Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Another Wake up call?
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, July 27, 2005

That's what Tony Blair thinks:
"September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again," he said.

"We are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level. And not just their methods but their ideas," Blair said.
Its been evident to me that much of the western world hit the snooze button not long after 9/11, prefering the mask of sleep to the reality that terrorism was here, had an agenda, and wasn't in the mood to stray from it. We've referred to those people many times as still living in a 9/10 world.

The non-confrontation (or law enforcement) method of addressing the threat used in the '90s did nothing to stem the threat. In fact an argument could be made that it emboldened the terrorists. "Heck, if all they're going to do," the thinking might have gone, "is put us in jail(if caught of course) or lob a few missiles at us, those are minimal risks. After all," they might have reasoned, "we're willing to die for this cause."

Has Iraq perhaps moved their timetable forward a bit? One would hope so. Has Iraq increased the threat of terrorism? Not that I can tell. Certainly there are more incidences of terrorism evident, but there is absolutely no evidence that's a result of Iraq. And besides, the bulk of the murders by Islamic terrorists came before Iraq, not after. They certainly weren't using it as an excuse then. The threat was, and has always been, aimed at the west, well before the turn of the 21st century.

The question has never been, "is Iraq the source of all our terrorist ills"? No, it's not, nor has it ever been. Instead of blaming ourselves over the rise of terrorism, its time we realized that terrorism, in the form we now face, has risen because of a twisted religous ideology which bases itself in the 7th century and which has identified, rightly or wrongly, the west as the source of all that threatens its dream. It is an ideology which is founded in war and violence, has no desire to negotiate or compromise, and won't be happy until it either eradicates or converts the entire world to its feudal ways or dies trying.

So how do we handle that? Identify and accept that whether we like it or not they have declared war on us and do what is necessary to stop them.

Or do we go back to sleep until the next outrage is perpetrated on us, and then act shocked and hurt? Do we recognize that Islamist extremists want us dead and do unto them before they do it to us, or cast about after the next inevitable bombing for some western leader to blame?

The real question is, how many wake-up calls is it going to take to finally go after these murderers and end their threat once and for all?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The real question is, how many wake-up calls is it going to take to finally go after these murderers and end their threat once and for all

If a Republican is in office, some will never wake up
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I think a large part of the seeming indifference in much of the world is that the international (and internal, in the case of many nations) disagreements over the Iraq war and its legitimacy as front on the WoT put a sour-taste into the mouthes of many and cast all other counter-terrorism operations in that same light.
 
Written By: Jamie Rosensteel
URL: http://www.qando.net
I’m afraid the next wake up call with be nuclear in nature. It will be a bit more difficult to go back to sleep after that one.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
As long as yellow ribbons outnumber the stars and stripes, we will slumber on.
 
Written By: The Owner’s Manual
URL: http://gcruse.typepad.com
I think a large part of the seeming indifference in much of the world is that the international (and internal, in the case of many nations) disagreements over the Iraq war and its legitimacy as front on the WoT put a sour-taste into the mouthes of many and cast all other counter-terrorism operations in that same light

Bollocks. Immediately post 9/11, there was already a world-wide feeling of "don’t do it America, you deserved it" and "why do they hate us" feeling at home.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Much of this sleepiness was there before. Much of the west (particularly ountries like France) are slaves to their industry combines and these industries have softly lobbied for a "don’t rock the boat" on much of the wars failed states.

Look for instance on the vast sums of money made by various countries in the sanctions against Iraq (i.e. the Oil for Food scandals). Much of this was filtered through large corporations. The disagreement over the Iraq war can be seen through this ense as a desire to keep those lucrative sources of money flowing.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
The denial continues. I don’t think we have to assume people only learn from pain; at least I operate on the assumption that argument and inference can awaken my fellow countrymen and avoid the pain of a devastating attack.
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
What is lacking in this "war" is a dimension. What is a terrorist? Even if leaders were bold enough to take a stab at answering that basic question of who our enemies are, we cannot assume that all "terrorists" fitting within such a definition are cooperating against us.

Terrorists do not live in Terrorville. They are international as well as transient. What is going on in Iraq is an occupation. The enemies list for the coalition is comprised of terrorists, nationalists, and disenfranchised. Fighting terrorism as a conventional war against a soveriegn nation state is ridiculous. It defies the very logic and reality of such a transient and international enemy.

Go after countries that harbor terrorists? Didn’t the USA train Osama? Didn’t we arm Sadaam? For that matter, didn’t we train and educate the pilots who crashed into the WTC on 9/11? Yes, we did do all of these things.

The war is being fought with strategic idiocy. And the USA is losing because of the lack of leadership and comprehension.

We have lost our moral authority. I am sad when I see soldiers doing such awful things to the Iraqi’s we are made to believe that we are liberating. We are sending our own soldiers to prison because there is not leadership or moral direction from the administration. The troops are ill-equipped and ill-prepared to fight and win a culture war with Humvees and tanks.

The War on terror is more ideological in dimension. Terrorist’s do not carry a Jolly-Roger. They may be aligned with Islamic extremists, to be sure. But, Islam is a religion of 20% of the globe. I do not think we want a War with all Islam. And it certainly cannot be won in Iraq. But, of course, terrosrists come in every shade of color and religion. US hegemony may allow our definition to be lethal to our "terrorists." But, the rest of the world has there own definition.





 
Written By: sdk
URL: http://
The war is being fought with strategic idiocy.

sdk, I’m convinced that you know all there is to know about idiocy.

 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
SDK, you’re very wrong in saying the strategy is idiotic and that the USA is loosing.

The War on Terror is a massive effort to introduce democratic reform into the broader Middle East. The root cause of terrorism is a frustration created by the denial of basic human rights to the populations in that part of the world. That is why the enemy can take on a secular or religous flavor. That is why "terrorists" can be motived by any number of rationales or motives. The primary cause is the stagnation created by the authoritarian systems those governments impose.

Military invasion is the most efficient way to begin the reform. Democratic reform is the best solution. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most efficient way to trigger that reform.

The strategy is sound and it’s working.
 
Written By: mike
URL: http://www.qando.net
Oh look at the hand wringing! We need a wake up call! Wake up!!! Wake up!!!

LOL!!

The so-called "War on Terror" or - what is it they want to call it now - the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" is both a FRAUD and a FAILURE!

Terrorism is on the rise and spreading and that’s not exactly a sign of success, is it?

Bush can foolishly claim that the war on Iraq made the "world" safer, he can say freedom is on the march and he can speculate about democracy spreading throughout the Middle East... but when Iraq starts drafting a constitution that complies with Islamic law, when they get more and more cozy with Iran and when bombs explode in London and New Yorkers are asked to submit to random bag searches the total idiocy of Bush’s claims becomes crystal clear.

The "War on Terror" is as effective as the "War on Drugs" and "War on Poverty"

Suckers!
 
Written By: skillet
URL: http://
The War on Terror is a massive effort to introduce democratic reform into the broader Middle East. The root cause of terrorism is a frustration created by the denial of basic human rights to the populations in that part of the world.

Are you getting paid to shovel that garbage?

Hey genius, maybe you’re not aware of the fact that the London bombers were British citizens NOT oppressed victims of Middle East tyranny!

Their existence totally destroys your stupid theory about "frustration" over the lack of human rights being the "root cause" of terrorism.

 
Written By: skillet
URL: http://
Their existence totally destroys your stupid theory about "frustration" over the lack of human rights being the "root cause" of terrorism.

Actually, it doesn’t. The frustration caused by the failure of those authoritarian systems is not limited by specific geographic boundaries. A caucasian American was captured fighting on the battlefield for the Taliban in Afghanistan. That too, does not totally destroy my "stupid theory".

The terrorists are killing more Arab Muslims than they are killing "Westerners". By your logic, they must actually hate us less than they hate themselves.

A rationale exists for attacking the west, but the rationale isn’t the motivation. If the "West" ceased to exist tomorrow, these angry and frustrated Arabs/Muslims would still be doing what they are doing - they’d simply select a new rationale and a new target.

Removing one facet of their rationale - say, pulling out our troops - will not solve the problem.

The only true solution is to remove the cause of the stagnation and frustration - the authoritarian systems in that part of the world that deny them basic human rights.
 
Written By: mike
URL: http://www.qando.net
Also, Skillet, there’s a blog linked in the blogroll on the left of Q&O’s site called "Democratic Peace". It explains the theory must better than I can, and it backs up the assertions with lots of empirical data. You should take a look at it.
 
Written By: mike
URL: http://www.qando.net
Anyone else here think Skillet is one of the guys preaching jihad in the mosques on Friday?

He’s as bitter and hate filled as they are. I guess losing a few elections can unhinge someone. How sad...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The present "war" we are fighting will be one of adjusting, finding the enemy, learning from our mistakes, hitting the enemy, becoming complacent, responding to further crisis, then finally moving on to victory. In other words, this war will be like all the rest. Even our victory in WWII took trial and error, confusion, and many trips back to the drawing board.
 
Written By: Elliot Essman
URL: http://www.lifeintheusa.com
There’s one big difference between Terror and Poverty. Killing a terrorist may deter others from becoming terrorists, but killing the poor won’t deter people from being poor. Poverty can be thrust upon us by circumstance, but terrorism is a choice.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
but when Iraq starts drafting a constitution that complies with Islamic law,
Whoop, a KoS talking point

except it was covered in the last post before this one.

Call us when you read it or you University of Phoenix course on reading comp comes in.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I agree with Mike, but for other reasons. Instituting democracy in Arab countries will place those sponsoring terrorism in indirect conflict with their neighbours. Democracy is the lowest cost way of manifesting internal dissent and change. The Arab states need to change and it is non-violent through the ballot box then all the better.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
This link will provide additional insight into the doublespeak of so-called moderate Muslims. The western world and its leaders’ failure to acknowledge the history and beliefs of Islam may well insure our destruction at the hands of barbarians.
 
Written By: RiverRat
URL: http://
The War on Terror is a massive effort to introduce democratic reform into the broader Middle East. The root cause of terrorism is a frustration created by the denial of basic human rights to the populations in that part of the world. That is why the enemy can take on a secular or religous flavor. That is why "terrorists" can be motived by any number of rationales or motives. The primary cause is the stagnation created by the authoritarian systems those governments impose.

I agree with this, in general. But, then, how can/does the USA justify its support of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in this regard? While Hussein was a brutal dictator, Iraq was a more secular nation than many in the region. Woman had more rights, relatively, than many of their neighbors because it was not a theocracy. In fact, this is why the USA/west supported Iraq in its war with Iran, to stop the spread of the Shiite revolution into the Gulf oil producing theocratic Emirates. Cheney and Rumsfeld were well aware of Hussein’s use of Chemical weapons during the war with Iran. It was during this time that the were provided with the resources and knowledge to advance their WMD programs by the west.

Similarly, the USA supported Osama and the initial Al Qaeda when they were focused on stopping the intrusion into Afghanistan by the Soviet Empire. Osama and Hussein were both creations of USA policy to protect oil interests. We supported the Shah in Iran, until his regime was toppled by revolution, not because he was democratic. He was anything BUT democratic.

These might have been practical decisions at the time, it might be argued. But, what the USA has now to deal with is an alliance between Iran-Iraq and the growth of a Shiite regime in Iraq. Does the USA invade Iran and Syria next?

I cannot see how anyone can believe that this war has been a strategic success. We initially (remember?) regarded Iraq as a threat from nuclear-chemical weapons. These were never found, and it seems that this administration was fairly aware that the intelligence purporting their existance was slight.
If we define that this war with Iraq was launched on broader terms—to provide regional democracy—why do we ignore convincing our un-democratic regional allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Juwait, and several other Islamic Emirates?

 
Written By: sdk
URL: http://
These were never found, and it seems that this administration was fairly aware that the intelligence purporting their existance was slight.
The admin knew?

Then somebody better tell Sandy Berger. Bet he will be upset, gee he might steal classified documents or something.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I’m glad the good capt brought up Sandy Berger because that was all I could think of as I struggled through SDK’s talking points.

As for wake up calls - how about we show live footage of the 9/11 attacks again on national TV? How about we remember what it was like to watch our fellow citizens, friends and family members jump out of a building because that death was better than the one waiting for them? How about we remember the tears we shed watching and wondering why it happened? It’s become taboo to show, and I believe if we want to wake up, we have to smell that coffee.

One other point, anyone else thinking that mkultra changed his stored name to sdk? I’m just sayin’...
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
We supported the Shah in Iran, until his regime was toppled by revolution, not because he was democratic. He was anything BUT democratic.

Perhaps, but the revolution was sparked by his attempts at land reform which would have reduced the power of the clergy in Iran. IIRC, Iran was even more secular then than Iraq was under Saddam, was it not?

These might have been practical decisions at the time, it might be argued.

And you can argue that such realism provided us with more problems at a later date. After all, the enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy.

If we define that this war with Iraq was launched on broader terms—to provide regional democracy—why do we ignore convincing our un-democratic regional allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Juwait, and several other Islamic Emirates?

Who says that we are? Why do you believe that such negotiations would take place in the open?

 
Written By: Mark Flacy
URL: http://
The USA supported the Shah, who was regarded as a cruel tyrant. Iran under the Shan was secular. The USA also supported Hussein, another cruel tyrant, to fight a war with the Shiite Islamic Revolutionaries who rose up against the Shah. This was done to stop the revolution from spreading into the Gulf Emirates, who are Sunni. They are Sunni, must not secular nor democratic. We decided to "spread democracy" by invading a country with a leader who we did not like (at the time). However, such pressure to democratize was ever placed on more regressive regimes (whom we call our friends), such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. And now, please explain the morality of supporting the despotic state of Uzbekistan. We will be at war with them later, premised by the leader boils opponents alive, as if it hasn’t and isn’t happening now?
 
Written By: sdk
URL: http://
Get this through your pointy little head.

We.

Did.

Not.

Arm.

Saddam.

There’s a graph that’s been around for years showing that Russians, French, Chinese, etc, gave Saddam about 90, 99% of his weapons. There was like, 1% that came from US companies, and unlike Soviet Russia, the US Government does not control who gets what from our companies.

We gave him some information (Intel is NOT weapons!) in his fight against (post-Revolution) Iran, yes.

Because the Soviets were ACTIVELY backing the Iranians at the time.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://www.thepatriette.com/dangerous
But, then, how can/does the USA justify its support of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in this regard?

SDK, many of the instances of support for despotic Middle Eastern governments that you cite to question the current strategy occurred at times in the past, before 9-11. Before we realized that a policy of "stability for stablity’s sake" is actually more dangerous for us than aggressive confrontation. Also, the "support" that we are lending these governments today serves a different purpose than before. It’s granted with implicit pressure - military and diplomatic, real and imagined - that wasn’t present in the past.

Now we’re working to reform all of those societies - we’re simply not addressing them all in the same fashion. Along with our "support" of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, we’re also making demands and having them met. Saudi Arabia is divided. On the one hand they are a cesspool of western-directed hatred, on the other hand, they are actively seeking to catch terrorists.

I cannot see how anyone can believe that this war has been a strategic success

There has been an equilibrium shift in the broader Middle East. Its results are in the headlines every day. Elections here, compromise there - all over the region. Since the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the implied question that everyone is asking the leaders of these authoritarian states is: "What are you going to do to reform?" Five years ago the implied question was: "What are you (the USA) going to do to cow Isreal?". There is already a shift toward reform in the broader Middle East. The plan has already worked. It’s a success now. The size and potency of the shift depends directly upon how successful the new governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are.
 
Written By: mike
URL: http://www.qando.net
U.S.-Iraqi relations extend back to June 1982 when President Reagan issued a National Security Decision Directive in the midst of the Iraq-Iran war. According to an affidavit by former National Security Council official Howard Teicher, from 1982 on the White House "supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld twice, in 1983 and 1984, visited Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. Teicher, who traveled to Baghdad with Rumsfeld, described the mission: "Here was the U.S. government coming hat-in-hands to Saddam Hussein and saying, ’We respect you, we respect you. How can we help you? Let us help you.

In 1984, the State Department arranged for the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. Four years later The Los Angeles Times reported that "American-built helicopters" were used to gas Kurdish civilians. In March 1988 up to 6,800 Kurds were gassed to death in Halabja by Hussein’s troops. In response the U.S. State Department attempted, according to a recent report in The International Herald Tribune, to place blame for the gassing also on the Iranians despite no evidence of Iranian involvement. When the UN Security Council passed a resolution to censure the Halabja attack it called on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons.


The USA also attempted to destabilise Iraq by arming the Kurdish minority that the West had ignored up to then. Eventually in 1963, the USA backed a coup in Iraq that removed the popular leader, Abdul Karim Kassem. He was replaced (and here is an irony) by the Ba’ath Party. Thousands died in the purges that followed while the USA recognised and praised the new government. Exactly 40 years later, that same Ba’ath Party would be demonised, sanctioned and finally removed by the USA with talk of "bringing democracy to the Iraqis.

 
Written By: sdk
URL: http://
In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built “training camps”, some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.

These camps, now dubbed “terrorist universities” by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.


*****

. . . By 1990, Bin Laden was disillusioned by the internal bickering of the Mujaheddin and he returned to Saudi Arabia to work in the family business. He founded a welfare organization for Arab-Afghan veterans. Some 4,000 of them had settled in Mecca and Medina alone, and Bin Laden gave money to the families of those killed. After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait he lobbied the Royal Family to organize a popular defense of the kingdom and raise a force from the Afghan war veterans to fight Iraq. Instead, King Fahd invited in the Americans. This came as an enormous shock to Bin Laden. As the 540,000 US troops began to arrive, Bin Laden openly criticized the Royal Family, lobbying the Saudi ulema to issue fatwas, religious rulings, against non-Muslims being based in the country.

*****

 
Written By: sdk
URL: http://
OK, sdk, let’s assume that the USA screwed up big time in the past. We supported Saddam, we helped train bin Laden, we propped up the House of Saud, yadda, yadda, yadda. I think in the context of the Cold War, many of those "mistakes" were just tactical choices, and that alternatives would have been worse, but let’s suppose you’re right, and they were just major-league screw-ups.

So what do we do right now? Invade Saudi Arabia? Or embargo their oil trade? Threaten Kuwait with military action if they don’t have a constitutional convention establishing a democracy?

It’s easy to carp about the Saudis and other backwards, authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. It’s much harder to come up with an actual strategy to do anything constructive about it.

Bush has his strategy. Overthrow the most odious dictator in the place, thereby putting signaling a completely new direction for US policy in the Middle East. Try to establish a democracy in the heart of the region, and hope for that to influence all the other countries to move in the direction we want the to go - towards openness and away from authoritarianism and support of terrorism. Note that this strategy has already proven to have some small measure of success in Libya, who gave up their nuclear program, and Lebanon, where the Syrians pulled out.

I feel certain his strategy also includes behind-the-scenes pressure on exactly the guys you think ought to change. But as long as the Iraq situation is playing out, Bush doesn’t want any other open conflicts, and would almost certainly prefer that the rest of the changes he wants be made without any military action.

So, big guy, what’s your alternative? Just sit and carp?

Do you want us to turn up the heat? Threaten invasion of Saudi Arabia if they don’t reform? And then possibly go through with it? Somehow I don’t think the usual Bush critics, of which I have you tagged as one, would be very enthusiastic about that.

How about Iran? Ready to bomb them into the stone age to get rid of their nuclear program? If not, what do you want to do?

Or do you want to cut and run, leaving the region to fester for another decade or two until someone there gets a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists? Do you live in a large American city, perchance? Ready to wake up some morning to a bright light and 200 mile per hour winds? (At least you probably wouldn’t be awake long.)

Bush has a strategy that, while flawed, is at least based in reality and seems to be making progress. You have a litany of carping. Which position do you think a thoughful person should support?
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Did the US Arm Iraq:
http://web.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif
http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/s921001-iraq.htm
Did the US/CIA train Bin Laden:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
Did the US/CIA train Bin Laden:

Bin Laden was a recruiter, not a fighter.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I do not believe that the Bush/neocon approach to the "war on terror" has been honest, well thought out, or productive. That’s my position. I have taken more space than many to articulate some points to illustrate this.

Please present evidence that the war is a success based on the initial justifications and predictions that were presented by the Bush administration.

Many—not just myself—do not see the war going well. Even young high school student’s and young adults recognize the flaws in this enterprise. Recruiting numbers for the military during this war are way down. Why? It is not because the effort is perceived to be going well or is necessary to our immediate security.

My links to peices was simply to rebut the personal name calling BS substituting for thoughtful disagreement. There are valid points of disagreement that go beyond calling people names and making-up jibberish.

A litany of carping? I am writing substantive (wordy) prose. I have yet to engage in name-calling any of those who disagree with me, which is more than I can say for many posts. Of course, many do not even rebut, but rather denigrate the writer whose opinion they disagree with having none of their own.



 
Written By: sdk
URL: http://
I do not believe that the Bush/neocon approach to the "war on terror" has been honest, well thought out, or productive. That’s my position. I have taken more space than many to articulate some points to illustrate this.

Please present evidence that the war is a success based on the initial justifications and predictions that were presented by the Bush administration.

Many—not just myself—do not see the war going well. Even young high school student’s and young adults recognize the flaws in this enterprise. Recruiting numbers for the military during this war are way down. Why? It is not because the effort is perceived to be going well or is necessary to our immediate security.

My links to peices was simply to rebut the personal name calling BS substituting for thoughtful disagreement. There are valid points of disagreement that go beyond calling people names and making-up jibberish.

A litany of carping? I am writing substantive (wordy) prose. I have yet to engage in name-calling any of those who disagree with me, which is more than I can say for many posts. Of course, many do not even rebut, but rather denigrate the writer whose opinion they disagree with having none of their own.



 
Written By: sdk
URL: http://
Written By: anonymous
Did the US/CIA train Bin Laden:
Written By: McQ
Bin Laden was a recruiter, not a fighter.
———————————-
The link provided was in reference to sdk claim about the US ’supporting’ bin Laden.
Read the link and it will disprove that contention, much like the other links provided disprove the contention that the US ’armed Iraq’.

 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
The link provided was in reference to sdk claim about the US ’supporting’ bin Laden.

Please excuse my jerking knee. One assumption too many today. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I am writing substantive (wordy) prose.
None of which contains any realistic alternatives. It merely restates the same criticisms over and over, which I would characterize as carping.

As I said, assuming you’re right about all the stuff you say (which I don’t grant, but will stipulate for the purposes of discussion), what do you want to do? If you’ve got nothing to suggest, and can do nothing but criticize past decisions, then you’re carping.

You didn’t attempt to address any of the questions I asked - I believe, because you cannot. It’s easy to complain. Reasoning through the process and making tough decisions about workable strategies is much, much tougher, and it’s clear you are not prepared to do it. That’s fine - hey, it is hard work, and it’s what we pay our leaders to do. But you have to recognize that if all you do is holler about how everything is so screwed up, but you can’t suggest anything better, then there’s a limit to how seriously you will be taken.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Please present evidence that the war is a success based on the initial justifications and predictions that were presented by the Bush administration.
Regime change was effected, preventing Saddam from supporting terrorists or ramping up his WMD programs to provide weapons to terrorists in the future.

Iraq is slowly but surely becoming democratic, with all three major groups in Iraq working out the new Constitution and participating in the newly elected government.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider