprise strike in the heart of US political and economic power after a couple of decades of unanwsered strikes against the US is an effective recruiting tool for the enemies of this nation. Having to fight the world's best military on the ground is quite another. Having to resort to killing fellow believers and generating resentment within your broader faith is not. No one wants to join a losing movement.

I agree.

However, that still does not justify the indefinite continuation of this war.

[gtownspur]

Let me rephrase

not to appease them

but give them a voice, to let them know they are being heard, without them having to resort to guerilla tactics and terrorism to be heard.

Is that better?

That last statement is retarded though.


Goodness! are you out of your shriveled mind? Before you make assinine suggestions allowing terrorist to have their demands met, you must first think of the radical ramifications of such loonery.

First things first.
Number 1.
I don't know what terrorist you have blown in your lifetime, but the terrorist on everyone's tv dont give a rats ass about politcal representation in a democratic fashion. My God! CBF!, they're terrorist not fucking gay activist with hot pink turbans and rhino dildos for weapons. They are goddamned red blooded, pagan hatin, ready to slice your jugular, rape your wife as you die and convert her to IsSLAM mf'ers. You give them a mile and they'll take the damn interstate. They dont want peace. They only know domination. Al Queda wants to radicalize the whole Moslem world and create a second Holocaust. They have a mission. And will not stop until Islam is the supreme religion of the land. The only way to please them is to worship Allah.

2.If you were to look in your fucking history book and not the signed Noam Chomsky Book under your drag clothes drawer you would find that the U.S has been succesful in nation building. ANd no! it's not Goddamn Kosovo for all you Clinton whores. It's Germany and Japan.


So dont fucking act elitist you stupid tart and finaly use your damn brain. :pctoss

[Nbadan]

Number 1.

I don't know what terrorist you have blown in your lifetime, but the terrorist on everyone's tv dont give a rats ass about politcal representation in a democratic fashion. My God! CBF!, they're terrorist not fucking gay activist with hot pink turbans and rhino dildos for weapons. They are goddamned red blooded, pagan hatin, ready to slice your jugular, rape your wife as you die and convert her to IsSLAM mf'ers. You give them a mile and they'll take the damn interstate. They dont want peace. They only know domination. Al Queda wants to radicalize the whole Moslem world and create a second Holocaust. They have a mission. And will not stop until Islam is the supreme religion of the land. The only way to please them is to worship Allah.

Replace Muslims and Al Queda with Christians and the far right, and Allah with God and this sentence still makes chilling sense.

[Marcus Bryant]

First off, there was a time when the US sought to ally itself with various governments and groups in the ME. That, of course, was during the Cold War. Ancient history, perhaps. The US has made much more of a case for Palestinian independence than any other group in the ME could have done. The US certainly had tried to avoid armed conflict over terrorist strikes until 9/11. The most aggressive response we saw to terrorist strikes was Reagan ordering one airstrike on Qaddafi in the 80s and then Clinton shooting off a few cruise missles in the 90s.

The US is a prolific distributor of humanitarian assistance to countries throughout the ME. It has been attempting to force change through non-force means in nations such as Iran.

The ME remains a region of despotic government. The Hussein regime wasn't going away. It was clear that Hussein had been bribing his way out of the UN sanctions scheme and it was unclear as to the status of his weaponry as well as his connections to al Qaeda. With a Hussein who had begun to publicly embrace the militant Islamic movement something had to be done.

The world is not one that runs on 20/20 hindsight. Before it became an election issue a large number of major Democratic politicians supported the decision to remove Hussein. Regime change was a part of official US policy...in the Clinton administration.

The US tried relatively peaceful means in its efforts to force out Hussein for the better course of a decade.

Of course, the thanks the US received for protecting the Saudi Arabia from then-secular Saddam in 1990 was a decade worth of terrorist strikes culminating with the slaughter of 2,000 plus on American soil.

There is no way to deal peacefully with these enemies. I don't care if it is George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Lou Rawls or the Easter Bunny in the White House. It is a proper use of American military power to deal with these threats proactively in the ME.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Goodness! are you out of your shriveled mind? Before you make assinine suggestions allowing terrorist to have their demands met, you must first think of the radical ramifications of such loonery.

First things first.
Number 1.
I don't know what terrorist you have blown in your lifetime, but the terrorist on everyone's tv dont give a rats ass about politcal representation in a democratic fashion. My God! CBF!, they're terrorist not fucking gay activist with hot pink turbans and rhino dildos for weapons. They are goddamned red blooded, pagan hatin, ready to slice your jugular, rape your wife as you die and convert her to IsSLAM mf'ers. You give them a mile and they'll take the damn interstate. They dont want peace. They only know domination. Al Queda wants to radicalize the whole Moslem world and create a second Holocaust. They have a mission. And will not stop until Islam is the supreme religion of the land.



So not only do you believe in reaganomics, you are also a bigot and a racist. Congrats. Goodness!


2.If you were to look in your fucking history book and not the signed Noam Chomsky Book under your drag clothes drawer you would find that the U.S has been succesful in nation building. ANd no! it's not Goddamn Kosovo for all you Clinton whores. It's Germany and Japan.


So dont fucking act elitist you stupid tart and finaly use your damn brain. :pctoss
Yeah, building Japan has really come in handy with them steadily increasing their dominance over markets the US used to own, and Germany is different because other nations took active roles in the rebuilding process.



The only way to please them is to worship Allah.


You're just flat out wrong. No other way to put it. Talk about picking up a book...

[Nbadan]

The world is not one that runs on 20/20 hindsight. Before it became an election issue a large number of major Democratic politicians supported the decision to remove Hussein. Regime change was a part of official US policy...in the Clinton administration.

There is a big difference between clandestinely supporting regime change in Iraq through aiding dissidents as Clinton was doing, and actively conspiring to mislead Congress and the American people into a war by presenting unvested, questionable intelligence. I think this is where the Fitzgerald investigation is slowly creeping toward.

[Marcus Bryant]

After 9/11 the US could not wait.

It was already official US policy to get rid of Hussein prior to 9/11. Sure, the intel wasn't totally accurate. What was accurate was that a number of parties were being bribed by Hussein in order to get the UN sanctions lifted. The time was to act. The Clinton policy was nothing.

[Nbadan]

After 9/11 the US could not wait.

It was already official US policy to get rid of Hussein prior to 9/11. Sure, the intel wasn't totally accurate. What was accurate was that a number of parties were being bribed by Hussein in order to get the UN sanctions lifted. The time was to act. The Clinton policy was nothing.

Yes, Saddam was violating provisions of the food-for-oil program, but many of the coupons Iraq used to sell discount oil on the market wound up in Texas Oilmen hands, so are we to invade Texas next?

Obviously, not every country was sold on the Iraqi-WMD intelligence, Russia wasn't, neither was Germany, nor China, or for that matter UN inspector Hans Blix.

[Nbadan]

2000 (http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/Movies/2000A/2000.html) - Dedicated to those brave Americans who paid the ultimate price for us to be able to post our thoughts on these types of forums.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=RandomGuy]
This insurgency could have been mitigated by an administration with enough sense and competence to plan for it.


Jochhejaam: RG, stating that the administration didn't have enough sense and was incompetent is an opinion that can't be proven so isn't this a case of hindsight being 20/20? Are there substantiated pre-invasion arguements from any source predicting a prolonged and sustained insurgency and a means of dealing with it?


Please correct me if I'm taking this out of context and am interpreting it wrong... but are you suggesting that because no one predicted a prolonged and sustained insurgency, no one bothered to think of a plan to deal with it?

Hello scott. No, that wasn't the intent of my comment to RG but I see how it could have been interpreted as such.
I was merely telling RG that it's easy to be critical using hindsight. Critical opinions such as his would carry substansial weight if they had been given before the invasion.
I don't know how much forethought was put into the consequences of an invasion (my opinion would be not enough which unfortunately may be par for the course in war) but I believe we are dealing with the present insurgencies as well as they can be dealt with. I'm wondering how forethought would have had a mitigating affect regarding the insurgents but even with good arguements to that question we're back to hindsight being 20/20.

[jochhejaam]

:oops :)

[gtownspur]

Cbf! your killing me!

I was talking about terrorist not arabs. If anyone got racism out of those qoutes then it was because they were mildly racist or bigoted in equating all arabs to terrorist.

and ofcourse i would love to ask you who the hell rebuilt Germany and Japan. It was only us and the british and russia. Ofcourse russia only rebuilt their half of germany. There was no fuckin UN at the time dimwit. So it has been done.

[gtownspur]

Replace Muslims and Al Queda with Christians and the far right, and Allah with God and this sentence still makes chilling sense.

Yeah Dan! Just like anyone can also replace Effimanate Canadians and the Spam Lobby and anything in your world would make sense. Since anyone is capable of being a terrorist. :drunk

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE]
I was merely telling RG that it's easy to be critical using hindsight. Critical opinions such as his would carry substansial weight if they had been given before the invasion.
I don't know how much forethought was put into the consequences of an invasion (my opinion would be not enough which unfortunately may be par for the course in war) but I believe we are dealing with the present insurgencies as well as they can be dealt with. I'm wondering how forethought would have had a mitigating affect regarding the insurgents but even with good arguements to that question we're back to hindsight being 20/20.

Jeezus H. Christ on a stick man, you can't tell me that you think that it isn't reasonable to expect that you need body armor in a war zone?

It isn't reasonable to expect that the US occupying a muslim country MIGHT attact a few attacks on convoys of unarmored humvees?

One only has to look at what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan to see the fanaticism that we would end up facing. SUR-FUCKING-PRIZE!!! A predominantly christian army isn't well received no matter how good their intentions. *Nobody* could have forseen that... :rolleyes

Hell, I was saying all this shit long before the invasion. I KNEW what was going to happen, and astoundingly enough we have pretty much what I thought we were going to have: an unstable country that is a magnet for nutjobs.

That is the frustrating part for me. I saw it coming and as much as I pointed all this stuff out, Bush apologists pooh-poohed it as liberal fantasy. :pctoss

[RandomGuy]

And the spin coming out of this administration about the war has passed out of the realm of optimism, and gone far into the territory of outright lying and cynical manipulation. I can get "forward looking statements" but when you outright lie about your bottom line, you get Enron. This is no different, but people are dying for Bush lies.

Bush claims an "ever increasing number" of "combat ready Iraqi forces" are coming along all the time.

Last year, the US millitary reported 3 combat ready battalions of Iraqi troops.

How many this year did the generals in charge of our forces over there tell the Senate commitee they had?

ONE.

[Nbadan]

Bush claims an "ever increasing number" of "combat ready Iraqi forces" are coming along all the time.

Last year, the US millitary reported 3 combat ready battalions of Iraqi troops.

How many this year did the generals in charge of our forces over there tell the Senate commitee they had?

ONE.

Well, you obviously didn't see the train-wreck that was supposed to be a simulcast between W and some troops in Iraq about today's election. Notice how W never said or implied that enough Iraqi troops would be trained and/or ready anytime soon or in the foreseeable future, but he got his little staged-monkeys to say it, so the message got out anyway.

:lol

[boutons]

'the U.S has been succesful in nation building. It's Germany and Japan."

But the Germans and Japanese weren't shooting and bombing the occupiers and occupied after the war. There weren't 1000's of armed, financed, trained, suicidal religious fanatics pouring into those countries to fuel an insurgency. In Japan and Germany, the war ended definitively. In Iraq, the insurgency is continuing more violently than the war.

The all-powerful US military's inability to establish security in Iraq so the nation-building could progress makes Iraq totally different from the PEACEFUL re-building of Germany and Japan.

One of the huge mistakes the Repubs made was assuming the Iraqis would be as passive and willing about US nation building, after the other Repub mistake of assuming a "slam dunk" "flyboy mission accomplished" only 3 months after the invasion.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=RandomGuy]
This insurgency could have been mitigated by an administration with enough sense and competence to plan for it.

[QUOTE=RandomGuy]Jeezus H. Christ on a stick man, you can't tell me that you think that it isn't reasonable to expect that you need body armor in a war zone?
I never responded to your post about body armor but if I had my reply would have been that body armor is much more important than your suggestion of reasonable I would label it as essential. That would have saved some our soldiers lives.
In directing our dialogue off of the "body armor" bunny trail you chose to take and slowly redirecting it back onto your original statement that I was responding to, body armor most certainly would not have a mitigating affect on the strength of the insurgency :rolleyes . One can surmise that you have come to the rediculous conclusion that the insurgents would have said, "oh my, they have body armor, lets just go back home". :rolleyes





One only has to look at what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan to see the fanaticism that we would end up facing. SUR-FUCKING-PRIZE!!! A predominantly christian army isn't well received no matter how good their intentions. *Nobody* could have forseen that... :rolleyes
Did I say nobody?...no, I didn't! In the future you might consider asking questions instead of taking the liberty of innacurately interpreting my posts in order to satisfy a point of your own.




Hell, I was saying all this shit long before the invasion. I KNEW what was going to happen, and astoundingly enough we have pretty much what I thought we were going
So you KNEW yet you were astounded that your pre-invasion rhetoric panned out? If you KNEW, why were you astounded?
(predicting you'll write "astounded" off as sarcasm)




That is the frustrating part for me. I saw it coming and as much as I pointed all this stuff out, Bush apologists pooh-poohed it as liberal fantasy.
Of course you did and it's a dam shame that they didn't take the brilliant foresight you claim to have had and incorporated it into our battle plans.
Oh that you would have been a General in our Military.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

But the Germans and Japanese weren't shooting and bombing the occupiers and occupied after the war. There weren't 1000's of armed, financed, trained, suicidal religious fanatics pouring into those countries to fuel an insurgency. In Japan and Germany, the war ended definitively. In Iraq, the insurgency is continuing more violently than the war.


That's a good point. What say you, gtownspur?

[RandomGuy]

What if someone is not loyal to any party but thought it had to be done and that invariably some things cannot be adequately prepared for? Insurgents do not employ standard military tactics.

Um, Yeah.

So planning to have enough body armor in a war zone isn't something you expect out of your administrations?
:wtf

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE]
RG, stating that the administration didn't have enough sense and was incompetent is an opinion that can't be proven so isn't this a case of hindsight being 20/20? Are there substantiated pre-invasion arguements from any source predicting a prolonged and sustained insurgency and a means of dealing with it?

If the charges can't be persuasively argued by showing ignorance and a blatant disregard of some preexisting and proven effective methodology in handling an unknown quantity (and I don't see how it can) then what's the point of the charge?

almost midnight here, bedtime :)

I predicted exactly this before the invasion. A brief war that we would win, probably with relatively low casualties, followed by an insurgency of some sort. I was pretty sure that the Iraqis had some sort of WMD that they would likely use if they had the opportunity.

I didn't predict the complete anarchy after the Baathist collapse, nor the ferociousness of the insurgency. Both of which were fueled by inept administration mistakes. I assumed a level of competence that doesn't exist.

No few people predicted the post-war occupation would turn into another Vietnam.

Simple things like body armor and armored vehicles are easy to argue. Hell, the GOP controlled congress thought it important to grill a Democratic president over a BJ, so tell me why the same shouldn't be done by a responsible body over the conduct of a war?

[RandomGuy]

The following is an essay that I wrote for a job application at Stratfor.com, dated early november 2003

The Guerilla Campaign in Iraq

Summary

The U.S.-led coalition has faced a guerilla campaign that has escalated since the formal end of hostilities in May. The nature and scope of the attacks have changed over time from initial “target-of-opportunity” type ambushes using small arms, rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devices to also include high profile suicide bombings of entities perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being complicit in the U.S.-led occupation. This steady escalation has lead to the U.S. commander using the term “guerilla war” in a recent statement. Although tempting to link this situation and the contributing factors to historical analogues, post-war Iraq remains a unique challenge to policy makers.

Analysis

Speculation by immediately following the fall of the Hussein government that elaborate contingency plans that included efforts to cleanse key ministries and facilities in preparation for the fall of the government to a U.S.-led assault appears to have been borne out. Given Saddam’s well documented instinct for survival it is logical to assume that plans were also made for the ruling circle to go to ground after the war and continue the attempts at turning world opinion, especially Arab and Muslim opinion, against the occupation.

The end of the official war has seen a slow escalation of combat deaths to ambushes and attacks, especially in the “Sunni Triangle”. Given the large number of arms and unemployed ex-soldiers in Iraq it would be safe to assign some, but certainly not all, of this activity to increasing resentment of the occupation. However, given that the location of most of these attacks is in the geographic location of Saddam’s natural base of support, it is logical to assume that no small element of this guerilla action is due to an organized and planned resistance, mostly loyal to the Baathist regime.

Also of important note is the addition in recent months of an increasing use of bombings against a wide variety of soft targets, from the Jordanian embassy to compounds belonging to the Red Cross, UN, and very recently, Italy. Each of these targets seems to have been chosen for attempting to erode support for the occupation by encouraging a withdrawal of personnel. These tactics would seem to implicate the much talked about “foreign fighters” that this conflict naturally attracts, given the predominantly negative view of the U.S. in the Arab and Muslim world.

Factors

Many factors affect the situation on the ground in Iraq, such as the interests of neighboring states, especially Iran and Turkey, as well as the current U.S. political situation. The increasingly touted historical analogy of Vietnam falls short here. This insurgency is not backed by any formal government, as was the case in Vietnam. Iran undoubtedly is attempting to affect the situation for its own religiously motivated purposes. Whether such attempts will succeed in the long run given the more secular nature of the Shia population in Iraq or the pro-democracy pressures within Iran itself remains to be seen. Turkey for its part is torn between conflicting pressures. Neither it nor Iran wants to see the total collapse of Iraq as a nation that is a very distinct possibility if the U.S. does withdraw in the immediate future, but it also does not want to be seen by its population as an enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. led action.

Given increasing domestic pressure on the Bush administration for an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. forces, we will likely see an increasing reliance on Iraqi security forces to maintain order. While there are some parallels to post war Germany, especially in the use of former government functionaries to kick-start a post-war government, there are also distinct differences. The Marshall Plan was not instituted until several years after the end of hostilities, and it also started with an educated population of a developed industrialized economy, however badly damaged.

The main challenge in forming a government in Iraq will be in getting the three main segments of the population, the Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center, and Shia in the south, to do something that has not historically happened: work together as equals in a cooperative government.

Forecast

Much will depend on the U.S. ability to improve the lot of the average Iraqi. If conditions are bad enough for long enough, the ranks of resistance will start to draw upon a larger part of the population that is increasingly impatient for such an improvement. The guerillas, without formal support of some outside power, will not be able to inflict the kinds of Vietnam-level casualty rates that will seriously hamper American efforts to create a post war Iraqi government. The U.S. will eventually leave, but it is in almost no one’s interest to see the likely disintegration of Iraq that a premature withdrawal would likely entail.


Joccejam, it was easy to see then, and given the incompetance of the administration I was a bit too optimistic. :owned

[RandomGuy]

Exactly. It does not work that way. Either this nation deals with threats to its national security or it goes back to the bipartisan policy of the prior three decades of trying to wish this particular threat away.

:lmao
Saddam posed little threat to our national security, even IF he had possessed WMDs.

[jochhejaam]

The following is an essay that I wrote for a job application at Stratfor.com, dated early november 2003



Joccejam, it was easy to see then, and given the incompetance of the administration I was a bit too optimistic.

Let's see, the invasion began March 20th of 2003 and your "essay" was in October of 2003, your essay was a mere 8 months after the date of the invasion and you're calling that forethought? :lol

I am dumbfounded, shocked and appalled that this essay :lol wasn't immediately forwarded to the Pentagon upon it's receipt by Strafor.com.

It's a nice essay RG but no more insightful than hundreds of opinions that inundated op/ed papers across the country in the same time frame. Certainly nothing approaching profound.

p.s. having a smiley hold up a owned sign on your behalf is amusing, did you include one with your job application along with the essay? :lol

p.s. #2 hope you got the job

[Nbadan]

The U.S.-led coalition has faced a guerilla campaign that has escalated since the formal end of hostilities in May. The nature and scope of the attacks have changed over time from initial “target-of-opportunity” type ambushes using small arms, rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devices to also include high profile suicide bombings of entities perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being complicit in the U.S.-led occupation. This steady escalation has lead to the U.S. commander using the term “guerilla war” in a recent statement. Although tempting to link this situation and the contributing factors to historical analogues, post-war Iraq remains a unique challenge to policy makers.

It turns out Iraq isn’t that unique after all. It's pretty much your typical dirty war complete with incompetent cronies lining their pockets, no clear objective on the part of the military, and ambiguous allegiances among Iraqi's differing factions.

[Nbadan]

Speculation by immediately following the fall of the Hussein government that elaborate contingency plans that included efforts to cleanse key ministries and facilities in preparation for the fall of the government to a U.S.-led assault appears to have been borne out. Given Saddam’s well documented instinct for survival it is logical to assume that plans were also made for the ruling circle to go to ground after the war and continue the attempts at turning world opinion, especially Arab and Muslim opinion, against the occupation.

It's very likely that Saddam had become just a figure-head to the Baathists regime in his waning days in Iraq. There are stories that he would spend his days as ruler of Iraq, gardening, reading and watching vidoes. Sure he still called the shots, but when it came time to actually getting the nasty things done, he had his sons and his loyal Baathists Generals do most of the dirty work. One of these Baathists Generals is said to be the real head of the organized insurgents, not Al-Zarqawi, who's likely dead.

[RandomGuy]

Let's see, the invasion began March 20th of 2003 and your "essay" was in October of 2003, your essay was a mere 8 months after the date of the invasion and you're calling that forethought? :lol

I am dumbfounded, shocked and appalled that this essay :lol wasn't immediately forwarded to the Pentagon upon it's receipt by Strafor.com.

It's a nice essay RG but no more insightful than hundreds of opinions that inundated op/ed papers across the country in the same time frame. Certainly nothing approaching profound.

p.s. having a smiley hold up a owned sign on your behalf is amusing, did you include one with your job application along with the essay? :lol

p.s. #2 hope you got the job

The timing, shortly after the war reflected my thinking at the time. I knew there was going to be some level of insurrection before the fighting started. It is not forethought from before the war, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I intended it as such. My apologies. It is simply the earliest example of my thinking that I could find on my present computer.

As for "no more insightful", it was limited in space to 800 words. I had to leave out a LOT of detail. I would also point out that my subject knowledge is more extensive than those of a majority of "op-ed" writers whose sole qualification is a poli-sci degree.

The thing you have to ask yourself, when looking at this is that I was out of the active duty army for years and still knew that there was going to be some level of guerilla war after the formal fighting was over. We should all hope that there are people in the government with even more up-to-date information and expertise on this than myself, and who would come to a very similar conclusion. Why were those people not listened to?

I did not (thankfully) get the job (still don't know why). It forced me back into school Where I found my true calling: accountancy.

[gtownspur]

That's a good point. What say you, gtownspur?

It's a good point if it were true, but that is false. GErmany as reported by the NYT in those years had violence during reconstruction. Japan did not go away peacefuly as well. In fact the NYT like today was predicting failure.

[boutons]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2003/1109parallel.htm

"that is false"

The overwhelming occupation forces in Germany and Japan, the unconditional surrender by the defeated leaders, etc, made the reconstruction of those two countries totally different from, easier and more rapid than Iraq, where the under-manned US occupation forces have not been able to establish basic security, a fundamental failure which delays and prevents reconstruction of services like water, electricity, sewage, and daily business.

I have not been able to find any documents that say post-war reconstruction in Germany and Japan was delayed and prevented by violence against the occupying forces. If there was any post-surrencer resistance, it was minuscule, insignifcant compared to what the Repubs are facing in Iraq.

[boutons]

http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1237/

"Is Nation-building Successful?

Far from being diversions from US foreign policy, recent military invasions and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq continue the United States' long history of forcibly replacing threatening regimes in other countries. US nation-building has yielded some luminous successes (Japan, Germany, Taiwan), some dismal failures (Haiti, Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia), and some bafflingly inconclusive results (Philippines, Kosovo). US interventions have prolonged indigenous conflicts by taking one side (Middle East) and by befriending both (Far East, Africa). Active interventions have left behind a dictatorship (Argentina), a democracy (Puerto Rico), an autocracy (Kuwait), and an ethnocracy (Israel).

The public is often unaware of how infrequently post-conflict nation-building has succeeded. The World Bank found in its experience that countries emerging from war had a 50 percent chance of relapsing into conflict within five years. In a study for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Minxin Pei and Sara Kasper reviewed 16 major US-led nation-building efforts since 1900 and concluded that in only four countries—West Germany, Japan, Grenada, and Panama—did the types of democratic governance systems that the United States sought to build continue after 10 years. In only five cases were democratic regimes sustained for more than three years after the United States withdrew. In Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Cambodia, and Vietnam, dictatorships quickly emerged after US military forces left the country. US forces were driven out of Lebanon after regime change and nation-building efforts failed in the early 1980s and a decade later from Somalia under similar circumstances.

International organizations' peacekeeping and nationbuilding policies have not fared much better. UN Trusteeships in Kosovo and East Timor during the 1990s have been criticized for failing to establish strong, autonomous, and sustainable states in the aftermath of wars in those territories; the dispatch of envoys to the Sudan and Colombia failed to settle long-raging internal conflicts, and after more than a decade the supervisory mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina still had not restored effective indigenous governance to that war-torn area. Even after prolonged UN supervision, the 2002 elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina merely returned to power ethnic nationalists that were involved in the original conflicts. After a decade under UN oversight, democracy in Cambodia is far from institutionalized and elections are still riddled with corruption, violence, and fraud. UN peacekeeping and nation-building operations in Somalia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone failed to achieve either goal and in other countries they encountered complex constraints that made even humanitarian relief efforts difficult.

The disappointing results of nation-building can be explained by the complexity of attempting to rebuild war-torn countries with "failed" or "collapsed" states. In many of these countries, external or indigenous efforts at regime replacement began due to the government's disintegrating capacity to govern because of political and administrative weaknesses, general lawlessness and corruption, ethnic tensions and conflict, economic depression, financial crises, or totalitarianism. Even if the equivalent of "denazification" has taken place, the challenge of administering reconstruction still requires new procedures beyond cleansed bureaucracies. New structures are needed, especially if part of the donor's role is delegated to a United Nations, a NATO, or an ad hoc coalition."

========================

Nation-building has had a very mixed history. The successes of Germany and Japan were exceptions, not the rule. (still waiting for evidence that reconstruction in Germany and Japan was delayed, hindered by widespread, significant, long-term violence that the Repubs are encountering in Iraq).

Even if the Repubs had nothing else to do except destroy/re-build Iraq, starting a bullshit war in Iraq in order to create a democracy and "infect" the ME with liberalism was a very low-percentage play. Add in the fact that Iraq is surrounded by unfriendly or outright enemies like Syria and Iran, the war in Iraq was simply wrong.

But in the context of the war on terrror (which excludes non-terrorizing Iraq) and a still unstabilized Afghanistan , the bullshit Iraq war was incredibly stupid. It will be the destruction of the dubya/dickhead presidency.

With the Constitution referendum done and the Constitution apparently approved but with mass protest voting by the effectively dis-enfranchized Sunnis, there is only the December parliamentary election remaining as the "last milestone to democracy". If the violence in 2006 continues at the same level of 2005, "democracy in Iraq" will have failed as a peace-engendering exercise.

dubya doesn't have a clue what his "stay the course" means, nor does he have any idea how to get out of Iraq.

How many think the insurgency will now stop?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It's a good point if it were true, but that is false. GErmany as reported by the NYT in those years had violence during reconstruction. Japan did not go away peacefuly as well. In fact the NYT like today was predicting failure.



But in fact you completely ignore that while some violence is inevitable, the level of said violence in germany and japan was nowhere near what we are seeing in Iraq now.

[gtownspur]

But in fact you completely ignore that while some violence is inevitable, the level of said violence in germany and japan was nowhere near what we are seeing in Iraq now.

Everyone acknowledges that the cost of reconstruction is bloody. Iraq is violent and there is civil unrest. The problem with your insistence that our policy is fated is that it seems to be based on combative idealogical pretenses which desire the outcome of humiliation and defeat of america. The insurgents have only suceeded in murder and not in agenda with the iraqi people. This is fact! The iraqi elections and the constitutional ballots are testament to success. The reason being is for two; one the iraqi's like anybody else desire to rule and restore national pride, and the other is that Iraq is a third world spot not to be intimidated by bloodshed because of Sadaam's past policies and the fact that they have been unstable for a long time. Their society is advancing because they do want democracy and do not care for foreign terrorist who seek weakness. This should be greatly acknowledge by people like you and your companions who insist that we are losing the war on terror because they base victory on a totally sanitized victory of near zero fatalities. This Disneyesque version of winning that the american left expects is seen by many as a dishonest expectation to be met, intended traitoruously to mull any sign of victory acheived by our military.



President Bush has said it again and again. The fate of iraq rest solely on the iraqi people. He has pointed it out many a times. Since we all acknowledge that, we should if we desire a bright future for everybody, rally not blindly but with open minds and open hearts behind America. Despite what you want everyone to think, we are at war as a nation CBF!! You, I, all the YOni's and Dans should in ourselves all desire what is ultimately good for america. You my freind are allowed to criticize our effors for any reason. But as an american those criticism should be constructive and not destructive. But i acknowledge the fact that this wont be easy to accomplish because some of us have very out of base views on the situation of the war on terror. If you want to see open and honest dialogue between conservatives and liberals on this war, conservatives need to acknowledge these principles.

1. The fact that Iraq was started on strong premises on issues of political ones but weak on material. Ex. strong case that sadaam was harboring and allying with alqueda. Weak. that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

2.THis is our war not Bush's or Rumsfeld. Do not be blind by partisanship. One must keep themselves informed and expect realistic expectations to be met. Do not be ashamed of voicing dissent towards our means of fighting the war.

2.be open minded to suggestions politcal opposites offer for effectiveness on our war front. Remember this is our war and not Bush's.

If liberals have any wanting to desire honest discourse they should then;

1. Regardless of the pass, Realize that this is america's war and that alqueda is spending their capital on it. If it is lost it will backfire on us tremendously and we will pay the cost by the blood of our civilians. (note: Liberals are not exempt of terrorist attacks) Al queda is hoping that your side ignites division in our country so that they can show to terrorist hopefuls that we are easy target and we are paper tigers.

2.Recognize that AlQueda does not speak for the middle east. Alqueda is radical and they have said it themselves that they desire world submission. THey do not need provocation to mastermind terror. THey want to terrorize the world and bring weak diplomats and kings as well as societies to their knees.

3.Alqueda's needs should not be met. They will not stop at withdrawal from iraq. They dont give a fuck about iraqi land and independence. They are invested in this war to undermine america only. If we are out of iraq. Then the focus will shift to the Gaza strip more fervently and to afghanistan. And once they start trying to screw with the israeli and palestinian conflict. WE are FUCKED!!!! After that expect them to slaughter millions in the region and retake afghanistan and sumbit pakistan.

4. Dont be full of yourselves. You are not invincible or exempt from radical muslim ire becuase you have a pacifist idealogy. WEakness is far worst than strength.

Alqueda attacked the U.S. becuase of people like the cynical components of the far left who make this country weak who have portrayed the U.s. as weak for decades.

We need a Left that is strong and mighty. Not one that is patheticaly impotent spiritualy and mentaly.

[boutons]

"strong case that sadaam was harboring and allying with alqueda."

this is BS, along with Saddam involved in 9/11. Cheney repeated this lie frequently, something like 70% of US polled as believing it at one point. NOBODY has ever provided any evidence.

Before the Saudis agreed to let the US attack Saddam in Kuwait, they refused bin Laden's offer to attack Saddam. bin Laden/al Qaida and Saddam are allies? GMAFB bin Laden is on a jihad, Saddam was a secular dictator totally detached from jihad and international terror.

Iraq war was started by the Repub administration, and executed with Repub incompetence, exlcusively for Repub objectives, exploiting the good faith of the US after 9/11. The Repub popular vote mandate was NEGATIVE in the 2000 election. With less that half of the popular vote in 2000, with the extremely partisan, polarizing behavior of the Repubs, there's no way the Iraq war is a US war, it is a Repub war.

"AlQueda does not speak for the middle east"

:lol But you insist that the Repubs speak for the USA? GMAFB


"They will not stop at withdrawal from iraq."

al Qaida is in Iraq EXCLUSVELY because the Americans there. The American occupation is causing the insurgency.

"Alqueda attacked the U.S. becuase of people like the cynical components of the far left who make this country weak who have portrayed the U.s. as weak for decades."

What total horseshit, typical ignorant, dishonest right-wing horseshti. al quaida attached the US because of US's dependence on ME oil, forcing the US to occupy ME "sacred" countries, and because of the US supporting Isreal agains the Palestinians.

Don't you fucking worry about the left (they aren't in power), but worry about the Repubs who are in power and fucking up the USA and the world.

[Dos]

Before the Saudis agreed to let the US attack Saddam in Kuwait, they refused bin Laden's offer to attack Saddam. bin Laden/al Qaida and Saddam are allies? GMAFB bin Laden is on a jihad, Saddam was a secular dictator totally detached from jihad and international terror.

so saddam wasn't sponsering palestinian suicide bombers..

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The problem with your insistence that our policy is fated is that it seems to be based on combative idealogical pretenses which desire the outcome of humiliation and defeat of america.


I want america to be humiliated and defeated? I stopped reading here. You're just stupid, man.

(Reality check Bush does not = America, current regimes do not = America, your conservative ass does not = America)

[boutons]

Saddam had a $25K compensation for families of Palistinian bombers, who existed before and after Saddam's compensation. BFD. For that, we start a war and waste 1000s of Americans??

I never heard that Saddam was harboring, financing, training, exporting, equipping, exhorting international jihadi terrorists the way Iran, Syria, the Taliban/Afghanistan, al Quaida were/are.

The bullshit Iraq war has distracted the US military away from the known, real sources of terrrorism. Nice fucking job, Repubs.

[Dos]

so tell me how do you deal with terrorist who are hell bent on killing as many of us as possible..?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The iraqi elections and the constitutional ballots are testament to success. The reason being is for two; one the iraqi's like anybody else desire to rule and restore national pride, and the other is that Iraq is a third world spot not to be intimidated by bloodshed because of Sadaam's past policies and the fact that they have been unstable for a long time.
ROfl, dude do you even know what you are typing?





President Bush has said it again and again. The fate of iraq rest solely on the iraqi people. He has pointed it out many a times.

Then it must be true!


Since we all acknowledge that,
narrowminded

we should if we desire a bright future for everybody, rally not blindly but with open minds and open hearts behind America.
Again, a retard like you who acts like a political genius assumes just because one does not agree and desires to debate that he is unamerican or antiamerican. Your desire to make me shut up and flat out accept you not only infringes upon my own personal constitution-given freedom, but in fact makes you seem antiamerican! Try that one on for size, bitch.


Despite what you want everyone to think, we are at war as a nation CBF!!
Really? With who?

[boutons]

"how do you deal with terrorist"

It's a very tough job, that's why the Tough-Talking/Small-dick Repubs and conservatives chose to go into a sitting-duck, weakened, "slam dunk", push-over country like Iraq rather than go after the much difficult al-Quaida.

I really don't think terrorism can be stopped, esp when Repubs and USA in general absolutely refuse to reduce/eliminate US dependence on (ME) oil. And of course, the Isaeli-Palestinian problem won't go away with or without US involvement.

I'm all for attacking the causes of terrorism and terrorists, I was all for Gulf War and invading Afghanistan.

But Iraq was not a terrorist country or an threat to USA, but Iraq is full of terrorists now. Nice work, dubya.

[gtownspur]

ROfl, dude do you even know what you are typing?






Then it must be true!


narrowminded

Again, a retard like you who acts like a political genius assumes just because one does not agree and desires to debate that he is unamerican or antiamerican. Your desire to make me shut up and flat out accept you not only infringes upon my own personal constitution-given freedom, but in fact makes you seem antiamerican! Try that one on for size, bitch.


Really? With who?


( Boutons)the fucking 911 commision acknowledge that there were ties with sadaam and OBL as far as in agreement to infrastucture and ops. 911 and Sadaam however were not linked. I never mentioned any ties with 911 and iraq. distinguish!

CBF- obviously you did read my whole article but didnt comprehend. WHen you advocate withdrawal from iraq you are in effect going against our interest.

are you so stupid to think that if we were to withdraw ,that alqueda wouldnt seize the chance to both humiliate us therefore enlisting even more men to the cause? Not to mention that we would damage the M.E. worse than it is. If this is not our war then who's is it.

Let me ask you something.

Who do you think OBL waged war against? Just the republicans.

Who died on 911? Just republicans,neocons and zionist jews?

If OBL has waged war on us, then we are by definition forced at war with him.
You'd have to fucking ignore what had been happening Sept 10 and the past to fucking think that 911 was started because republicans took over office. Infact you'd have to be even more insane and idiotic to believe that AQ is a fucking respectable organization whose needs need to be met. But it doesnt stop there. You seem to think that 911 happened only because we've been in the ME for decades and that AQ wants their holy land back. Even more frightening is your insistence that we pull out because the iraqi people dont want us there. IF they didnt want us there then they would have asked us to pull out. I'd like you to fucking come up with any proof that they have asked us to pull out either through polling data, a representative of the iraqi's, or any official because the only people asking for withdrawal is pussies like you and the sheehan mothership as well as France, Germany and AQ. If you dont think these elections have been a success then you might just well be in denial. I guess you determine the voice of the iraqi people to be syrian suicide bombers. That's equivalent to saying that france and germany speak up for the american electorate.... Wait! you probably do. If your not stupid by ignorance then what are you by fully knowing the consequences of your ideas.



No one is fucking forcing you to acknowledge anything. Quit acting like i raped you and forced you to wear a W for 04 sticker on your left cheek.

[gtownspur]

how do you like them apples!!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

CBF- obviously you did read my whole article but didnt comprehend. WHen you advocate withdrawal from iraq you are in effect going against our interest.

Comprehension does not require agreement.
Agreement does not require comprehension.

"Our interest" is what, exactly? To liberate Iraq? Or to protect the U.S.A.?
What is "our interest"?
And how would withdrawal 'in effect' be going against this interest?


are you so stupid to think that if we were to withdraw ,that alqueda wouldnt seize the chance to both humiliate us therefore enlisting even more men to the cause?

Show me proof that AlQaeda has been legitimately linked to the Iraqi insurgency.
And if we are to suffer humiliation instead of death, then ehhh, I say so be it. But i'm no chickenhawk, so that's just a normal american's opinion.



Not to mention that we would damage the M.E. worse than it is. If this is not our war then who's is it.
What are you basing this on?
If we leave Iraq right now, it would damage the M.E. "worse than it is"
Why is it "worse" now?
"if its not our war then who's is it" ?????? rofl....am i the only one reading this stuff?! lol..




Who do you think OBL waged war against? Just the republicans.

Who died on 911? Just republicans,neocons and zionist jews?
If you lump me in with the dumbasses who would believe that, then no wonder you take pages to explain something simple.


If OBL has waged war on us, then we are by definition forced at war with him.
You'd have to fucking ignore what had been happening Sept 10 and the past to fucking think that 911 was started because republicans took over office. Infact you'd have to be even more insane and idiotic to believe that AQ is a fucking respectable organization whose needs need to be met. But it doesnt stop there. You seem to think that 911 happened only because we've been in the ME for decades and that AQ wants their holy land back. Even more frightening is your insistence that we pull out because the iraqi people dont want us there. IF they didnt want us there then they would have asked us to pull out. I'd like you to fucking come up with any proof that they have asked us to pull out either through polling data, a representative of the iraqi's, or any official because the only people asking for withdrawal is pussies like you and the sheehan mothership as well as France, Germany and AQ. If you dont think these elections have been a success then you might just well be in denial. I guess you determine the voice of the iraqi people to be syrian suicide bombers. That's equivalent to saying that france and germany speak up for the american electorate.... Wait! you probably do. If your not stupid by ignorance then what are you by fully knowing the consequences of your ideas.

This part of your post is total rehashed cnn crap



No one is fucking forcing you to acknowledge anything. Quit acting like i raped you and forced you to wear a W for 04 sticker on your left cheek.

Again, the republican condems debate, then after I point out your actions, you lie and say I was being radical about this.
Way to represent.

[xrayzebra]

" But you insist that the Repubs speak for the USA? GMAFB"

The American People speak for the USA, at every election.

""Our interest" is what, exactly? To liberate Iraq? Or to protect the U.S.A.?
What is "our interest"?
And how would withdrawal 'in effect' be going against this interest?"

Why cant it be both? Which I think it is. How would withdrawal affect our interest?
The same way we did not respond to other attacks on our country. We are perceived as being weak because we did not react. The biggest blunder was when we wouldn't support our own forces in Ethiopia. Like you know "Black Hawk Down". Our President cut and run, literally.

[gtownspur]

I didnt fucking point a gun in your face or called the cops on you for your oppinions. i was just saying to stop being a tart.

ANd for once you have proved that you are ignorant. Do you know who ZArqawi is or ZAwahiri?? if you dont then i suggest you find out before even suggesting that alqueda is not taking part in iraq.

ONe more thing. YOur probably the only person on the planet who truly thinks that total withdrawal from iraq would make iraq would make the ME safer. See if you would only fucking read the news for its content and not for the cool color pictures and captions you would know that the insurgency is largely Foreign enlistees from syria and iran. BUt you have no fucking clue! Just because there were car bombs in iraq you presume that all the iraqi's want us out. I guess since timothy mcVeigh blew the OK building then that means that all american's want the govt to be abolished too!. Its stupid reasoning like this that makes it a waste of time to argue with you. i dont have to shut you up. its not like your saying anything thoughtful or with depth.

[RandomGuy]

2.If you were to look in your fucking history book and not the signed Noam Chomsky Book under your drag clothes drawer you would find that the U.S has been succesful in nation building. ANd no! it's not Goddamn Kosovo for all you Clinton whores. It's Germany and Japan. :pctoss

:lmao
Equating modern Iraq to post-ww2 Germany and Japan, simply proves how little YOU know about the history of any of the above countries.

Let me break down why the US didn't do much "nation-building" in West Germany and Japan, and you may gain a bit of a better understanding.

Human Capital
The average education level of Germany and Japan in the post ww2 era was comparable to the other developed nations they fought. There was massive unemployment as there is in Iraq, to be sure, but there was a large industrial and educational base of expertise to draw on.

Not so in Iraq.

Physcial Capital
This is another aspect of post-war Germany and Japan that is lacking in Iraq. Iraq's economy was/is geared to producing a raw material/commodity. This doesn't generally allow for much in the way of producing goods and services required locally. Iraq's economy has been huring for over a decade from sanctions and as such could be said to be similar to that of the two bombed-out losers in ww2, but this is more because of a lack of raw materials than anything else.

Most of the factories in Germany and Japan in ww2 survived relatively intact. The main reason that industrial production in both countries fell during the war was due to raw materials and labor shortages.

Monetary Capital
This is about the only form of capital that Iraq has in common with the former Axis powers. All three suffered horribly from the collapse of whatever vestigal financial systems they had.

Social Issues
Germany and Japan were virtually homogenous in terms of culture, religion, and ethnicity. Not so in Iraq, as the simmering insurgency has proven to even the most obtuse observers.

Summary
In short, the "nation-building" in Germany and Japan had a HUGE headstart over Iraq, which didn't really have a Marshal plan other than "Let's give a bunch of no-bid contracts to our buddies".

The current administration has proven itself patently less competant and has a MUCH harder task ahead of them. If Bush et al. had had any REAL inkling as to what they were doing before they invaded, they could have saved a lot of lives, American, AND Iraqi. If I had to assign a grade it would be a middle range "D".

[RandomGuy]

"how do you deal with terrorist"

I'm all for attacking the causes of terrorism and terrorists, I was all for Gulf War and invading Afghanistan.

But Iraq was not a terrorist country or an threat to USA, but Iraq is full of terrorists now. Nice work, dubya.

Yup. Afghanistan was the 100% right move to fight the Al-Qaeda-brand ideology. Iraq had almost nothing to do with what most people call "terrorism" until we invaded it, gave al-Qaeda a huge propaganda victory, as well as an urban training ground for guerilla warfare.

[Dos]

Yup. Afghanistan was the 100% right move to fight the Al-Qaeda-brand ideology. Iraq had almost nothing to do with what most people call "terrorism" until we invaded it, gave al-Qaeda a huge propaganda victory, as well as an urban training ground for guerilla warfare.

so destroying the taliban and removing them from power would have never caused more terrorist attacks....?

[gtownspur]

Random Guy: Germany had just went through Nazism. And nazism had to be eradicated through germany as there were still violent elements in that nation. There was violence and the press at that time was not so focused on casualties like it was now.

THe United States had full cooperation with reconstruction from both parties Repub and democrat. The Democrat party of today has only been half assed supportive from the beginning. You remember the memo from MCCaulife. They wanted to paint this war in bad light for gainl. THe president has not been given a fair chance by the democrats.These democrats of today were not like the bi partisan republicans of Post war WW2.

The Iraqi people have decided themselves that they want a society of their own. THey have participated in democracy.
In two years we have killed all of hussiens heirs and now the dictator is on trial.
The casualties suffered by the U.S have been extremely small by other standards.
if you are not acknowledging that we are winning then you do so at a closed minded way.

[RandomGuy]

Random Guy: Germany had just went through Nazism. And nazism had to be eradicated through germany as there were still violent elements in that nation. There was violence and the press at that time was not so focused on casualties like it was now.

THe United States had full cooperation with reconstruction from both parties Repub and democrat. The Democrat party of today has only been half assed supportive from the beginning. You remember the memo from MCCaulife. They wanted to paint this war in bad light for gainl. THe president has not been given a fair chance by the democrats.These democrats of today were not like the bi partisan republicans of Post war WW2.

The Iraqi people have decided themselves that they want a society of their own. THey have participated in democracy.
In two years we have killed all of hussiens heirs and now the dictator is on trial.
The casualties suffered by the U.S have been extremely small by other standards.
if you are not acknowledging that we are winning then you do so at a closed minded way.


:rolleyes

Hate to tell ya, but there were quite a few Nazis that never went to trial or prison. The former members of the Nazi party recognized that their best interests lay in a stable West Germany as a defense against the Communists who they hated more than the Western Allied powers.
There was indeed some small amount of Nazi insurgency, but this was relatively miniscule, easily handled, and short lived. The "media" being nice to the armed forces had nothing to do with that, it was sheer self interest on the part of the average german.

I would also point out that most Democrats have voted FOR the required funding for the Iraqi war, even though they might not be huge supporters of it. They recognize the needs of the troops prevails over other considerations.

All this is STILL irrelevant to the fact that the Bush administration is, has, and will continue to fuck up the occupation of Iraq and get our troops killed.

Lastly:

I DO acknowledge that SOME good is happening in Iraq.

What you keep failing to acknowledge is that there is a lot of stuff that is fucked up, and a good chunk of the responsibility for the bad is DIRECTLY attributible to the administrations piss-poor planning and lack of understanding of what they are/were doing.

Who is being closed minded again?

Stop blinding yourself to the bad news, it is less than intellectually honest.

[RandomGuy]

Fascinating.