NationStates Jolt Archive

So, while looking for the news that I heard from a fellow student, I read this nice little quote from President Bush:

"The families gathered here understand that we are a nation at war," Bush said. "Like me, they wish we weren't at war, but we are. They know that the enemies who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, want to bring further destruction to our country."

Why is he still comparing Iraq and Sept. 11?

Why?

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this. There must be something that can be done to get it into his head that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, while Saudi Arabia did.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132601/

i dont like to talk about it because it really creeps me out but the theory of going to war in iraq and staying at war in iraq is to attract the alqaeda guys THERE so that they wont come HERE.

meaning that hundreds of thousands of iraqis are being killed so that this war on terror thing will be more convenient for us.

so in theory while iraq didnt start out as a terrorist haven, it has been made one by the US invasion and occupation. now the 2 things are connected.

So, while looking for the news that I heard from a fellow student, I read this nice little quote from President Bush:



Why is he still comparing Iraq and Sept. 11?

Why?

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this. There must be something that can be done to get it into his head that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, while Saudi Arabia did.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132601/

At the time of our attack on Iraq, I totally agree, there was no link or similarity between Iraq and 9/11. However, now several years after our invasion and with terrorist attacks occuring daily on Americans and Iraqis alike. With the utter failings of the whole "plan" for Iraq, and with terrorists, from Morocco, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and a whole slew of other countries working hard to widdle down the resolve of the American people, in hopes that they will be able to force us to push our government to withdraw so chaos may reign in Iraq, the comparison between 9/11 and Iraq is quite simple.

i dont like to talk about it because it really creeps me out but the theory of going to war in iraq and staying at war in iraq is to attract the alqaeda guys THERE so that they wont come HERE.

meaning that hundreds of thousands of iraqis are being killed so that this war on terror thing will be more convenient for us.

so in theory while iraq didnt start out as a terrorist haven, it has been made one by the US invasion and occupation. now the 2 things are connected.

Self Fulfilling Prophecy... except that Shrub's asssteps in the Middle East pushed the fulfillment way ahead of schedule.

Self Fulfilling Prophecy... except that Shrub's asssteps in the Middle East pushed the fulfillment way ahead of schedule.

Well yeah, it is. That doesn't make it right (not that you ever said it was).

But seriously, how can we make him understand that Iraq and sept. 11 are not related?

Well yeah, it is. That doesn't make it right (not that you ever said it was).

But seriously, how can we make him understand that Iraq and sept. 11 are not related?

Problem is you can't. Not unless you use extensive brainwashing techniques... then again I think we're way too late in that regards.

Egghiccup;12583925']He already knows. That's the scary thing.

When Shrub was govoner of Texas he invited some Taliban representatives over to Texas to discuss a deal for an oil pipeline accross Afganistan. They said no.

Who does he bomb first after 11/09/2001.......?

To be fair, the Taliban had it coming after they sheltered Bin Ladin. And refused demands to turn the bastard over repeatedly.

To be fair, the Taliban had it coming after they sheltered Bin Ladin. And refused demands to turn the bastard over repeatedly.

Ah, the "poor" Taliban, victims of the afghan customs of hospitality... :)

Ah, the "poor" Taliban, victims of the afghan customs of hospitality... :)

It's more of a laugh riot when you learn that Mullah Omar ignored the advice of his Taliban buddies to toss Bin Ladin to the wolves and save their own asses.

Well yeah, it is. That doesn't make it right (not that you ever said it was).

But seriously, how can we make him understand that Iraq and sept. 11 are not related?
Err... he already said they were unrelated by accident when questioned on it by some reporter or other - there's a vid of it on Youtube somewhere. Someone else'll post it methinks.

It's more of a laugh riot when you learn that Mullah Omar ignored the advice of his Taliban buddies to toss Bin Ladin to the wolves and save their own asses.

Well, he was damned either way - guess he didn't expect the world to invade, only retaliate... He's a survivor, and would have survived a missle strike against Osama.

If he had given in, he might have lost face and thus his position of power.

Err... he already said they were unrelated by accident when questioned on it by some reporter or other - there's a vid of it on Youtube somewhere. Someone else'll post it methinks.

Yeah, well, this is recent.

He's still drawing comparisons.

Because he needs an excuse for his illegal war.

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this.
No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public.

No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public.

Um, you mean "no one ever went broke by insulting the intelligence of the American public." ;)

As to the OP: Why does he keep saying it? Because his spin-doctors haven't come up with a new thing for him to say yet. Lacking new material, he just keeps going back to Cheney for advice and that crazy old bastard is stuck in that groove. He just keeps repeating those words over and over, while rocking himself in the corner of his undisclosed location.

So, while looking for the news that I heard from a fellow student, I read this nice little quote from President Bush:



Why is he still comparing Iraq and Sept. 11?

Why?

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this. There must be something that can be done to get it into his head that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, while Saudi Arabia did.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132601/
Sorry for interrupting the attack bush party but where in that quote does he mention Iraq?

Sorry for interrupting the attack bush party but where in that quote does he mention Iraq?
Not that I forget the propensity of Bush brownnosers for willful ignorance, but who else has he referred that we are at war with? I'm sure you answer would be "terrorists" and then my question would be "Uh huh, and where has he said they are?"

It never ceases to amaze me the tools you Americans elect.

Thing is Hussein HAD terrorist training camps before we were there even before 1991. Point is Hussein was a terrorist not only to his people but his neightbors too. Point is this a "War on Terrorism" guys, whole point is to attack those that terrorize civilians.

Not that I forget the propensity of Bush brownnosers for willful ignorance, but who else has he referred that we are at war with? I'm sure you answer would be "terrorists" and then my question would be "Uh huh, and where has he said they are?"
Are terrorists not in Iraq? Stating a fact is quite different than claiming 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq. Which, even had he said Iraq, he was not saying. He said that terrorists attacked on 9/11 and that there are terrorists in Iraq right now. All 100% fact.

Not that I forget the propensity of Bush brownnosers for willful ignorance, but who else has he referred that we are at war with? I'm sure you answer would be "terrorists" and then my question would be "Uh huh, and where has he said they are?"

North Korea, Syri, Iran leadership, Hussein, Bin Laden and more.....there isnt one source to be a terrorist silly. :D

USMC, please give up on the 'terrorist' buzz word, it ultimately means nothing and does nothing to inform a situation such as this. The propensity these days (post 9/11) is to paint the 'terrorist threat' as a global evil conspiracy with a centralized command and Laden in a command center sending out messages like tentacles across the globe to various terrorist cells. The truth is, it feels much better when you think you fighting a dangerous enemy than when your fighting a phantom, you can think the freedom fighters in Iraq fight for some mega international terrorist group, but in fact they are fighting over a few patches of dirt.

Predominately, these conflicts are local issues, Palestine, Iraq etc. Now I really don't want to have to post my essay on how the CPA in the first few months of the conflict created the nationalist sectarian conflict, because you all know it by now. The fact is USMC, the freedom fighters who attacked on 9/11 were randomly inspired individuals, the freedom fighters in Iraq were created prior to the invasion. The US is not destroying 'terrorism', they are creating it as they go along through failed policy and then cleaning their own crap up afterwards.

Are terrorists not in Iraq? Stating a fact is quite different than claiming 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq.
So we are at war with terrorists who are apparently in Iraq, as opposed to Afghanistan where we actually went to be at "war" with them, but no one remembers that.

Which, even had he said Iraq, he was not saying. He said that terrorists attacked on 9/11 and that there are terrorists in Iraq right now. All 100% fact.
And he said we are at war. He was making an implied link between Iraq and 9/11. You obviously got it but you are so far up the party's ass you do your damndest to dismiss it as not there at all, which is a stretch even from mere coincidence.

USMC, using your logic, the US should declare war on every single person in the world who at some point in the near or distant could be an enemy of the US, or opposed to it's interests. So the US right now should declare war on the entire world and call it a 'preventative war'.

Too bad this war is going to be another humiliating war for America. At least in the Vietnam era, Russia and China heavily supplied the Vietnamese nationalists. The irony this time is, the weapons Iraqi militias are using are not from Iran but rather Iraqi weaponry stockpile. Saddam got all these weapons with the help of America and the West (remember the footage of Saddam Hussein handshaking Rumsfield-what do you actually think they were discussing about?). The West had an interest in getting rid of the ayatollah and at that time, Saddam Hussein started a war with Iran. How a Middle Eastern country obtained the ingredients and the know-how in making biological and chemical weapons overnight?

That is why insurgents fight, not terrorists.
So if we arn't fighting the terrorists, why did he bring up the link to the terrorist attack? Is he implying the Iraqi insurgents did it?

USMC, please give up on the 'terrorist' buzz word, it ultimately means nothing and does nothing to inform a situation such as this.
Terrorist: a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. If that is what they are then that is the word that I will use.
The propensity these days (post 9/11) is to paint the 'terrorist threat' as a global evil conspiracy with a centralized command and Laden in a command center sending out messages like tentacles across the globe to various terrorist cells.
The the fuck did i say that? What the hell are you reading?
The truth is, it feels much better when you think you fighting a dangerous enemy than when your fighting a phantom, you can think the freedom fighters in Iraq fight for some mega international terrorist group, but in fact they are fighting over a few patches of dirt.
The terrorists are fighting b/c of global islamic fundamentalist movement. They are fighting for allah.
Predominately, these conflicts are local issues, Palestine, Iraq etc.
That is why insurgents fight, not terrorists.
The fact is USMC, the freedom fighters who attacked on 9/11 were randomly inspired individuals
Haha, funniest bullshit i've heard all day. You think they are the only islamic fundamentalists?
The US is not destroying 'terrorism', they are creating it as they go along through failed policy and then cleaning their own crap up afterwards.
The US is denying them their own country. Yes that wouldn't be a problem if we hadn't invaded but that really isn't pertinent right now.

So we are at war with terrorists who are apparently in Iraq, as opposed to Afghanistan where we actually went to be at "war" with them, but no one remembers that.
No, not as opposed to, in addition to.

And he said we are at war. He was making an implied link between Iraq and 9/11. You obviously got it but you are so far up the party's ass you do your damndest to dismiss it as not there at all, which is a stretch even from mere coincidence.
Not at all, he was making an implied link between terrorists and Iraq.

USMC, using your logic, the US should declare war on every single person in the world who at some point in the near or distant could be an enemy of the US, or opposed to it's interests. So the US right now should declare war on the entire world and call it a 'preventative war'.

Using my logic, there are terrorists in Iraq right now and we have to do what we can to prevent them from leading Iraq. IDK where you got the other convoluted bullshit from.

i dont know why you are yelling at USMC, he's telling the fucking truth.

the sick truth IS that we have destroyed iraq and continue to keep iraq in chaos so it can be a terrorist magnet. if they all converge on iraq, we have one place to fight them. too bad about the iraqi casualities but we only care about our own, not theirs.

yes its a stupid callous policy that wont work. it creates more hatred of the US not just in the islamic world but in every corner of the world. it creates more insurgents and al qaeda members every day. it spreads misery to those who have done nothing to us.

its still the fucking truth and USMC isnt creating that truth. he's only reporting it.

So if we arn't fighting the terrorists, why did he bring up the link to the terrorist attack? Is he implying the Iraqi insurgents did it?

Yes, we are fighting terrorists. You are not listening. There are terrorists in Iraq and there are insurgents in Iraq. He brought up a link b/c people who attack Americans for the same reasons that they attacked us on 9/11 are in Iraq right now.

But seriously, how can we make him understand that Iraq and sept. 11 are not related?

You can't. Just like how you cannot wake a person who pretends to sleep.

And this is where the current administration policy on the Middle East can be seen in its nearsighted failure. Dear Leader Dubya and Busheviks like USMC leathernecks2 are under the impression that the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan are all systematically united under Al'Qaeda, which they somehow perceive as a Jihadist Cobra. And that Shrub is the supreme commander of G.I. Joe.

Not terrorist, freedom fighter, and I personally support their resistance of US imperialism.

And this is where the current administration policy on the Middle East can be seen in its nearsighted failure. Dear Leader Dubya and Busheviks like USMC leathernecks2 are under the impression that the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan are all systematically united under Al'Qaeda, which they somehow perceive as a Jihadist Cobra. And that Shrub is the supreme commander of G.I. Joe.

No, the terrorists in Iraq and A-stan are not under Al-Qaeda, they under islamic fundamentalism. The insurgents are fighting for a different cause. If you were to read my posts you would have seen that. But I'm sure it's easier to debate someone that doesn't exist. Now go read the thread and then come back.

And this is where the current administration policy on the Middle East can be seen in its nearsighted failure. Dear Leader Dubya and Busheviks like USMC leathernecks2 are under the impression that the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan are all systematically united under Al'Qaeda, which they somehow perceive as a Jihadist Cobra. And that Shrub is the supreme commander of G.I. Joe.

just one of so very many stupid misunderstandings.

how can you destroy terrorists that you are busy creating each and ever day? how can you defeat radical islam when you are their best recruiters?

Not at all, he was making an implied link between terrorists and Iraq.
Ok, you realize that is the point of this thread right?

Not terrorist, freedom fighter, and I personally support their resistance of US imperialism.

You think blowing yourself up in a school or detonating a truck in a market w/ innocent women and children is fighting for freedom? I'll remember that.

No, the terrorists in Iraq and A-stan are not under Al-Qaeda, they under islamic fundamentalism. The insurgents are fighting for a different cause. If you were to read my posts you would have seen that. But I'm sure it's easier to debate someone that doesn't exist. Now go read the thread and then come back.

Yet you implicitly buy Dubya's argument that 9-11 was connected to Iraq. If the insurgency in Iraq has nothing to do with Al'Qaeda, how can Iraq be connected to the terror attack in the first place?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The fact is, the idea of a massive global islamist extremist ideology is all but non-existant, and perpetuating it only serves the neocons who wish to stay in power through fear politics, they did it during the Cold War too, saying that every terrorist group in the world was funded and gave loyalty to an evil conspiracy in Moscow, now that Soviet Union is gone they need a new mythic phantom enemy to beguile the public. Groups like Hezbollah follow a leftist kind of ideology, that is why they have a welfare wing the same as a military one, Palestinian militants follow a kind of more ultra-nationalist emancipation ideology, and so on, and so on.

Grouping all these groups together, whether under some fabircated central command, or even one distinct ideology is ridiculous and stupid to the extreme, it purposely avoids the complexities and subtlities of politics and the reality that most of these issues are local. It of course serves the neocon interest to have this allpowered, all pervasive enemy, like the 'Communist threat', Islamism is just a replacement. Politicians these days have given up on ideology, of offering a better view of the world and the future, instead they offer a view of a dark and sinister future to scare us into keeping them in power. It's hard for people to realise it, but just look at US history in the ME and the world over, 9/11 and such attacks in these contexts were totally justified.

just one of so very many stupid misunderstandings.

how can you destroy terrorists that you are busy creating each and ever day? how can you defeat radical islam when you are their best recruiters?

You can destroy terrorists w/ bombs and bullets. However you can't destroy radical islam and it's terrorists. You, however, can prevent them from establishing a caliphate and taking Iraq.

The problem is, the argument from this administration basically boils down to this.

"we fucked up, SO BADLY, that we opened the floodgates of islamic resistance, and as a result, america is less safe today than it was before this war."

That's the only justification, right? We're fighting terrorists in iraq, but there weren't all those terrorists there until after we invaded. So the invasion spurned the growth of terrorism against the US.

The only logical conclusion one can draw is that this war put us in greater danger.

USMC, do you deny the presense of extremist right christian terrorists in the US?

You can destroy terrorists w/ bombs and bullets. However you can't destroy radical islam and it's terrorists. You, however, can prevent them from establishing a caliphate and taking Iraq.

you know what would have been another way to prevent them from establishing a caliphate and taking Iraq?

Not fucking around in Iraq.

Ok, you realize that is the point of this thread right?

Okay, you realize that that link is completely valid. It wasn't valid as a reason to invade but it is quite factual right now. Do you deny the presence of radical islamic terrorists in Iraq? Do you deny that radical islamic terrorists conducted 9/11? No? Then you agree with his connection.

you know what would have been another way to prevent them from establishing a caliphate and taking Iraq?

Not fucking around in Iraq.

Yes it would have been. However that is not really an option at this point. Unless you have a time machine that you need to tell me about.

Okay, you realize that that link is completely valid. It wasn't valid as a reason to invade but it is quite factual right now. Do you deny the presence of radical islamic terrorists in Iraq? Do you deny that radical islamic terrorists conducted 9/11? No? Then you agree with his connection.

do you deny that the war CAUSED the presence of radical islamic terrorists in Iraq?

You can destroy terrorists w/ bombs and bullets. However you can't destroy radical islam and it's terrorists. You, however, can prevent them from establishing a caliphate and taking Iraq.

now THAT is a paranoid fantasy. just where is this caliphate going to be established and how does fighting in iraq prevent that?

Yet you implicitly buy Dubya's argument that 9-11 was connected to Iraq. If the insurgency in Iraq has nothing to do with Al'Qaeda, how can Iraq be connected to the terror attack in the first place?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It is connected b/c there is not one enemy in Iraq. There are terrorists and there are insurgents. One group of terrorists in Iraq is Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The fact that you can't understand that is startling.

do you deny that the war CAUSED the presence of radical islamic terrorists in Iraq?

No.

USMC, do you deny the presense of extremist right christian terrorists in the US?

Nope. Do you assert that they kill innocent women and children every day?

Yes it would have been. However that is not really an option at this point. Unless you have a time machine that you need to tell me about.

and here we get to the crux of the problem.

The war is necessary because Saddam has WMDs. Wrong

OK, no WMDs, but we will make a better Iraq for the Iraqi people. Wrong

Alright...not so much better, but the war will make us safer. Wrong.

OK, shit's not really safer, but the surge will fix it. Wrong

Now...ok, there were no WMDs, Iraq isn't getting better, we're not safer, the surge isn't doing shit, and we're far worse off.

But, I swear, we got it this time! Yes we fucked up, and yes people have died and yes more people are dying every day, but we have the answer now. I swear to god, this time we're right!

Why should I believe it? Why should I believe a word?

The same people who said there were WMDs are the same people who said that Iraq would be better, who are the same people who said we would be safer, who are the same people who said the surge would work, who are now the same people who say we have to stay or shit will get worse.

Every single prediction that this administration has made has been wrong.

EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE has been wrong.


Now, this administration, looking at a devistated Iraq, leading a nation less safe than it was, a monument to incompetance. And we're being asked to believe that NOW they got it right? Now, atop a mountain of failure, we are expected to believe that THIS time they have it right?

this demonstrates one of the other unfortunate misunderstandings of the iraq war

you cannot fight an idea by killing people. you cant win hearts and minds with a gun.

you cant make iraq a killing field in a war against ISLAM and expect that the islamic world is going to get the message and repudiate radical islam.

every day we pursue this "kill the terrorists in iraq instead of here" policy, we ensure that it will never end.

An interesting thing to note with all people who defend the Iraq war is, they must defend it in retrospect, they cannot defend the initial reasoning for the invasion because it is literally undefendable, no WMD's, and you can hardly say Iraq is blooming in it's new 'democracy'. Because they can't defend the initial invasion they must instead attack other peoples ideas for withdrawl or the like, call them unpatriotic and not supporting the troops, when in fact is was Dubya's failed policy in the start that created the problem, conservative logic is like the antithesis of real logic.

USMC is one of these people.

It is connected b/c there is not one enemy in Iraq. There are terrorists and there are insurgents. One group of terrorists in Iraq is Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The fact that you can't understand that is startling.

wow.

With your militant Bushevism, it's little wonder nobody misses Forrest Horn on NSG.

And your lack of awareness on recent history makes it all that more vivid.

There was no Al'Qaeda presence in Iraq until after the U.S. invasion to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime which turned Iraq into the explosive shithole it is today. And while the other factions were there even before then, they were all kept on a tight leash by Saddam. The invasion simply let the dogs out.

Al'Zarqawi was I have always stated: A small-time thug who took the Al'Qaeda brand name to feed his attention whore fix and try to bring more fame to his gang. The fucker even violated Bin Ladin's commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Kill Other Muslims When We Want Them to Join the Fight Against the Infidels." Anyone who says Al'Zarqawi's death was a blow against AQiI, much less Al'Qaeda is scraping the bottom of the barrel for any semblance of good news in Iraqnam.

EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE has been wrong.
How do you know? The war isn't over yet. We can still win.
Now, this administration, looking at a devistated Iraq, leading a nation less safe than it was, a monument to incompetance. And we're being asked to believe that NOW they got it right? Now, atop a mountain of failure, we are expected to believe that THIS time they have it right?
I can see your line of thought however it is flawed. First of all, you think that the surge is not doing anything. The surge has just begun and it is not a strategy. It is a means to put in place a strategy. The fact that you want the surge to work in 2 months shows why you are unsatisfied with Iraq. You want instant results but that is not realistic. You are going to have to obtain some patience.

now THAT is a paranoid fantasy. just where is this caliphate going to be established and how does fighting in iraq prevent that?

It would be established in Iraq as declared by terrorist groups and we can prevent it by leaving an IA and IP that can hold the country w/o 140,000 U.S. troops.

There was no Al'Qaeda presence in Iraq until after the U.S. invasion to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime which turned Iraq into the explosive shithole it is today. And while the other factions were there even before then, they were all kept on a tight leash by Saddam. The invasion simply let the dogs out.
Already addressed, read.
Al'Zarqawi was I have always stated: A small-time thug who took the Al'Qaeda brand name to feed his attention whore fix and try to bring more fame to his gang. The fucker even violated Bin Ladin's commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Kill Other Muslims When We Want Them to Join the Fight Against the Infidels." Anyone who says Al'Zarqawi's death was a blow against AQiI, much less Al'Qaeda is scraping the bottom of the barrel for any semblance of good news in Iraqnam.
That must be why he got millions of dollars in funding from Al-Qaeda donors. But then again, you must know more than me. After all, you have the experience.


Edit: It would also be good if you countered the entire post, not only one part.

every day we pursue this "kill the terrorists in iraq instead of here" policy, we ensure that it will never end.

I've coined this phenomenon as "World of Jihadcraft." The Busheviks are ready to proclaim it's better to let the brown people end up as collateral damage as long as the "t3hrr0r1ztz" are blowing shit up over there instead of here in the CONUS. Of course what they miss is that those insurgents and terrorists are gaining plenty of experience and skill over in Iraq, which they can put to use in other parts of the Earth when the head office decides it's time.

How do you know? The war isn't over yet. We can still win.

I swear to GOD guys, we're really right this time!

I can see your line of thought however it is flawed. First of all, you think that the surge is not doing anything. The surge has just begun and it is not a strategy. It is a means to put in place a strategy.

No, it isn't. That's the problem. It's not a means to anything. It's is the shining fucking example of bush's incompetance. He thinks force is going to fix.

step 1: invade
step 2: use force
step 3: ????
step 4: stable Iraq

Iraq not stable yet? USE MORE FORCE! The only means that has ever been used is MORE POWER! and it hasn't done shit. And it won't do shit now. What needs to be done in Iraq CAN NOT BE DONE with more troops. Period. That will NOT fix it.

The fact that you want the surge to work in 2 months shows why you are unsatisfied with Iraq. You want instant results but that is not realistic.

No, the reason I am unsatisfied with Iraq is that the surge is but one of a series of fuckups, totally incapable of doing what it intended to do. The surge WILL NOT work. At all. Because it can not do what is needed ot be done.

You are going to have to obtain some patience.

Don't tell me that. Don't you fucking dare. People are dying. It's been years. I have given my patience. This war has gone on longer then we were in World War II.

If after all this the best the administration can come up with is "well, let's just wait and see" we need to get the fuck out of there. Now.

An interesting thing to note with all people who defend the Iraq war is, they must defend it in retrospect, they cannot defend the initial reasoning for the invasion because it is literally undefendable, no WMD's, and you can hardly say Iraq is blooming in it's new 'democracy'. Because they can't defend the initial invasion they must instead attack other peoples ideas for withdrawl or the like, call them unpatriotic and not supporting the troops, when in fact is was Dubya's failed policy in the start that created the problem, conservative logic is like the antithesis of real logic.

USMC is one of these people.

Why would you defend the beginning of the war. It was a mistake. However you shouldn't let that affect what steps you take to turn that around. It's like saying,"Uhh, we shouldn't have torn down your wall b/c there really weren't termites there. Therefore we will leave a gaping hole that might make the whole house come down."

Why would you defend the beginning of the war. It was a mistake. However you shouldn't let that affect what steps you take to turn that around. It's like saying,"Uhh, we shouldn't have torn down your wall b/c there really weren't termites there. Therefore we will leave a gaping hole that might make the whole house come down."

But you don't use the same people who broke the wall to fix it. You don't use the same mechanic who fucked up your car to repare it. You don't use the wisdom of the people who got you into the mistake to try and get you out of it.

The sheer arrogance that this administration wants us to believe that THEY have the best idea to get us out when THEY are the ones who got us into it in the first place is staggering.

Why would you defend the beginning of the war. It was a mistake. However you shouldn't let that affect what steps you take to turn that around. It's like saying,"Uhh, we shouldn't have torn down your wall b/c there really weren't termites there. Therefore we will leave a gaping hole that might make the whole house come down."

Exactly, but on that logic the person who got you into this mess, and knew the consequences before the action was taken, is not the credible person to fix the problem, nor should he be regarded as competant. Instead what you have with Iraq is Dubya continuing to demolish the entire street with a crane, as in he's perpetuating his own failures because he knows he'll be gone soon.

No, it isn't. That's the problem. It's not a means to anything. It's is the shining fucking example of bush's incompetance. He thinks force is going to fix.

step 1: invade
step 2: use force
step 3: ????
step 4: stable Iraq

Iraq not stable yet? USE MORE FORCE! The only means that has ever been used is MORE POWER! and it hasn't done shit. And it won't do shit now. What needs to be done in Iraq CAN NOT BE DONE with more troops. Period. That will NOT fix it.

Yes it is a means to implement a strategy. We are working to move to a more dispersed foot print and to a force more focused on training and mentoring IA and IP. The additional troops allow us to move in and set up inside neighborhoods and frees up troops to be able to make the move to being attached to Iraqi units. It is not about more force. You are misinformed.





Don't tell me that. Don't you fucking dare. People are dying. It's been years. I have given my patience. This war has gone on longer then we were in World War II.

If after all this the best the administration can come up with is "well, let's just wait and see" we need to get the fuck out of there. Now.
And yet we faced violence in those countries much longer. Also, if we look to a more applicable example we could see Bosnia and see that we've been there much longer. In other news, WWII cost the U.S. $25 trillion, not less than $1 trillion. If you think that is what they are coming up with then you need to start getting informed about what we do in country.

Exactly, but on that logic the person who got you into this mess, and knew the consequences before the action was taken, is not the credible person to fix the problem, nor should he be regarded as competant. Instead what you have with Iraq is Dubya continuing to demolish the entire street with a crane, as in he's perpetuating his own failures because he knows he'll be gone soon.

Bush isn't the one making the policy. His generals are.

step 1: invade
step 2: use force
step 3: ????
step 4: profit?

I think the point is, because we can accept the initial reasoning and invasion were wrong, on that note this current administration, who got the US into this mess, are most definetely NOT the people who want to try and fix it, even if Iraq is indeed fixable. Indeed I am not saying that Iraq is lost, I am simply putting foward that the neocon policy is exacerbating the problem to breaking point through failed policies, not only in Iraq but in failing to engage with the wider Middle East, such as Syria and Iran. Dudya was NOT admitted he was wrong in the initial invasion, on that note he's not competant.

But you don't use the same people who broke the wall to fix it. You don't use the same mechanic who fucked up your car to repare it. You don't use the wisdom of the people who got you into the mistake to try and get you out of it.

The sheer arrogance that this administration wants us to believe that THEY have the best idea to get us out when THEY are the ones who got us into it in the first place is staggering.

If you really think that then why aren't you arguing NATO or U.N. intervention?

I will take the cessation of anybody trying to deny the presence of terrorists in Iraq as a sign of victory.

But you don't use the same people who broke the wall to fix it. You don't use the same mechanic who fucked up your car to repare it. You don't use the wisdom of the people who got you into the mistake to try and get you out of it.

The sheer arrogance that this administration wants us to believe that THEY have the best idea to get us out when THEY are the ones who got us into it in the first place is staggering.

Exactly bloody right!

Okay, you realize that that link is completely valid. It wasn't valid as a reason to invade but it is quite factual right now. Do you deny the presence of radical islamic terrorists in Iraq? Do you deny that radical islamic terrorists conducted 9/11? No? Then you agree with his connection.
Wow, that logic makes my face sad. The link is factual now as a matter of coincidence and suspension of disbelief. Coincidence that they moved into attack us because we are there and suspension of disbelief that "fighting them over there means we don't have to fight them here." But you yourself said the insurgents fight, not the terrorists. We arn't at war with terrorists, we are at "war" with people who don't want us there but arn't terrorists that had anything to do with 9/11.

Already addressed, read.

Ah so basically you justify the boondoggle because Al'Qaeda or some fanboy thereof decided to set up shop in the power vacuum left by Saddam hanging in the gallows.

Bush's incompetence and your support of it is the closest thing to Orwell's concept of an Unending War the real world has suffered through.

That must be why he got millions of dollars in funding from Al-Qaeda donors. But then again, you must know more than me. After all, you have the experience.

This link is from The Council on Foreign Relations:

Profile: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9866/)

And here's a choice portion:
In 2003, Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was, in his very person, the link between Iraq's Baathist regime and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. Zarqawi's dealings, Powell said, proved that Iraq harbored a terrorist network, and mandated preemptive military action against the country. This assertion was later disproved, but it irreversibly thrust Zarqawi's name into the international spotlight.

Though false, Powell's words were darkly self-fulfilling. Enabled by global attention, a man previously considered little more than a malcontent thug emerged as Iraq's leading coordinator of terror.

Basically he was a nobody in Iraq until Dubya's quest for justification of the Iraq invasion made him into a somebody.

Experts say Zarqawi and bin Laden most likely met in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, in 2000, though it is possible the two met in Peshawar in the early 1990s. Despite their mutual interests, Zarqawi repeatedly refused to join bin Laden's al-Qaeda group, according to widespread accounts. Apparently, Zarqawi could not countenance bin Laden's insistence on targeting the "far enemy," the United States. Rather, Zarqawi directed his animosity toward Israel, Jews generally, and Jordan. At some point in the mid-1990s, after another stint in prison, Zarqawi formed a group called Tawhid, or "Unity." Tawhid was initially funded by the Afghan Taliban government, and its efforts focused on training suicide bombers in a number of camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Even acknowledging an initial administrative separation, there is still a great deal of debate over how much interaction Tawhid has had with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, particularly in the years since Zarqawi's influence has burgeoned. It is known that Zarqawi sent a communiqué to bin Laden in January 2004, which was intercepted by Iraqi Kurds. Coalition authorities also intercepted a July 2005 letter, of unverified authenticity, apparently sent from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Zarqawi. Also, though there is no financial paper trail linking Zarqawi to al-Qaeda, bin Laden at least nominally welcomed "union" with Zarqawi in videotapes broadcast by al-Jazeera—going so far as to call Zarqawi "the emir of the al-Qaeda organization in the land of the Tigris and the Euphrates."

Al'Zarqawi was funded by the Taliban, not Al'Qaeda. Bin Ladin merely gave him lip service to gain publicity for himself as well as Al'Zarqawi. Sort of like making him President of the Al'Qaeda Fan Club, Iraq branch.

If you really think that then why aren't you arguing NATO or U.N. intervention?

Actually I think U.N. intervention is a great idea in this instance. There is a massive humanitarian crisis that we caused.

I think the point is, because we can accept the initial reasoning and invasion were wrong, on that note this current administration, who got the US into this mess, are most definetely NOT the people who want to try and fix it, even if Iraq is indeed fixable. Indeed I am not saying that Iraq is lost, I am simply putting foward that the neocon policy is exacerbating the problem to breaking point through failed policies, not only in Iraq but in failing to engage with the wider Middle East, such as Syria and Iran. Dudya was NOT admitted he was wrong in the initial invasion, on that note he's not competant.
So if you think that then the solution is not to withdraw. The solution would be to get the U.N. and NATO in on the fight. The solution would be to wait until there is a new leader in the white house.

Actually I think U.N. intervention is a great idea in this instance. There is a massive humanitarian crisis that we caused.

post 74

If you really think that then why aren't you arguing NATO or U.N. intervention?

Gee, what fun - hey gang, let's all spend inordinate amounts of time and energy and resources and money cleaning up after America's colossal turds. Whoo-hoo!

I will take the cessation of anybody trying to deny the presence of terrorists in Iraq as a sign of victory.

Where have I heard something like this before? Oh yeah...... (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/thumb-Accomplished.jpg)

I will take the cessation of anybody trying to deny the presence of terrorists in Iraq as a sign of victory.

Well whatever your definition of terrorist, I prefere freedom fighter, and I personally support their cause against US capitalist imperialism over their country.

Do you want me to get into the facts of how the CPA in the first few months of occupation created the insurgency via war profiteering shonky deals and 'debaathisation', I will if you wish. I do not deny that freedom fighters exist in Iraq, but I also recognise that they exist in reaction to and because of the US invasion, they didn't exist beforehand, they just didn't have a job when the CPA sacked 400,000 trained soldiers, if the entire Iraqi army these days are basically recruits, were did the Baathists go? I wonder...

Plus the infrastructure got screwed because all the competant civil servants etc got sacked indesciminately for having 'links' to Saddam's regime. Thus, the infrastructure problem coupled with the capitalisation, caused the Iraq we see today.

Please USMC, go back to argueing in retrospect, we all know that's the only way you can go.

Bush isn't the one making the policy. His generals are.

And the ones who don't make policies Dubya thinks bolsters his G.I. Joe crackpipe dream gets replaced... like Anthony Zinni and Colin Powell for example.

Where have I heard something like this before? Oh yeah...... (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/thumb-Accomplished.jpg)

So you deny that terrorists are in Iraq?

So if you think that then the solution is not to withdraw. The solution would be to get the U.N. and NATO in on the fight. The solution would be to wait until there is a new leader in the white house.

Not quite. I think the mere presence of america at this point is doing more harm than it can possibly offset.

I think it's time for america to get the fuck out, and someone more competant to take over.

So you deny that terrorists are in Iraq?

I deny that this is a valid rationale for propogating the war.

Not quite. I think the mere presence of america at this point is doing more harm than it can possibly offset.

I think it's time for america to get the fuck out, and someone more competant to take over.

And what do you think will happen if we "get the fuck out." Do you think that our enemies will simply stop and go home? No, they will continue the fight in Iraq until is is complete. Until their objectives are complete. And then they will move on to the next country.

And what do you think will happen if we "get the fuck out." Do you think that our enemies will simply stop and go home? No, they will continue the fight in Iraq until is is complete. Until their objectives are complete. And then they will move on to the next country.

Lol, you better watch out, they'll follow you home in the luggage area of your planes, then jump out at lax and murder everyone. The Iraqi insurgency exist in reaction to occupation, their is every indication that it would simply go away if the US left, do you remember this kind of chaos in Saddam's time. Like it or not, Iraq needs another strongman.

I would also refere you to my previous post that has been timewarped.

If you really think that then why aren't you arguing NATO or U.N. intervention?

Well I don't know about others, but I'm advocating U.N. intervention. To tell you the truth, I think there should have been peacekeeping troops deployed the same day Bush landed on the Abraham Lincoln.

Unfortunately, the situation has spiralled so far out of control, not even the UN or NATO could solve the problems facing Iraq now. The Coalition has allowed a culture of hate develop, where each bombing is simply justified by the last bombing, which then justifies another bombing, then another. Sunni's, Shia's, Kurd's, Secular's are irreconciliable at this point. These groups may not be able to live peacefully amongst each other again for 100 years.

You know that i disagree with you. We are not propagating war. We are suppressing it. However at least I can kinda respect this.
How are we suppressing it? How do you suppress a war? Suppressing a war would require tyrannical oppression of a people to such a point to get you put in history books. The Bush White House is propagating and forcing an armed conflict with the Iraqi people for political and egotistical reasons.

I deny that this is a valid rationale for propogating the war.

You know that i disagree with you. We are not propagating war. We are suppressing it. However at least I can kinda respect this.

And what do you think will happen if we "get the fuck out." Do you think that our enemies will simply stop and go home? No, they will continue the fight in Iraq until is is complete. Until their objectives are complete. And then they will move on to the next country.

Now where have I heard that before? oh yeah...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_Theory)

Well I don't know about others, but I'm advocating U.N. intervention. To tell you the truth, I think there should have been peacekeeping troops deployed the same day Bush landed on the Abraham Lincoln.

Unfortunately, the situation has spiralled so far out of control, not even the UN or NATO could solve the problems facing Iraq now. The Coalition has allowed a culture of hate develop, where each bombing is simply justified by the last bombing, which then justifies another bombing, then another. Sunni's, Shia's, Kurd's, Secular's are irreconciliable at this point. These groups may not be able to live peacefully amongst each other again for 100 years.

Sure they can, if this was the irrefutable human truth then the entire world would be in perpetual and intense conflict. There is always a way to reconcile groups. If Sadr tells his guys not to kill sunnis then they won't kill sunnis. Any leader has control over the violence his group commits. It is just a matter of politics to bring them to stop it.

Now where have I heard that before? oh yeah...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_Theory)

What gov't did Laos and Cambodia fall to? Communism? Yeah, the domino theory doesn't exist.:rolleyes:

Professor: We seem to be lurching forward randomly in time, like a needle skipping on a record player!

What gov't did Laos and Cambodia fall to? Communism? Yeah, the domino theory doesn't exist.:rolleyes:

So how come the whole of Southeast Asia didn't go red? Thailand and Laos were in the same neighborhood.

:rolleyes:

Funny thing is, there would have been no such thing as a Communist Vietnam if Uncle Sam legitimized Uncle Ho's claims on leadership of Vietnam instead of pandering to French sensibilities- ironic considering the proliferation of Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey jokes that persist to even this day- and forced Ho Chi Minh to turn to the Soviet Union for backup. Which in turn forced the United States to prop up yet another corrupt dictator bastard in the form of Ngo Dinh Diem.

The fact is, it isn't the US's business to interfere in the politics of sovereign states outside their borders.

The fact is, the idea of a massive global islamist extremist ideology is all but non-existant, and perpetuating it only serves the neocons who wish to stay in power through fear politics, they did it during the Cold War too, saying that every terrorist group in the world was funded and gave loyalty to an evil conspiracy in Moscow, now that Soviet Union is gone they need a new mythic phantom enemy to beguile the public. Groups like Hezbollah follow a leftist kind of ideology, that is why they have a welfare wing the same as a military one, Palestinian militants follow a kind of more ultra-nationalist emancipation ideology, and so on, and so on.

Grouping all these groups together, whether under some fabircated central command, or even one distinct ideology is ridiculous and stupid to the extreme, it purposely avoids the complexities and subtlities of politics and the reality that most of these issues are local. It of course serves the neocon interest to have this allpowered, all pervasive enemy, like the 'Communist threat', Islamism is just a replacement. Politicians these days have given up on ideology, of offering a better view of the world and the future, instead they offer a view of a dark and sinister future to scare us into keeping them in power. It's hard for people to realise it, but just look at US history in the ME and the world over, 9/11 and such attacks in these contexts were totally justified.

How are we suppressing it? How do you suppress a war? Suppressing a war would require tyrannical oppression of a people to such a point to get you put in history books. The Bush White House is propagating and forcing an armed conflict with the Iraqi people for political and egotistical reasons.

You suppress a war w/ police like work. You disarm bomb cells. You detain those fighting the war. You get the leaders of the war to stop.

You suppress a war w/ police like work. You disarm bomb cells. You detain those fighting the war. You get the leaders of the war to stop.
And you know, troop around in convoys and engage in firefights and be attacked with bombs.

So how come the whole of Southeast Asia didn't go red? Thailand and Laos were in the same neighborhood.
Afghanistan is in the neighborhood also. The range of the neighborhood grows with modern technologies.

And you know, troop around in convoys and engage in firefights and be attacked with bombs.

Comes with the territory. If people with bombs don't want you to do something they will probably use them.

Alright, stop it, your are NOT at war, unless a congressional declaration of war comes you are NOT at war, so stop saying it already.So is that the Webster's definition of war or the Oxford's?

Alright, stop it, your are NOT at war, unless a congressional declaration of war comes you are NOT at war, so stop saying it already.

Alright, stop it, your are NOT at war, unless a congressional declaration of war comes you are NOT at war, so stop saying it already.

You're silly. If it helps you sleep at night call it a conflict.

I shall compare Iraq and Sept 11 by using a pictorial common link.

Contains fecal matter and a male bovine (http://search.cpan.org/src/MJD/txt2slides/Example-2/bullshit-lg.jpg)

You're silly. If it helps you sleep at night call it a conflict.

A self-imposed one at that, the point I was making is that the 'intervention wars' that the conservatives have invented allow them to get away with unpopular wars without congressional (public) approval.

You're silly. If it helps you sleep at night call it a conflict.

I'm sure you'd have creamed in your pants if Dear Leader Dubya called it a Police Action.

Liberal wars? Name one.

A self-imposed one at that, the point I was making is that the 'intervention wars' that the conservatives have invented allow them to get away with unpopular wars without congressional (public) approval.

You mean every war since WWII? The last declaration of war was for WWII. There have been quite a few liberal started conflicts since then. Lets not start the petty partisanship now.

Somalia.

Go on.

At least Clinton had the courage to pull out.

Plus Somalia was actually getting better until the US supported the Ethiopian invasion, theres the conservatives for you.

Liberal wars? Name one.

Somalia. Bay of Pigs. Angola. Iran. Bosnia. Haiti. Sudan.

I'm sure you'd have creamed in your pants if Dear Leader Dubya called it a Police Action.
It doesn't matter what it is called and that you care shows that you really don't care about the real issues.

Go on.

At least Clinton had the courage to pull out.

Plus Somalia was actually getting better until the US supported the Ethiopian invasion, theres the conservatives for you.
Clinton had the courage to retreat when we lost a few guys. And no, Somalia was still a shit hole. You really need to stop thinking in terms of liberals and conservatives. It only gives off ignorance to the true nature of issues. And you should take a look at the other military actions taken under democrats.

The Fact of the matter is, even if it's decided that Iraq can be resolved, the tool who made the mistake of going in in the first place, and continues to perpetuate his failed policies is not the competant person who can fix it, he needs to be gone to start anew.

The way I see it, Bush is gone, so he's just using this time to randomly attacking everybody as unpatriotic untill he finally goes down in smoke to be remembered as the worst President of the USA.

Liberal wars? Name one.


THE CULTURE WAR! WE'VE GOTTA BEAT YOU FILTHY HIPPIES TRYING TO GET'CHER FILTH AT US! YOU STARTED THAT WAR, WITH YOUR DIRT!

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to wash my hands. :D

Liberal wars? Name one.I do believe the 11th President of the United States, James K. Polk, could be described as a Liberal. He was a Jeffersonian democrat and seems to have been in favour of reducing tariffs and othr liberal things.

He presided over the the Mexican-American War. In which the United States gained over 1.2 million square miles in territory.

And the pattern of making vast accusations and then retreating continues. The reason that civilians don't make the strategy in wars is b/c they are not trained to. Deciding when and where they fight is one thing. Restraining the military is one thing. Formulating TTP's and strategy is another and it is a line that Bush isn't crossing.

I am refering to the CPA, that created the problems in Iraq today, blaming it on the Generals is not the best way to go.

The Fact of the matter is, even if it's decided that Iraq can be resolved, the tool who made the mistake of going in in the first place, and continues to perpetuate his failed policies is not the competant person who can fix it, he needs to be gone to start anew.

The way I see it, Bush is gone, so he's just using this time to randomly attacking everybody as unpatriotic untill he finally goes down in smoke to be remembered as the worst President of the USA.
And the pattern of making vast accusations and then retreating continues. The reason that civilians don't make the strategy in wars is b/c they are not trained to. Deciding when and where they fight is one thing. Restraining the military is one thing. Formulating TTP's and strategy is another and it is a line that Bush isn't crossing.

I am refering to the CPA, that created the problems in Iraq today, blaming it on the Generals is not the best way to go.

Yeah, the CPA was a joke of an organization. It was necessary at that time but it made about every mistake possible. The CPA no longer exists so that doesn't fit into you credibility argument.

How do you know? The war isn't over yet. We can still win.
That's pure gold, priceless. And I thought conservatives had a reputation for being pessimists.
There is a point where optimism becomes dellusion, you appear to have located that point and taken up residency there.

I can see your line of thought however it is flawed. First of all, you think that the surge is not doing anything. The surge has just begun and it is not a strategy. It is a means to put in place a strategy. The fact that you want the surge to work in 2 months shows why you are unsatisfied with Iraq. You want instant results but that is not realistic. You are going to have to obtain some patience.
So it's misnamed, more a slow unfurling than a surge huh?

Yes it is a means to implement a strategy. We are working to move to a more dispersed foot print and to a force more focused on training and mentoring IA and IP. The additional troops allow us to move in and set up inside neighborhoods and frees up troops to be able to make the move to being attached to Iraqi units. It is not about more force. You are misinformed.
Still? What's with calling it 'operation surge' instead of 'operation, let's try this same exact thing again and hope it works where it has failed numerous times in the past'?
In fact here (http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/mar2006/a031506wm1.html) is a link that tells us that the training to allow the Iraqis to take over from the Americans is right on track. Being over a year old it of course pre-dates this 'new' inititive that so strangely resembles the same old inititive being periodically recycled every time the Bush admin thinks its citizens have forgotten the last time it got rolled out under some stupid macho sounding 'operation X' name.
This may be a naive question, but what about changing the name of an 'inititive' makes it either new or more likely to succeed than the last time it failed?

Bush isn't the one making the policy. His generals are.
Really? They are? When did that start? Pity it didnt start somewhat earlier, like back when the best military minds and generals were insisting Rummy's 'Revolution in Military Affairs' was simply a euthenism for 'a very stupid idea that put its architect's misguided need to leave a legacy in his wake ahead of sound military strategy'.
I'm thinking unless Bush is not after all 'the decider' that Rummy probably got his way only because the President over-ruled the policy advice of the generals. But maybe you're right and we were lied to when we were told that the President is 'the decider'.

So, while looking for the news that I heard from a fellow student, I read this nice little quote from President Bush:



Why is he still comparing Iraq and Sept. 11?

Why?

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this. There must be something that can be done to get it into his head that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, while Saudi Arabia did.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132601/

I have repeatedly written about this falsehood. But local conservatives in my area just don't seem to get it. It runs contrary to established doctrine, and as such must be a liberal lie. Seriously. They almost seem to refuse to admit any contradictory information...yet they'll pick up on the tiniest thing that comes out that supports them. It's one of the damndest things I have ever seen.

I have repeatedly written about this falsehood. But local conservatives in my area just don't seem to get it. It runs contrary to established doctrine, and as such must be a liberal lie. Seriously. They almost seem to refuse to admit any contradictory information...yet they'll pick up on the tiniest thing that comes out that supports them. It's one of the damndest things I have ever seen.

Conservatives kneel before the truth, even if it's painful for them. What you have, are Busheviks.

Liberal wars? Name one.


Vietnam. Kennedy started our active involvement. Before him we only had advisors there assisting the French. LBJ brought us into it full bore.

How soon they forget.

That's pure gold, priceless. And I thought conservatives had a reputation for being pessimists.
There is a point where optimism becomes dellusion, you appear to have located that point and taken up residency there.

I'm not even going to respond to this idiocy. Just look at my other posts regarding this. You aren't worth going over it again.


Still? What's with calling it 'operation surge' instead of 'operation, let's try this same exact thing again and hope it works where it has failed numerous times in the past'?
No, it's not the same. Are you blind? Is the entire civilian world blind? We are moving into a order of battle that provides the capacity to draw down troops long term.
here (http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/mar2006/a031506wm1.html) is a link that tells us that the training to allow the Iraqis to take over from the Americans is right on track. Being over a year old it of course pre-dates this 'new' inititive that so strangely resembles the same old inititive being periodically recycled every time the Bush admin thinks its citizens have forgotten the last time it got rolled out under some stupid macho sounding 'operation X' name.
This may be a naive question, but what about changing the name of an 'inititive' makes it either new or more likely to succeed than the last time it failed?
The training was and is on track. This new strategy is about increasing that b/c people like you are eventually going to make us leave before they are ready and it is about providing a way to mentor those Iraqis in the field before they operate solo.

As to the OP: Why does he keep saying it? Because his spin-doctors haven't come up with a new thing for him to say yet. Lacking new material, he just keeps going back to Cheney for advice and that crazy old bastard is stuck in that groove. He just keeps repeating those words over and over, while rocking himself in the corner of his undisclosed location.

Great. The americans have a broken record player as a vice president?

Sorry for interrupting the attack bush party but where in that quote does he mention Iraq?

The war he is referring to is the Iraq war, because the spending bill he is going to veto is the one directly related to the Iraq war.

Are terrorists not in Iraq? Stating a fact is quite different than claiming 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq. Which, even had he said Iraq, he was not saying. He said that terrorists attacked on 9/11 and that there are terrorists in Iraq right now. All 100% fact.

Why are there terrorists in Iraq right now though? I mean, it's a very obvious answer.

The terrorists are fighting b/c of global islamic fundamentalist movement. They are fighting for allah.

Tell that to the ETA. I'm sure there'll be too happy to hear it.

Or to the now non-existant RAF. Or the supposedly disarmed IRA.

That is why insurgents fight, not terrorists.

And it is insurgents in Iraq, right? So now they aren't terrorists?

Not at all, he was making an implied link between terrorists and Iraq.

Which he shouldn't be, because if it weren't for him, there wouldn't Be terrorists in Iraq. Or insurgents. Well, maybe insurgents, what with the kurds not being too happy (but you left them in the dirt a decade or so ago, so meh).

Using my logic, there are terrorists in Iraq right now and we have to do what we can to prevent them from leading Iraq. IDK where you got the other convoluted bullshit from.

The only reason they are there is because you destroyed a reasonably stable (if dictatorial) government.

the sick truth IS that we have destroyed iraq and continue to keep iraq in chaos so it can be a terrorist magnet. if they all converge on iraq, we have one place to fight them. too bad about the iraqi casualities but we only care about our own, not theirs.

Yes, but first of all it leaves the US extremely vulnerable. If anything, this is the perfect time for terrorists to strike the US and heck, they don't even need to. Half of the US is scared shitless already.

Second of all, Iraq had no links to terrorism prior to an invasion. After the invasion, the only reason for links to terrorism is because of the invasion. Thus, it is entirely Bush's fault that there are terrorists in Iraq. It would seem obvious to stop the thing that started terrorism in the first place - The war.

But he's trying to escalate it instead.

Okay, you realize that that link is completely valid. It wasn't valid as a reason to invade but it is quite factual right now. Do you deny the presence of radical islamic terrorists in Iraq? Do you deny that radical islamic terrorists conducted 9/11? No? Then you agree with his connection.

The terrorists in Iraq ARE NOT THE SAME as those that conducted 9/11.

If they were, they wouldn't be fighting in Iraq - because it's be FAR easier to attack the US, what with all their soldiers being in Iraq.

Fact is - IT ISN'T HAPPENING!

The people who carried out 9/11 are DEAD! that's what happens to suicide bombers and hijackers. They DIE!

How do you know? The war isn't over yet. We can still win.

You lost the moment you went in there.

Unless all you wanted to do was topple Saddam's government, in which case you won.

But that wasn't the goal, was it?


Yargh!

*goes to self-implode*

Well whatever your definition of terrorist, I prefere freedom fighter, and I personally support their cause against US capitalist imperialism over their country.

Do you want me to get into the facts of how the CPA in the first few months of occupation created the insurgency via war profiteering shonky deals and 'debaathisation', I will if you wish. I do not deny that freedom fighters exist in Iraq, but I also recognise that they exist in reaction to and because of the US invasion, they didn't exist beforehand, they just didn't have a job when the CPA sacked 400,000 trained soldiers, if the entire Iraqi army these days are basically recruits, were did the Baathists go? I wonder...

Plus the infrastructure got screwed because all the competant civil servants etc got sacked indesciminately for having 'links' to Saddam's regime. Thus, the infrastructure problem coupled with the capitalisation, caused the Iraq we see today.

Please USMC, go back to argueing in retrospect, we all know that's the only way you can go.


Then you are my friend a terrorist. If you back up these terrorist groups and call them freedom fighters, i wish they would arrest you, but that isnt going to happen until you support them with more then words unfortantly.

I love so many of the ad hominum attacks and other such fallacies some fo you use in your posts...

Point being is HUSSEIN should of been taken out back in 1991, but you can blame the dumbocrats on that(since so many of you use the word Busheviks). Yes our leaders of politics said one thing on why we went in and some of it I agree with(WMDs-yes they were there, i have theories of where they went but that is differnet thread; Hussein was a terrorist among his own people and neighbors of his nation; and he killed 100s of thousands of his own people).

What i dont think some of you understand what USMC has been saying or you are ignoring it is that there IS BOTH insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. Also ther was terrorists before We went in, Hussein had reportedly terrorist training camps in his nation. PLUS he was a terrorist himself. Sorry but the word terrorist doesnt have to be associated with just al qaeda, it can be any leader, why its called WAR ON TERROR. Duh....:rolleyes:

and here we get to the crux of the problem.

The war is necessary because Saddam has WMDs. Wrong

Agreed.

OK, no WMDs, but we will make a better Iraq for the Iraqi people. Wrong

I don’t agree, but I get into that later.

Alright...not so much better, but the war will make us safer. Wrong.

OK, I’ll give you this, we aren’t really safer, but I haven’t seen any more attacks on US soil so I certainly can’t say I am in any more danger either.

OK, shit's not really safer, but the surge will fix it. Wrong

Most definitely disagree. But more to come later

But, I swear, we got it this time! Yes we fucked up, and yes people have died and yes more people are dying every day, but we have the answer now. I swear to god, this time we're right!

Now, I totally agree, we made an enormous mistake, and yes, thousands of people have died because of it.

Why should I believe it? Why should I believe a word?

You can’t, and we should be expected to either.

The same people who said there were WMDs are the same people who said that Iraq would be better, who are the same people who said we would be safer, who are the same people who said the surge would work, who are now the same people who say we have to stay or shit will get worse.

Has there been an attack inside the US recently that I missed? No! There have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11, so obviously, someone is doing something to keep us safe. It probably isn’t Iraq, or maybe the terrorists are currently focusing their efforts on Iraq at the moment, and for this very short period of time, I am actually safer at home. How that was achieved I don’t care, whether it was Iraq or something else, makes no difference.

Every single prediction that this administration has made has been wrong.

Agreed, but then, most analysts have not been completely accurate either. Also most of the analysts say, now that we are in Iraq we cannot simply walk away, but what have the Democrats most recently passed? A War spending bill that will in effect walk away from Iraq.


Now, this administration [is] looking at a devastated Iraq, leading a nation less safe than it was, a monument to incompetence. And we're being asked to believe that NOW they got it right? Now, atop a mountain of failure, we are expected to believe that THIS time they have it right?

Absolutely not! We have no reason or need to believe that this administration has it right. However, we do have to accept that they screwed up and we, as in the American people, are paying the consequences, and will continue to do so until the mistake completely corrected. Now, I hate to use this, but it is appropriate. This means that we have to “stay the course” of continuing to fight in Iraq, until such time as a government is capable of standing up on its own and supporting its people.

If we pull out, all that is going to happen is Iraq will collapse into an all out civil war. If this happens, you can guarantee that their neighbors are going to get involved. Saudi has already stated they would get involved; it was retracted, but please be realistic, they would get involved. You can be assured that Iran, and Syria, and even Egypt, would get involved. And if the Turkish government had any sense, they would attempt to ease tensions in their Kurdish community by supporting the Kurds.

This would draw the entire region in to an nasty and bloody war that would devastate the world economy, especially ours, because that is where most of the world’s oil comes from and our economy is heavily dependant on oil.

My point is, whether we like it or not. We are committed to correcting a colossal mistake that has no foreseeable end in sight. We have no choice but to stay in this for the long haul to “we will make a better Iraq for the Iraqi people.” Because the consequences of not staying there are far worse than what we are currently faced with.

and here we get to the crux of the problem.

The war is necessary because Saddam has WMDs. Wrong

Agreed.

OK, no WMDs, but we will make a better Iraq for the Iraqi people. Wrong

I don’t agree, but I get into that later.

Alright...not so much better, but the war will make us safer. Wrong.

OK, I’ll give you this, we aren’t really safer, but I haven’t seen any more attacks on US soil so I certainly can’t say I am in any more danger either.

OK, shit's not really safer, but the surge will fix it. Wrong

Most definitely disagree. But more to come later

But, I swear, we got it this time! Yes we fucked up, and yes people have died and yes more people are dying every day, but we have the answer now. I swear to god, this time we're right!

Now, I totally agree, we made an enormous mistake, and yes, thousands of people have died because of it.

Why should I believe it? Why should I believe a word?

You can’t, and we should be expected to either.

The same people who said there were WMDs are the same people who said that Iraq would be better, who are the same people who said we would be safer, who are the same people who said the surge would work, who are now the same people who say we have to stay or shit will get worse.

Has there been an attack inside the US recently that I missed? No! There have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11, so obviously, someone is doing something to keep us safe. It probably isn’t Iraq, or maybe the terrorists are currently focusing their efforts on Iraq at the moment, and for this very short period of time, I am actually safer at home. How that was achieved I don’t care, whether it was Iraq or something else, makes no difference.

Every single prediction that this administration has made has been wrong.

Agreed, but then, most analysts have not been completely accurate either. Also most of the analysts say, now that we are in Iraq we cannot simply walk away, but what have the Democrats most recently passed? A War spending bill that will in effect walk away from Iraq.


Now, this administration [is] looking at a devastated Iraq, leading a nation less safe than it was, a monument to incompetence. And we're being asked to believe that NOW they got it right? Now, atop a mountain of failure, we are expected to believe that THIS time they have it right?

Absolutely not! We have no reason or need to believe that this administration has it right. However, we do have to accept that they screwed up and we, as in the American people, are paying the consequences, and will continue to do so until the mistake completely corrected. Now, I hate to use this, but it is appropriate. This means that we have to “stay the course” of continuing to fight in Iraq, until such time as a government is capable of standing up on its own and supporting its people.

If we pull out, all that is going to happen is Iraq will collapse into an all out civil war. If this happens, you can guarantee that their neighbors are going to get involved. Saudi has already stated they would get involved; it was retracted, but please be realistic, they would get involved. You can be assured that Iran, and Syria, and even Egypt, would get involved. And if the Turkish government had any sense, they would attempt to ease tensions in their Kurdish community by supporting the Kurds.

This would draw the entire region in to an nasty and bloody war that would devastate the world economy, especially ours, because that is where most of the world’s oil comes from and our economy is heavily dependant on oil.

My point is, whether we like it or not. We are committed to correcting a colossal mistake that has no foreseeable end in sight. We have no choice but to stay in this for the long haul to “we will make a better Iraq for the Iraqi people.” Because the consequences of not staying there are far worse than what we are currently faced with.

The Iraqi insurgency exist in reaction to occupation, their is every indication that it would simply go away if the US left, do you remember this kind of chaos in Saddam's time. Like it or not, Iraq needs another strongman.

With this I can agree, but at the same time, it is not the insurgency that is really the problem. Now that we have invaded, and take down the previous government, the terrorists are working to prevent the newly formed government from become the strongman the Iraq needs.

You do hear about the killing that are not focused on American troops, right? The suicide bombing, and sectarian killing? These are not going to go away if the American troops pull out.

Take the insurgency against the occupation out of the picture, and there is another war that is being fought. It is the beginnings of a civil war in Iraq.

If the Americans troops pull out there will be nothing preventing this from happening, and as I said in another post, the consequences of that are far more undesirable that what we currently have.

I'm in a charitable moods so I'll go over this for the 26th time in this thread alone. Next time, read before you post.

The war he is referring to is the Iraq war, because the spending bill he is going to veto is the one directly related to the Iraq war.

So that is the only possible thing that he can talk about? He couldn't be talking about his GWOT? Also, if he was referencing Iraq it is a valid connection now. There are terrorists in Iraq right now. Some of which fight under the banner and with funds from Al-Qaeda. However it is not valid as a reason for invasion as he did not infer.

Why are there terrorists in Iraq right now though? I mean, it's a very obvious answer.
Yes it is. How does that affect what we do now?


Tell that to the ETA. I'm sure there'll be too happy to hear it.

Or to the now non-existant RAF. Or the supposedly disarmed IRA.
Was that what I was talking about? No. Are you dumb? Yes. I didn't know b/c there was a non islamic terrorist group that there was no islamic fundamentalism.


And it is insurgents in Iraq, right? So now they aren't terrorists?
There are insurgents and there are terrorists. I know, complicated right?:rolleyes:


Which he shouldn't be, because if it weren't for him, there wouldn't Be terrorists in Iraq. Or insurgents. Well, maybe insurgents, what with the kurds not being too happy (but you left them in the dirt a decade or so ago, so meh).

Already addressed above.



The terrorists in Iraq ARE NOT THE SAME as those that conducted 9/11.
Islamic extremists anyone? Al-Qaeda in Iraq anyone?
If they were, they wouldn't be fighting in Iraq - because it's be FAR easier to attack the US, what with all their soldiers being in Iraq.
Where do you get your idiocy from? They were recruited to fight in Iraq to establish a country for terrorism. Can't exactly do that in the U.S.


The people who carried out 9/11 are DEAD! that's what happens to suicide bombers and hijackers. They DIE!
And the ideology lives on. The organization lives on. The movement lives on.


You lost the moment you went in there.
Your propaganda would have you believe that.

Unless all you wanted to do was topple Saddam's government, in which case you won.

But that wasn't the goal, was it?

No, the goal was to make a free and secure Iraq. With our building of a gov't w/ a monopoly on force that is a very achievable goal.
Yargh!

*goes to self-implode*

Is that what noobs do nowadays?

I'm not even going to respond to this idiocy. Just look at my other posts regarding this. You aren't worth going over it again.
No you have not, but I understand if you state something enough times, there are people who will come to believe it.

No, it's not the same. Are you blind? Is the entire civilian world blind? We are moving into a order of battle that provides the capacity to draw down troops long term.

The training was and is on track. This new strategy is about increasing that b/c people like you are eventually going to make us leave before they are ready and it is about providing a way to mentor those Iraqis in the field before they operate solo.
Yes the training has always been on track, except when it becomes politically necessary to admit the training isnt on track but it's all good because this 'new' inititive will get it back on track.

As for people like me, what a load of BS. Nothing you or anyone else has said demonstrates that it is a good move to either go or stay, that this is anything other than a lose-lose situation supported and enabled and facilitated by people like you.

Yes the training has always been on track, except when it becomes politically necessary to admit the training isnt on track but it's all good because this 'new' inititive will get it back on track.
You mean how it's politically necessary for democrats to say that we will lose the war? How else will they win the election? There are 92 Iraqi battalions in the lead in the fight. 300,000 personnel. I can't possibly see how that's progress.:rolleyes:
As for people like me, what a load of BS. Nothing you or anyone else has said demonstrates that it is a good move to either go or stay, that this is anything other than a lose-lose situation supported and enabled and facilitated by people like you.
You ignore all of the evidence that we are capable of victory b/c it is easier to say we lose and go home. The war is winnable. As long as the IA and IP have the biggest guns in town then we win in the long run b/c they will win for us.

You mean how it's politically necessary for democrats to say that we will lose the war? How else will they win the election? There are 92 Iraqi battalions in the lead in the fight. 300,000 personnel. I can't possibly see how that's progress.:rolleyes:

You ignore all of the evidence that we are capable of victory b/c it is easier to say we lose and go home. The war is winnable. As long as the IA and IP have the biggest guns in town then we win in the long run b/c they will win for us.

We've been told the war was winnable for the last 4 years. We were told the war is won a few years back. Short of nuking the place you can't stamp out insurgents through brute force, the harder you stamp the greater the recruitment and the more will be willing to take up the fight. You can't solve every problem with a hammer and brute force.

How do you know? The war isn't over yet. We can still win.
The definition of insanity: repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results every time.

If Bush's bullshit has been bullshit from the start, the same bullshit will not magically turn into truth tomorrow. If every single thing Bush has done has been a catastrophic failure, the exact same actions will not magically turn into success tomorrow.

I can see your line of thought however it is flawed. First of all, you think that the surge is not doing anything. The surge has just begun and it is not a strategy. It is a means to put in place a strategy. The fact that you want the surge to work in 2 months shows why you are unsatisfied with Iraq. You want instant results but that is not realistic. You are going to have to obtain some patience.
Let's talk about flawed lines of thought:

1) The surge is not a strategy. It is a tactic. Tactics fit into strategies, which apply tactics according to specific plans. Tactics are not tools for putting strategies in place. The strategy must first exist, and then the tool can be used to carry it out. So, what is Bush's strategy? All he tells us about is the surge, and he calls that his strategy. Yet you yourself point out that a surge is not a strategy. (What it is is a tactic, of course, but Bush doesn't seem to know the difference.)

2) You criticize us for being unsatisified with the surge after only 2 months, but how long was the surge supposed to last? When did Bush ever tell us this? When did he ever tell you? The fact is, he has told no one because (a) he has indicated no strategy behind the surge and (b) he has expressed a lack of interest in actually ending the war.

3) You assume that our dissatisfaction over the surge is due to lack of instant results. That is an unfounded assumption. The fact is, we are dissatisfied with the surge because it is just a repeat of past tactics-without-strategy that have already failed. We can see that Bush is just repeating his mistakes over and over. Why can't you?

It would be established in Iraq as declared by terrorist groups and we can prevent it by leaving an IA and IP that can hold the country w/o 140,000 U.S. troops.
Oh, it "would be"? And where are the plans that show this plot was ever in place or in development? As far as I know, the minority extremist factions that endorse caliphates (there are several) never expressed any interest in Iraq.

But don't let that get in the way of your fantasizing.

We've been told the war was winnable for the last 4 years. We were told the war is won a few years back. Short of nuking the place you can't stamp out insurgents through brute force, the harder you stamp the greater the recruitment and the more will be willing to take up the fight. You can't solve every problem with a hammer and brute force.

The war was winnable for the last 4 years and still is today. We were told that we completed our initial mission. The mission has changed. We aren't trying to use a hammer and brute force. We are leaving behind an IA and IP that can outlast the insurgency and create it's own political solution to reconcile AIF.

You mean how it's politically necessary for democrats to say that we will lose the war? How else will they win the election?
Maybe they should try the Republican way, lie a lot and play the tune from a kid's tv series about a boy and a dolphin.

There are 92 Iraqi battalions in the lead in the fight. 300,000 personnel. I can't possibly see how that's progress.:rolleyes:
Sure we've periodically had Iraqi police and troop numbers cited at us before, however, these wonderful achievments are slightly blemished when it turns out training missed a few of the finer points like 'take your uniform off before you go on a sectarian rampage'. But hey, you cant have everything.

You ignore all of the evidence that we are capable of victory b/c it is easier to say we lose and go home.
You ignore the evidence to the contrary. There actually isnt any specific evidence indicating that the US is capable of 'victory', merely generalised evidences such as victory is something that happens for some in wars and the US is in a war. The evidential case for the US coming out 'victorious' is similar to the evidential case for me winning the lottery tonight. I dont have nor intend to get a ticket so for the forseeable future it's utterly unlikely, but it is a theoretical possibility.

Let's be clear here, people like myself were ignoring the evidence according to people like yourself back when Saddam definately had the WMD he definately never had....It's not the war skeptics that have a comprehensive history of ignoring the evidence and arriving at conclusions contrary to reality. It's ironic that people like you still are trying to make out that the war skeptics are the one's suffering a disconnect with reality.

The war is winnable. As long as the IA and IP have the biggest guns in town then we win in the long run b/c they will win for us.
Wow, you really dont have a grip on the situation at all do you.
This is an insurgency/gorilla warefare situation. Having the big guns isnt necessarily going to win the day. It's a heck-load more complicated than that.

Bush isn't the one making the policy. His generals are.
Bullshit. He is commander in chief. The policies are his -- his to be blamed for -- no matter who wrote them up for him.

But I enjoy the way you insist we must continue to trust Bush to lead us at the same time as you tell us he's not the one leading us, his generals are.

I will take the cessation of anybody trying to deny the presence of terrorists in Iraq as a sign of victory.
I will take your admission that it was the US that put terrorists into Iraq as a sign that you are not already completely deranged.

And what do you think will happen if we "get the fuck out." Do you think that our enemies will simply stop and go home? No, they will continue the fight in Iraq until is is complete. Until their objectives are complete. And then they will move on to the next country.
Hey, boys and girls, it's the DOMINO THEORY!!!! YAY!

EDIT: Nerts, Arthais beat me to it.

What gov't did Laos and Cambodia fall to? Communism? Yeah, the domino theory doesn't exist.:rolleyes:

Laos and Cambodia and.....nuthin. And oh, yeah, I remember how once all of Asia fell, those filthy commies came knocking on America's door too.

Oh, wait...

But you're right, the theory does exist. And it's wrong. Bush and Cheney also exist, and they are wrong, too.

i dont like to talk about it because it really creeps me out but the theory of going to war in iraq and staying at war in iraq is to attract the alqaeda guys THERE so that they wont come HERE.

meaning that hundreds of thousands of iraqis are being killed so that this war on terror thing will be more convenient for us.

so in theory while iraq didnt start out as a terrorist haven, it has been made one by the US invasion and occupation. now the 2 things are connected.

Dumb ass, do you remember september 11th. those guys were already here. they hijacked the planes here and ran them into our buildings here. The terrorists are still here! they're not gonna leave. theyre just planning on when to attack a country that cant even organize itself enough to keep people from being killed by a hurricane. Our police couldnt even stop a kid from running around a campus and shooting people for 3 hours.

How can you sit there and say that if we dont fight in Iraq the terrorists are gonna come here. First..the terrosists are already here. second.. the only more will get here is if they buy a plane ticket and fly over. Al qaeda doesnt have jets or ships. They're not an organized army. Well.. maybe now they are. look at the war this way. The real eway. we are spending billions of dollars so that Al qaeda can train in live combat. Something theyve never been able to do before. Also terrorist recruitment has more than quadrupled since the beginning of the war in Iraq. So there are more terrorists now than there were before the war in Iraq. If you want to fight terrorism do so by educating Americans, organizing our police, emergency managment services, and intelligence services. Stop letting foreginers into the country without business VISA's. Put a cap on the amount of business VISA's given out every year like other smart governments. Protect our borders!!!! To the north and south. And impeach the terrorist in the white house. Thats how you fight terrorism. You dont fight terrorism with terror!!! You fight terrorism with education and diplomacy like normal educated human beings. Not like a homicidal trigger happy moron you call Dubya. You cant spell WMD or WTC without Dubya!!!!

You suppress a war w/ police like work. You disarm bomb cells. You detain those fighting the war. You get the leaders of the war to stop.

Or you suppress a war by starting a war, expanding a war from one country to another, refusing to end a war, as Bush does.

Oh, wait...

The definition of insanity: repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results every time.

If Bush's bullshit has been bullshit from the start, the same bullshit will not magically turn into truth tomorrow. If every single thing Bush has done has been a catastrophic failure, the exact same actions will not magically turn into success tomorrow.
Faulty logic. You assume that Bush's actions have ended and we have seen the result. Nothing has ended and therefore no result has been given.

Let's talk about flawed lines of thought:

1) The surge is not a strategy. It is a tactic. Tactics fit into strategies, which apply tactics according to specific plans. Tactics are not tools for putting strategies in place. The strategy must first exist, and then the tool can be used to carry it out. So, what is Bush's strategy? All he tells us about is the surge, and he calls that his strategy. Yet you yourself point out that a surge is not a strategy. (What it is is a tactic, of course, but Bush doesn't seem to know the difference.)
No, the surge is not a tactic. You obviously are not well versed in anything military. A tactic is on the small-unit level, not the strategic level as the surge is on. It's not Bush's strategy, it's Patreaus's. We are shifting to a order of battle more dispersed inside cities and attached with Iraqi units. The surge enables us to make this shift. It gives us the ability to cover an AO while a unit makes the transition.
2) You criticize us for being unsatisified with the surge after only 2 months, but how long was the surge supposed to last? When did Bush ever tell us this? When did he ever tell you? The fact is, he has told no one because (a) he has indicated no strategy behind the surge and (b) he has expressed a lack of interest in actually ending the war.
3) You assume that our dissatisfaction over the surge is due to lack of instant results. That is an unfounded assumption. The fact is, we are dissatisfied with the surge because it is just a repeat of past tactics-without-strategy that have already failed. We can see that Bush is just repeating his mistakes over and over. Why can't you?
I think what has been said is pretty clear. Things like, "The surge is a total failure." And ,"there has been no change since the surge started" make it pretty clear that people like you want results and you want them now. The surge isn't even up to full numbers yet. And yes, there is a strategy behind the surge as I've outlined. You are just not doing the necessary work to find it. The surge is designed to accelerate the things we have already been doing and to bring about an order of battle that allows troops to be drawn down while maintaining our presence within the IA and IP.

Faulty logic. You assume that Bush's actions have ended and we have seen the result. Nothing has ended and therefore no result has been given.

So you're saying it's unfair to criticize him until he's left office. Far out, man.

Laos and Cambodia and.....nuthin. And oh, yeah, I remember how once all of Asia fell, those filthy commies came knocking on America's door too.

Oh, wait...

But you're right, the theory does exist. And it's wrong. Bush and Cheney also exist, and they are wrong, too.

So b/c it didn't swamp all of SE Asia it is wrong? Even though it happened in closer areas? How did you come to that conclusion?

So you're saying it's unfair to criticize him until he's left office. Far out, man.

No, it's unfair to criticize current strategies until we see the wars outcome.

The war was winnable for the last 4 years and still is today. We were told that we completed our initial mission. The mission has changed. We aren't trying to use a hammer and brute force. We are leaving behind an IA and IP that can outlast the insurgency and create it's own political solution to reconcile AIF.
1) If the initial mission has changed, then it was not completed. If it had been completed, then we would be on a new mission now. Only we're not.

2) We are leaving nothing behind because we are not leaving.

3) Where did Bush ever outline anything even as remotely similar to a strategy as what you write here? Nowhere. Admit that you are making this up, possibly in an attempt to make it seem as if Bush's actions make any sense.

Bullshit. He is commander in chief. The policies are his -- his to be blamed for -- no matter who wrote them up for him.

But I enjoy the way you insist we must continue to trust Bush to lead us at the same time as you tell us he's not the one leading us, his generals are.

You can blame his for it all you want. But it's not an issue of trust if he isn't coming up with anything.

You can blame his for it all you want. But it's not an issue of trust if he isn't coming up with anything.


Whats funny is if you listen to these same anti-war or war critics, they have NOTHING to say of how we should of removed this terrorist leader at all. They will live in denial of who this leader was and who he represented. Now that we removed him these same people are now bitchin git is not going all perfect.

I have been a supporter in removing Hussein militarily since 1991. And all i have heard from this anti-American, or anti-war groups is how he held that nation together, when in reality it was boiling under the surface.....its high time someone removed that tyrannt of a leader, Hussein.

Sure we've periodically had Iraqi police and troop numbers cited at us before, however, these wonderful achievments are slightly blemished when it turns out training missed a few of the finer points like 'take your uniform off before you go on a sectarian rampage'. But hey, you cant have everything.
Atrocities happen in any military organization. Infiltration is down and is decreasing. It is not as serious a problem as you might think and the Iraqi military is much more capable than you might think. Evidenced by their response to Samarra bombings.
You ignore the evidence to the contrary. There actually isnt any specific evidence indicating that the US is capable of 'victory', merely generalised evidences such as victory is something that happens for some in wars and the US is in a war. The evidential case for the US coming out 'victorious' is similar to the evidential case for me winning the lottery tonight. I dont have nor intend to get a ticket so for the forseeable future it's utterly unlikely, but it is a theoretical possibility.
The strategy is clear. What we need to do is clear. Give the Iraqis a chance to determine their own future. The gov't needs a monopoly on force in order to do that. That is what we are working to give them.
Let's be clear here, people like myself were ignoring the evidence according to people like yourself back when Saddam definately had the WMD he definately never had....It's not the war skeptics that have a comprehensive history of ignoring the evidence and arriving at conclusions contrary to reality. It's ironic that people like you still are trying to make out that the war skeptics are the one's suffering a disconnect with reality.
Once right=/=always right. It is not your fault that you have a disconnect with reality. Right now you are not getting the full story. I'm trying to give that to you.

Wow, you really dont have a grip on the situation at all do you.
This is an insurgency/gorilla warefare situation. Having the big guns isnt necessarily going to win the day. It's a heck-load more complicated than that.
Sorry, i didn't mean big guns literally. I didn't know I was explaining this to a six yr old. I mean that the gov't needs to be a stronger force than the insurgency and be able to maintain the gov't under all insurgent attacks. An insurgency in it's guerrilla warfare stage is ineffective. It can't gain any power or take any objectives. However if it is allowed to transition into conventional war then it is dangerous to a country. That is the stage that the IA and IP must be able to prevent.

1) If the initial mission has changed, then it was not completed. If it had been completed, then we would be on a new mission now. Only we're not.
The initial mission has not changed. We've been given a new mission after completing our first.
2) We are leaving nothing behind because we are not leaving.
Yes, we will. In '09 we will be out of there quite quickly. Our generals know this and are moving to position ourselves in a situation where we can handle this.
3) Where did Bush ever outline anything even as remotely similar to a strategy as what you write here? Nowhere. Admit that you are making this up, possibly in an attempt to make it seem as if Bush's actions make any sense.
Call it insider knowledge. It's clearly stated in briefings. If you search hard enough you'll find it. I can understand why Bush might not want to broadcast what our strategy is. Think of the political capita to pull out a "surprise" victory out of nowhere.

Call it insider knowledge. It's clearly stated in briefings. If you search hard enough you'll find it. I can understand why Bush might not want to broadcast what our strategy is. Think of the political capita to pull out a "surprise" victory out of nowhere.

This is beginning to sound a lot like that old skit on SNL with Phil Hartman playing Reagan... you know, the one where he's only pretending to be a doddering senile old fool as a cover for his sharp-as-a-tack machinations.

And anyway, regarding that last bit you mentioned - just shows what a cretin that man is. But it comes as no surprise.

This is beginning to sound a lot like that old skit on SNL with Phil Hartman playing Reagan... you know, the one where he's only pretending to be a doddering senile old fool as a cover for his sharp-as-a-tack machinations.

And anyway, regarding that last bit you mentioned - just shows what a cretin that man is. But it comes as no surprise.

Why because we dont want to give all our plans to how we plan to complete this conflict/war? That is the other thing that bothers me about the war critics, they want detail by detail of our strategy, yet they want us to finish teh job without losses when they know damn well that if you let out military strategy secrets there is going to be losses....

Faulty logic. You assume that Bush's actions have ended and we have seen the result. Nothing has ended and therefore no result has been given.
I'm going to write this very slowly in the hopes it helps you: We have seen a repetitive series of actions from Bush. Each of those actions came with a promise of direct result. Each time, the promised result did not come, but rather the actions brought only death, expense, and embarrassment. Now the same actions are being repeated again, and we are asked to believe that, this time, they will succeed, only we have seen nothing to make us think this time will be any different from the other times.

And all you are saying to me about it is: No, wait, Bush is not finished fucking up yet. Wait until he kills the last of our soldiers and then see what you think.

Sorry, but I am disinclined to keep watching this boring show over and over just because you and Bush cannot accept the reality that he doesn't know what he is doing.

Let's talk about flawed lines of thought:


No, the surge is not a tactic. You obviously are not well versed in anything military. A tactic is on the small-unit level, not the strategic level as the surge is on. It's not Bush's strategy, it's Patreaus's. We are shifting to a order of battle more dispersed inside cities and attached with Iraqi units. The surge enables us to make this shift. It gives us the ability to cover an AO while a unit makes the transition.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1tac·tic
Pronunciation: 'tak-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin tactica, from Greek taktikE, from feminine of taktikos
1 : a device for accomplishing an end
2 : a method of employing forces in combat
Main Entry: strat·e·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Greek stratEgia generalship, from stratEgos
1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
3 : an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success <foraging strategies of insects>
From YOU (in an earlier post):
I can see your line of thought however it is flawed. First of all, you think that the surge is not doing anything. The surge has just begun and it is not a strategy. It is a means to put in place a strategy. The fact that you want the surge to work in 2 months shows why you are unsatisfied with Iraq. You want instant results but that is not realistic. You are going to have to obtain some patience.
And from YOU again (see above in this very post):
A tactic is on the small-unit level, not the strategic level as the surge is on. It's not Bush's strategy, it's Patreaus's.

So, first, it's not a strategy and now it is a strategy. Heh. Apparently, there are tactics, and then there are strategies, and then there is plain old, self-contradictory bullshit.

I think what has been said is pretty clear.
Clear as a bell.

Things like, "The surge is a total failure." And ,"there has been no change since the surge started" make it pretty clear that people like you want results and you want them now.
Your interpretation based on a misrepresentation of the other side's arguments.

The surge isn't even up to full numbers yet.
Drip, drip, drip, slowly, slowly, of soldiers into the meat grinder. Yep, that's the way to show our enemies who's boss -- by providing them with a steady flow of easy targets.

And yes, there is a strategy behind the surge as I've outlined.
As YOU'VE outlined, just as I said. Now show me where Bush ever outlined it.

You are just not doing the necessary work to find it.
Sorry, I am too busy with my own fantasies (private!!) to take the time to imagine yours as well.

The surge is designed to accelerate the things we have already been doing and to bring about an order of battle that allows troops to be drawn down while maintaining our presence within the IA and IP.
So you keep saying. Are you George Bush? If not, then this means nothing. Show me where HE said it.

This is beginning to sound a lot like that old skit on SNL with Phil Hartman playing Reagan... you know, the one where he's only pretending to be a doddering senile old fool as a cover for his sharp-as-a-tack machinations.

And anyway, regarding that last bit you mentioned - just shows what a cretin politicians are. But it comes as no surprise.

Fixed.

So b/c it didn't swamp all of SE Asia it is wrong? Even though it happened in closer areas? How did you come to that conclusion?

Why, very simply, because it did not deliver what it said it would. The Domino Theory claimed that the entire region would fall according to a specific pattern (described by promoters of the theory). Only nothing they predicted happened. Ergo, the theory, which claimed to be predictive, was wrong.

No, it's unfair to criticize current strategies until we see the wars outcome.
That is the most ridiculous thing you've said so far. By that thinking, it would have been wrong to go after al-qaeda at all because they have not yet completed their conflict against us, and until they do, how will we know it is going to turn out bad for us? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

So you're saying it's unfair to criticize him until he's left office. Far out, man.

He's taking a page from Corny's book! Wow, and the Busheviks say Muslims are a hivemind.

You can blame his for it all you want. But it's not an issue of trust if he isn't coming up with anything.
More bullshit. And it gets more outrageous by the moment. If he's not running this war, then I say get rid of him now. He's just creating public confusion.

The initial mission has not changed. We've been given a new mission after completing our first.
And again you contradict yourself. Here's you (see bolded part):

Originally Posted by USMC leathernecks2
The war was winnable for the last 4 years and still is today. We were told that we completed our initial mission. The mission has changed. We aren't trying to use a hammer and brute force. We are leaving behind an IA and IP that can outlast the insurgency and create it's own political solution to reconcile AIF.

Either it's a new mission or a changed one. Now, tell me how this is a totally different war from the one he declared accomplished how many years ago.

Or was that "Mission Accomplished" banner just bragging about a single action, the way parents applaud every time their toddler uses the toilet or eats peas by himself?

Yes, we will. In '09 we will be out of there quite quickly. Our generals know this and are moving to position ourselves in a situation where we can handle this.
YOU saying this convinces me of nothing, except that it is not Bush's strategy, but your own. Only you're not in charge, so fuck it, who cares what you think is happening?

Call it insider knowledge. It's clearly stated in briefings. If you search hard enough you'll find it. I can understand why Bush might not want to broadcast what our strategy is. Think of the political capita to pull out a "surprise" victory out of nowhere.
Oh, give me a frigging break. You are so full of crap. If you have sources that anyone can find, then post them here to support your assertions. Otherwise, quit wasting our time with your nonsense.

I'm going to write this very slowly in the hopes it helps you: We have seen a repetitive series of actions from Bush. Each of those actions came with a promise of direct result. Each time, the promised result did not come, but rather the actions brought only death, expense, and embarrassment. Now the same actions are being repeated again, and we are asked to believe that, this time, they will succeed, only we have seen nothing to make us think this time will be any different from the other times.
Have we seen a repetitive series of actions? B/c i was under the impression that our TTPs change every day. We have done fundamentally changed our strategy several times.


Sorry, but I am disinclined to keep watching this boring show over and over just because you and Bush cannot accept the reality that he doesn't know what he is doing.
And how do you know what the reality is? B/c you see the body counts?

dictionary shit
That is not the working military definition of the word.
So, first, it's not a strategy and now it is a strategy. Heh. Apparently, there are tactics, and then there are strategies, and then there is plain old, self-contradictory bullshit.
B/c the surge is on the strategic level of warfare doesn't mean it is a strategy. It is a way to implement a new structure of forces in Iraq. A way to implement a new strategy. There are 3 levels to warfare according to clausewitz, tactical, operational and strategic. The surge is on the strategic level but it is not a strategy.


Your interpretation based on a misrepresentation of the other side's arguments.
So you aren't dissatisfied with the surge so far? You understand that there is no way to know how it will end yet?

Drip, drip, drip, slowly, slowly, of soldiers into the meat grinder. Yep, that's the way to show our enemies who's boss -- by providing them with a steady flow of easy targets.
The easy targets would be the enemy. They just get lucky with a couple IEDs. And you can read what the surge is meant to do in my posts again.

As YOU'VE outlined, just as I said. Now show me where Bush ever outlined it.
You don't need to see an outline, you can see what is happening. We are moving to a more Iraqi centric way of conducting operations and we are deploying inside cities at the platoon level.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said so far. By that thinking, it would have been wrong to go after al-qaeda at all because they have not yet completed their conflict against us, and until they do, how will we know it is going to turn out bad for us? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

How is retaliating the same as criticizing maneuvers that haven't been fully implemented yet?

And again you contradict yourself. Here's you (see bolded part):

Either it's a new mission or a changed one. Now, tell me how this is a totally different war from the one he declared accomplished how many years ago.

Or was that "Mission Accomplished" banner just bragging about a single action, the way parents applaud every time their toddler uses the toilet or eats peas by himself?
It's a new mission. Our first was to depose Saddam Hussein. Accomplished. Our next was the more complicated stuff. In progress.

YOU saying this convinces me of nothing, except that it is not Bush's strategy, but your own. Only you're not in charge, so fuck it, who cares what you think is happening?
Just look at what is happening on the ground. We are deploying platoons by themselves inside cities and we are attaching more units with Iraqis.

More bullshit. And it gets more outrageous by the moment. If he's not running this war, then I say get rid of him now. He's just creating public confusion.
Didn't know the only role the President had was to run wars. He approved Patreaus's plan. He didn't come up with the plan.

Why, very simply, because it did not deliver what it said it would. The Domino Theory claimed that the entire region would fall according to a specific pattern (described by promoters of the theory). Only nothing they predicted happened. Ergo, the theory, which claimed to be predictive, was wrong.

So it's a revised Domino Theory. The neighbors are much more susceptible to the movement b/c operatives within the main country will go there to create similar results.

Have we seen a repetitive series of actions? B/c i was under the impression that our TTPs change every day. We have done fundamentally changed our strategy several times.
Resorting to unexplained jargon in order to create the impression that you know something others don't is an obvious and weak ploy.

Everyone in the world knows that this is only about the third surge in troop numbers that was supposed to make a difference in the war's progress since the war began.

And how do you know what the reality is? B/c you see the body counts?
The official death numbers released by the Pentagon for public consumption (traditionally the most conservative numbers) are already bad enough and out of keeping enough with Bush's projections for me to call his efforts failures.

That is not the working military definition of the word.
Another weak appeal to insider knowledge that you have not demonstrated you actually have. English is the language spoken here, and the English definitions is what I used. If you use others, you have to provide them to us. You have not done so.

B/c the surge is on the strategic level of warfare doesn't mean it is a strategy. It is a way to implement a new structure of forces in Iraq. A way to implement a new strategy. There are 3 levels to warfare according to clausewitz, tactical, operational and strategic. The surge is on the strategic level but it is not a strategy.
Then what the fuck is it, aside from a repeat of earlier failures? This "it is a way" litany is not an answer.



So you aren't dissatisfied with the surge so far? You understand that there is no way to know how it will end yet
I refer you back to my earlier post in which I defined insanity for you.

I DO know how it will end because I have seen Bush do this exact same thing before. So have you, even though you deny it.


The easy targets would be the enemy. They just get lucky with a couple IEDs. And you can read what the surge is meant to do in my posts again.
I read your bullshit in your earlier posts, and I've read the above bit of bull too. Your point?

You don't need to see an outline, you can see what is happening.
Yes, you're right. I can.

We are moving to a more Iraqi centric way of conducting operations and we are deploying inside cities at the platoon level.
And that means what in connection with what you've been talking about so far? Why, nothing. Nothing at all.

A) It's no different than anything they've been doing over there before; and

B) It's a tactic, not a strategy. It's not even indicative of a strategy. And even if it were, it would not be indicating a NEW strategy, since it's the same crap they've been doing.

How is retaliating the same as criticizing maneuvers that haven't been fully implemented yet?
Losing track of your thoughts already?

You say we should not criticize BECAUSE WE CANNOT KNOW THE OUTCOME UNTIL THE WAR IS FINISHED.**

Then why should we have judged al-qaeda's actions at all, since their plan is not fully carried out yet, so we cannot really know how it is all supposed to work out. Maybe the end result will be more puppies for Americans. We all like puppies. Maybe we should wait and see before trying to kill the terrorists.


** By the way, I noticed your little attempt to change the nature of your own argument. You originally said we must wait until the WAR is complete. Now you say we must wait until specific maneuvers have been implemented. Nice try, but no dice, friend.

Didn't know the only role the President had was to run wars. He approved Patreaus's plan. He didn't come up with the plan.
What do you think the title "Commander in Chief" means? You think it means he's Patreaus's press aide?

So it's a revised Domino Theory. The neighbors are much more susceptible to the movement b/c operatives within the main country will go there to create similar results.
More BS. More fantasies. More stuff you just made up.

USMC, I'm bored with you. You have no real argument. Nothing you say is based in fact. You can't even keep your own nonsense straight anymore.

I'm going to let others kick this ball around for a bit, while I go socialize with people I like. Hopefully, when I get back, a real discussion will have developed.

If not, I'll be refreshed for pointing out how wrong you are.

Later.

Atrocities happen in any military organization. Infiltration is down and is decreasing. It is not as serious a problem as you might think and the Iraqi military is much more capable than you might think. Evidenced by their response to Samarra bombings.
Oh get out, it wasnt going to be a serious problem until it was incontrovertably a serious problem even the Bush admin couldnt spin it's way past. Can you demonstrate that the problem has lessened in the sense that the personal are not moonlighting as sectarian terrorists rather than in the sense that they've finally gotten enough sense to change out of their uniforms before they go rampaging?

The strategy is clear. What we need to do is clear. Give the Iraqis a chance to determine their own future. The gov't needs a monopoly on force in order to do that. That is what we are working to give them.

Determine their own future, yeah that's rich.

Once right=/=always right. It is not your fault that you have a disconnect with reality. Right now you are not getting the full story. I'm trying to give that to you.
Continuously wrong v consistently right, I know where I'd put my money all other things being equal. Your position is that we who have been correct throughout should disregard the same reasoning and observation skills that led us to the correct conclusions at issue, and replace them with being spoon fed the truth according to Dubya. I see you are working on the broken clock theorem, unfortunately it doesnt always hold true in a digital world.


Sorry, i didn't mean big guns literally.
Sure you meant it in the same sense Bush meant his 'mission accomplished' sign. I guess in the post above where you claim that you were told the mission was accomplished you didnt mean that literally either, after all since part of the mission required locating, securing and destroying something that has no location, cannot be secured and doesnt exist in order to be destroyed, it's pretty darn clear that mission never has been nor ever can or will be accomplished. But somehow in some non-literal sense no doubt it's all true.....:rolleyes:

I didn't know I was explaining this to a six yr old.
Wow, how crushing, some apparently dellusional person has compared me to a 6 year old because I failed to understand the non-literal nature of 'big guns' in the statement "As long as the IA and IP have the biggest guns in town then we win in the long run b/c they will win for us."
Apparently I should have known that by the IA and IP having the biggest guns in town, what you meant was the government having a stronger force than the insurgency. Yes it's all so clear now, of course when you say the IA and IP need to have X what you mean is that the IA and IP need to be had by Y.

I mean that the gov't needs to be a stronger force than the insurgency and be able to maintain the gov't under all insurgent attacks.
It's statements like this that make your claim to be filling us in on the full story appear ludicrous.

An insurgency in it's guerrilla warfare stage is ineffective.
No, no it isnt.

It can't gain any power or take any objectives.
Considering that merely keeping others from cementing their power and enforcing a stable rule is clearly an objective, they seem to have done quite well the last 4 years.

However if it is allowed to transition into conventional war then it is dangerous to a country. That is the stage that the IA and IP must be able to prevent.
Good grief.
Sure and attacks like September 11 are only dangerous to the country if they are allowed to transition into conventional war.....oops....:rolleyes:

Oh get out, it wasnt going to be a serious problem until it was incontrovertably a serious problem even the Bush admin couldnt spin it's way past. Can you demonstrate that the problem has lessened in the sense that the personal are not moonlighting as sectarian terrorists rather than in the sense that they've finally gotten enough sense to change out of their uniforms before they go rampaging?
Can you demonstrate with statistics how bad the problem is? Because otherwise all you have is 5 or 6 individual articles on individual events.

Continuously wrong v consistently right, I know where I'd put my money all other things being equal. Your position is that we who have been correct throughout should disregard the same reasoning and observation skills that led us to the correct conclusions at issue, and replace them with being spoon fed the truth according to Dubya. I see you are working on the broken clock theorem, unfortunately it doesnt always hold true in a digital world.
Luckily, that has no merit on the logical worth of ay strategy.

Sure you meant it in the same sense Bush meant his 'mission accomplished' sign. I guess in the post above where you claim that you were told the mission was accomplished you didnt mean that literally either, after all since part of the mission required locating, securing and destroying something that has no location, cannot be secured and doesnt exist in order to be destroyed, it's pretty darn clear that mission never has been nor ever can or will be accomplished. But somehow in some non-literal sense no doubt it's all true.....:rolleyes:
You can't destroy an insurgency. You create conditions where it doesn't thrive, prevent it from transitioning into conventional warfare and to wait it out. We can do 1+2 but not long term. A strong IA and IP can do all 3 indefinitely.
Wow, how crushing, some apparently dellusional person has compared me to a 6 year old because I failed to understand the non-literal nature of 'big guns' in the statement "As long as the IA and IP have the biggest guns in town then we win in the long run b/c they will win for us."
Apparently I should have known that by the IA and IP having the biggest guns in town, what you meant was the government having a stronger force than the insurgency. Yes it's all so clear now, of course when you say the IA and IP need to have X what you mean is that the IA and IP need to be had by Y.
It's pretty simple actually.
It's statements like this that make your claim to be filling us in on the full story appear ludicrous.
How so?
No, no it isnt.
Yes it is. It can gain no military victories. It can't take power. It can't project power. All it can do is exist and kill a few people each day until we quit. And then it sets off some big bombs every once in a while and people like you think it has any value except a media one.
Considering that merely keeping others from cementing their power and enforcing a stable rule is clearly an objective, they seem to have done quite well the last 4 years.
It is an intermediate objective. It is necessary for them in order to transition into a 3gw or 2gw force to accomplish their real goals.

Good grief.
Sure and attacks like September 11 are only dangerous to the country if they are allowed to transition into conventional war.....oops....:rolleyes:
They killed a lot of people but they weren't a threat to the sovereignty of the gov't or the existence of the state.

More BS. More fantasies. More stuff you just made up.

I'll take the fact that you couldn't come up with a reason why it isn't right as validation for it.

What do you think the title "Commander in Chief" means? You think it means he's Patreaus's press aide?

Commander in Chief means he has the final say on what to approve. It doesn't mean he does the policy developing. I like how you deny the truth that Patreaus came up with the plan and Bush approved. Some times it's good to have your opinions rooted in reality.

Resorting to unexplained jargon in order to create the impression that you know something others don't is an obvious and weak ploy.
I figured that you were capable of looking stuff up. TTP=tactics, techniques and procedures.
Everyone in the world knows that this is only about the third surge in troop numbers that was supposed to make a difference in the war's progress since the war began.
Again, the surge is not the strategy itself. It is a means to implement a change in force structure.



Another weak appeal to insider knowledge that you have not demonstrated you actually have. English is the language spoken here, and the English definitions is what I used. If you use others, you have to provide them to us. You have not done so.
Knowing the difference between tactics and strategy is not insider knowledge. It is common knowledge.
Within the scope of war, the US military generally defines three levels of war; 1. the strategic which includes both the National level and the Combatant Command (theater) level; 2. the operational level, which extends from the level of a joint task force including the combined forces of naval and air power with amphibious and ground operation to the maneuver brigade echelon; and 3. the tactical echelon that extends from the maneuver brigade to the lowest fighting elements including individual soldiers.

Then what the fuck is it, aside from a repeat of earlier failures? This "it is a way" litany is not an answer.
It is a way to provide for the ability to change our force structure. If you can't understand that then you are hopeless.



I DO know how it will end because I have seen Bush do this exact same thing before. So have you, even though you deny it.
If only Bush was coming up with anything.


And that means what in connection with what you've been talking about so far? Why, nothing. Nothing at all.

A) It's no different than anything they've been doing over there before; and

B) It's a tactic, not a strategy. It's not even indicative of a strategy. And even if it were, it would not be indicating a NEW strategy, since it's the same crap they've been doing.
You are sooooo dumb. A tactic is something carried out as a standard on the squad up to the company level. 20,000 troops is hardly that.

USMC, I'm bored with you. You have no real argument. Nothing you say is based in fact. You can't even keep your own nonsense straight anymore.

I'm going to let others kick this ball around for a bit, while I go socialize with people I like. Hopefully, when I get back, a real discussion will have developed.

If not, I'll be refreshed for pointing out how wrong you are.

Later.

No, you just dont liek teh fucking fact that he has been on the ground is contridicting you. Live up the the fact that he has more experience over there and you are naive.
I recommend that USMC keep up the good job proving anti-war persons they have no clue what is going on over there and let them do their jobs.

Commander in Chief means he has the final say on what to approve. It doesn't mean he does the policy developing. I like how you deny the truth that Patreaus came up with the plan and Bush approved. Some times it's good to have your opinions rooted in reality.

One thing non-military types will not understand. I may no tbe in the military, but grew up around those who have been makes me wonder if some of these so called war critics know what they talk about....

Can you demonstrate with statistics how bad the problem is? Because otherwise all you have is 5 or 6 individual articles on individual events.
It's up to you to demonstrate the case you proposed. For the troop numbers to realistically indicate any progress, it needs to be demonstrated that they are what is required, specifically well trained, loyal, and able and willing to uphold law and order. Unless you can demonstrate that the troop numbers refer to such individuals rather than to the untrained or worse the diliquent, then you cannot prove your point.

Luckily, that has no merit on the logical worth of ay strategy.
Unfortunately there is a distinct lack of logical worth in doing the same thing again and again and agaqin, all the while expecting a magically different result, a point I understand Muryvets has walked you through more than once.

You can't destroy an insurgency.
Which has squat to do with what I said. The comments you are trying to tie to the current and very obviously unachieved mission were very obviously about the mission you claim was already achieved. Do you imagine dodging the point by pretending you are too obtuse to comprehend it somehow adds to your credibility?

You create conditions where it doesn't thrive,
Doing that in Iraq at this time would require genocide. The conditions most significant here are rival clan/religious based factions that have long standing grudges as well as contrary visions of Iraq and contrary interests.

prevent it from transitioning into conventional warfare and to wait it out.
You are being very trite with this 'conventional warfare' crap, like it's some magical line drawn in the Iraqi sands.

We can do 1+2 but not long term. A strong IA and IP can do all 3 indefinitely.
Yes, it will magically restore tranquility where currently rivalary reigns. It will ensure the government doesnt succumb to corruption or discrimination no matter which faction has the upper hand. It will by itself resolve the conflicting views of Iraq's future, the future and distribution of its resources and wealth. It will magically restore good will and peace probably not only between Iraqis, but between all men on earth....(sadly the women might be another issue).

It's pretty simple actually.
Yeah, you want to take back what you said without conceeding that you are taking back what you said. What could be simpler?

How so?
In that it is indicitative of an incrediably simplistic and thus woefully incomplete understanding of the picture at issue.

Yes it is. It can gain no military victories. It can't take power. It can't project power. All it can do is exist and kill a few people each day until we quit. And then it sets off some big bombs every once in a while and people like you think it has any value except a media one.
Again the simplicity of your veiw is a complete mismatch for the reality. There are an array of factions perpetrating violence in Iraq for an array of reasons, and for some of those, the current situation suites them fine. For others the aim is to cement power they are grabbing at with US assistance. No matter what happens, at least some of those perpetrating violence in Iraq will be pleased with the outcome.

It is an intermediate objective. It is necessary for them in order to transition into a 3gw or 2gw force to accomplish their real goals.
No, this is only true for some. Do you honestly believe in the simplistic fantasy that only those opposed to the current direction of the Iraqi government are engaged in perpetrating violence in Iraq? Do you really think those who want the current direction to be retained have spotless hands? How very naive.

They killed a lot of people but they weren't a threat to the sovereignty of the gov't or the existence of the state.
Mmm, well that kind of makes fighting two wars including one against a non-involved party look a bit like an irrational over-reaction.

I'm not buying that bombs make you more dead if they get you in the trenches rather than in the market place, I'm not buying that you are less dead if the bomb was set off by folk in uniform rather than a group largely comprised of your own civilian neighbours that you've lived side-by-side with years, if not decades.

No, you just dont liek teh fucking fact that he has been on the ground is contridicting you. Live up the the fact that he has more experience over there and you are naive.
I recommend that USMC keep up the good job proving anti-war persons they have no clue what is going on over there and let them do their jobs.

As of right now, he's trying to get us to support ideas that have, in the past four years, failed miserably.

I say that's naive.

i dont like to talk about it because it really creeps me out but the theory of going to war in iraq and staying at war in iraq is to attract the alqaeda guys THERE so that they wont come HERE.the only reason why AQ (Bin Laden's AQ.. not the small wanna-be franchises) is not about to plan another Attack in US soil.. is because currently they dont need to.

Bush is doing a wonderful job.

the only reason why AQ (Bin Laden's AQ not the small wanna-be franchises) is not about to plan another Attack in US soil.. is because currently they dont need to.

Bush is doing a wonderful job.

For once, you hit upon the truth of the matter.

It's another sad fact that Busheviks genuinely believe that AQ ignoring the continental U.S. means they're "winning" the "War on Terror."

I'll take the fact that you couldn't come up with a reason why it isn't right as validation for it.
What isn't right? There was nothing in your statement. It was nothing but you rambling briefly about how YOU think the Domino Theory should be revised. It has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation and contained no facts. Not one.

Fact: The Domino Theory projected a series of events.

Fact: Said series of events did not occur as predicted (they didn't occur at all, really).

Conclusion: Therefore, the theory was wrong.

Fact: You try to point to what actually happened -- which is NOT what the theory said would happen -- and claim that it is what the theory predicted all along and therefore the theory was right. You are trying to amend the theory now, after the fact. Only you can't because it's not your theory, and your amendments don't make it work any better than the original did.

Fact: The Domino Theory does not even apply to the situation in Iraq. If you claim otherwise, you have to show us how it applies. You have not done so.

Conclusion: Because you are unable to show (a) that the Domino Theory ever had any validity, (b) that the theory applies to the mid-east, or (c) that any action recommended under that discredited theory is in any way recommended or even applicable to Iraq, you try to instead to shift focus on your attempt to redefine the theory, rather than continue to be shown to be wrong on Iraq.

The short version of that is what I originally posted. Happy now?

So, while looking for the news that I heard from a fellow student, I read this nice little quote from President Bush:



Why is he still comparing Iraq and Sept. 11?

Why?

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this. There must be something that can be done to get it into his head that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, while Saudi Arabia did.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132601/

http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

Commander in Chief means he has the final say on what to approve. It doesn't mean he does the policy developing.
No, Commander in Chief means commander in chief. See below, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/commander+in+chief:

commander in chief
n. pl. commanders in chief Abbr. CINC or C in C
1. The supreme commander of all the armed forces of a nation.
2. The officer commanding a major armed force.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The most hilarious thing about you is the way you cannot even present an argument unless you make up on-the-spot brand new definitions of common terms. I think you should rename yourself Humpty Dumpty.

I like how you deny the truth that Patreaus came up with the plan and Bush approved.
Kindly point out where I made any comment at all on Patraeus's involvement in this.

Unable to refute my real arguments, you now resort to putting words in my mouth for me? Keep your strawmen to yourself.

Some times it's good to have your opinions rooted in reality.
How would you know, seeing as how not one thing you have said here is rooted in any kind of reality whatsoever?

For once, you hit upon the truth of the matter.

It's another sad fact that Busheviks genuinely believe that AQ ignoring the continental U.S. means they're "winning" the "War on Terror."

QFT

geez gauthier this thing is so full of sad facts that its hard to remember them all.

this administration and the republican party seem to remember a time back before bush got into office when alqaeda attacks on US soil were a daily occurrence and only the amazing performance of bush's team has gotten it under control.

they have said it so many times that some of the public is beginning to believe it.

in the meantime our little war of distraction has led to the deaths of many many thousands of innocent iraqis.

cynical bastards.

I figured that you were capable of looking stuff up. TTP=tactics, techniques and procedures.
Your argument. Your terms. Your responsibility to explain it, not mine. Thank you.

Again, the surge is not the strategy itself. It is a means to implement a change in force structure.
In other words, a "tactic."




Knowing the difference between tactics and strategy is not insider knowledge. It is common knowledge.
Is that why you don't know it?


It is a way to provide for the ability to change our force structure. If you can't understand that then you are hopeless.
I understand that you still have not answered the question. "It is a way" is neither a tactic nor a strategy. "To make a change in structure" is not a strategy. No, even Bush's famous "Our strategy is to win" was not a strategy.

Change the force structure to what? Implement it how? Towards what end? What is the desired final outcome? None of those questions has ever been answered -- not by Bush and certainly not by you.



If only Bush was coming up with anything.
Oh, so you admit that everything you've been claiming is his strategy is, in fact, NOT his strategy at all, but merely your own personal musings and speculations about what you think he might be trying to do, maybe?


You are sooooo dumb. A tactic is something carried out as a standard on the squad up to the company level. 20,000 troops is hardly that.
And you are soooo sad. More baseless appeals to greater specialized knowledge without evidence that you have any such knowledge. More shuffling your definitions -- this seems to be your third notion of what a tactic is. More non-answers that address nothing in particular.

You just really love reading your own writing, don't you? It must be, because you certainly have no points to make.

Egghiccup;12583925']He already knows. That's the scary thing.

When Shrub was govoner of Texas he invited some Taliban representatives over to Texas to discuss a deal for an oil pipeline accross Afganistan. They said no.

Who does he bomb first after 11/09/2001.......?

The people who sheltered the terrorists who attacked us.

the only reason why AQ (Bin Laden's AQ not the small wanna-be franchises) is not about to plan another Attack in US soil.. is because currently they dont need to.

Bush is doing a wonderful job.

sigh

2 new bad thing to come out of this war.

the republicans have learned the value of keeping the citizens of this country too scared to think things through.

the oil companies have learned that unstable oil production in the middle east is amazingly good for profits.

the only reason why AQ (Bin Laden's AQ.. not the small wanna-be franchises) is not about to plan another Attack in US soil.. is because currently they dont need to.

Bush is doing a wonderful job.
http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260244
buy it, Its an excellent read.. Very informative -eye opener-
"It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq'."

QFT

geez gauthier this thing is so full of sad facts that its hard to remember them all.

this administration and the republican party seem to remember a time back before bush got into office when alqaeda attacks on US soil were a daily occurrence and only the amazing performance of bush's team has gotten it under control.

they have said it so many times that some of the public is beginning to believe it.

in the meantime our little war of distraction has led to the deaths of many many thousands of innocent iraqis.

cynical bastards.

On top of fueling and reinforcing Iraqi resentment and hatred of the United States, all that the war of distraction is doing is creating The World of Jihadcraft.

The insurgents and terrorists don't care they're not killing Americans on American soil. There's enough American stationed there as it is- and if Dear Leader successfully crybabies for getting the surge there's gonna be even more like a server reset- which they can pick off and blow up to gain experience and skill, upgrading them from zealous greenhorns to hardened veterans.

Which means trouble in the future. Either they'll go off forming or joining groups... or worse, if Bin Ladin or some other AQ decides it'll be worthwhile to bitchslap Uncle Sam again, this time they'll have even deadlier operatives to carry out a continental strike.

Then again Busheviks like USMC leathernecks2 and Earabia don't care about the facts. They're probably praying for another AQ attack on the U.S. in hopes that the tragedy and outrage will boost public support for Dear Leader once more.

In other words, a "tactic."
No, a tactic is something conducted as a standard in small unit warfare. I.E. flanking. A strategy is a large scale plan. You are an idiot. At least learn what you are talking about before you make yourself look like an ass.


I understand that you still have not answered the question. "It is a way" is neither a tactic nor a strategy. "To make a change in structure" is not a strategy. No, even Bush's famous "Our strategy is to win" was not a strategy.
You are hopeless. If you can't understand simple definitions then I am done with you.
Change the force structure to what? Implement it how? Towards what end? What is the desired final outcome? None of those questions has ever been answered -- not by Bush and certainly not by you.
I've gone over it several times but apparently you have a very short memory. We are changing the force structure to entail platoon level OP's inside cites and forces attached with Iraqi units to work more directly with them and give them more power. The more dispersed and in cities change is to protect the people better, get more intel and have units know their AO better. The attaching with Iraqi units allows for less troops to be needed and allows us to mentor the IA and IP better.

Oh, so you admit that everything you've been claiming is his strategy is, in fact, NOT his strategy at all, but merely your own personal musings and speculations about what you think he might be trying to do, maybe?
No, Petraeus is coming up with the strategy. You need to work on your reading skills.



Oh, so you admit that everything you've been And you are soooo sad. More baseless appeals to greater specialized knowledge without evidence that you have any such knowledge. More shuffling your definitions -- this seems to be your third notion of what a tactic is. More non-answers that address nothing in particular.[/QUOTE]
A tactic is something a small unit uses to complete it's objectives. I.E. flanking. You are an idiot.

No, Commander in Chief means commander in chief. See below, from
And that means that he comes up with military strategy? No, he has thousands of people to do that for him. He just approves their work. You need to learn some basic shit before you can even think about debating anybody.


Kindly point out where I made any comment at all on Patraeus's involvement in this.
And that is exactly my point. You think Bush is doing everything.

Fact: The Domino Theory projected a series of events. Fact: Said series of events did not occur as predicted (they didn't occur at all, really). Conclusion: Therefore, the theory was wrong.
Fact, one of those events was that fighters from Vietnam would decide to spread their victory in neighboring countries. Fact, they did and Laos and Cambodia fell.
Fact: Said series of events did not occur as predicted (they didn't occur at all, really).
Conclusion, the theory was right.


Fact: You try to point to what actually happened -- which is NOT what the theory said would happen -- and claim that it is what the theory predicted all along and therefore the theory was right. You are trying to amend the theory now, after the fact. Only you can't because it's not your theory, and your amendments don't make it work any better than the original did.
From wiki: The domino theory was a 20th Century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated if one land in a region came under the influence of Communists, then more would follow in a domino effect.

More fell. It was correct.
Fact: The Domino Theory does not even apply to the situation in Iraq. If you claim otherwise, you have to show us how it applies. You have not done so.
If we pull out of Iraq prematurely, there will be a lot of extremists w/o a fight. They will secure Iraq as a victory and then move onto Afghanistan. It is close by and is another way to hit the infidel. We will begin to lose a lot of people in A-stan and people like you will say the war is lost and demand that we come home.

Fact, one of those events was that fighters from Vietnam would decide to spread their victory in neighboring countries. Fact, they did and Laos and Cambodia fell.
Fact: Said series of events did not occur as predicted (they didn't occur at all, really).
Conclusion, the theory was right.

You don't actually read what you write, do you?

I guess that's what you get for learning logic in the marine corps.

So, while looking for the news that I heard from a fellow student, I read this nice little quote from President Bush:



Why is he still comparing Iraq and Sept. 11?

Why?

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this. There must be something that can be done to get it into his head that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, while Saudi Arabia did.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132601/
That quote is hardly evidence of an Iraq/11/9 relationship.

You don't actually read what you write, do you?

I guess that's what you get for learning logic in the marine corps.

It was obviously a copy and paste error as is evident in that it is mis exact words. A little common sense is in order.

It was obviously a copy and paste error as is evident in that it is mis exact words. A little common sense is in order.

A little checking of your words is in order before you post next time. Don't keep making lazy ass excuses for your fuckups.

A little checking of your words is in order before you post next time. Don't keep making lazy ass excuses for your fuckups.

When you make 5 posts in the space of 3 minutes then you are bound to make one or two mistakes. It really doesn't make any difference. My finger slipped. What does it have to do with anything? This is what you would call lazy debating.

No, a tactic is something conducted as a standard in small unit warfare. I.E. flanking. A strategy is a large scale plan.
No, it isn't. Read a dictionary.

You are an idiot. At least learn what you are talking about before you make yourself look like an ass.
Your personal insults are getting more vehement. You must be running out of ways to keep saying the same wrong thing over and over again and are getting angry.


You are hopeless. If you can't understand simple definitions then I am done with you.
Talking about yourself, eh? Feel free to stop spewing your nonsense at any time.

I've gone over it several times but apparently you have a very short memory. We are changing the force structure to entail platoon level OP's inside cites and forces attached with Iraqi units to work more directly with them and give them more power. The more dispersed and in cities change is to protect the people better, get more intel and have units know their AO better. The attaching with Iraqi units allows for less troops to be needed and allows us to mentor the IA and IP better.
That's a method of operation, i.e. a tactic. What is it supposed to achieve? In other words, what strategy is it serving? You know why you cannot answer it? Because there is no strategy.

You can go over this as many times as you like. The problem is not with my memory. How could it be? You've repeated this bull so many times I practically have it memorized by now. The problem is that your bull is....well, bull. And no amount of repetition is going to make it magically turn into anything other than bull.

Oh, wait...that's the same thing that Bush is doing -- insanely repeating the same mistakes over and over and thinking that somehow it will all magically turn into success. Wow, what a coincidence. No wonder you admire him.


No, Petraeus is coming up with the strategy. You need to work on your reading skills.
And you need to work on your thinking skills. And maybe your telling the truth skills. Or at least your facing the truth skills.

Bush is the boss = the policy is his. Get over it.



A tactic is something a small unit uses to complete it's objectives. I.E. flanking. You are an idiot.
No, it isn't. Read a dictionary. And you clearly have nothing left to say.

Not that you ever had anything to say, of course...

And that means that he comes up with military strategy? No, he has thousands of people to do that for him. He just approves their work. You need to learn some basic shit before you can even think about debating anybody.
I know enough to spot a bullshitter when I argue with one, and I'm arguing with one right now.


And that is exactly my point. You think Bush is doing everything.
No, I think Bush is responsible for everything that is done under his command.

Fact, one of those events was that fighters from Vietnam would decide to spread their victory in neighboring countries. Fact, they did and Laos and Cambodia fell.
Fact: Said series of events did not occur as predicted (they didn't occur at all, really).
Conclusion, the theory was right.
Only -- for the last frigging time, already -- that is NOT what the theory predicted. It predicted the entire region would fall. Not two tiny countries. The entire region, which would then continue to spread its nasty commie contagion to threaten the rest of the world.

Now, be a good Bushevik and tell us how the only problem is all that hasn't happened yet but it soon will.


From wiki: The domino theory was a 20th Century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated if one land in a region came under the influence of Communists, then more would follow in a domino effect.

More fell. It was correct.
No, it was not correct. See above.

Oh, I should tell you, I do not consider wiki to be an acceptable source. If you want to use wiki, you should use it only to go to the source linked to its articles and quote your information from them. Wiki itself is not reliable enough.

For instance, the quote above is wrong. The Domino Theory predicted the communization of the entire Southeast Asia region. Not some vague "more" countries, which could easily have just been one more. The entire region, boom, boom, boom, one after the other. Like dominoes. Get it?

If we pull out of Iraq prematurely, there will be a lot of extremists w/o a fight. They will secure Iraq as a victory and then move onto Afghanistan. It is close by and is another way to hit the infidel. We will begin to lose a lot of people in A-stan and people like you will say the war is lost and demand that we come home.
More speculation, and another strawman. You're running on fumes. Give it up.

Oh, and hilarious -- you want us to move into Afghanistan. NEWS FLASH!!!: We're already in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by USMC leathernecks2
Fact, one of those events was that fighters from Vietnam would decide to spread their victory in neighboring countries. Fact, they did and Laos and Cambodia fell.
Fact: Said series of events did not occur as predicted (they didn't occur at all, really).
Conclusion, the theory was right.You don't actually read what you write, do you?

I guess that's what you get for learning logic in the marine corps.
I think that might fall under the heading of Freudian Slip. But then, self-contradiction has been vital to USMC's "arguments" throughout.

No, it isn't. Read a dictionary.
Look up the 3 clausewitz levels of war.

Your personal insults are getting more vehement. You must be running out of ways to keep saying the same wrong thing over and over again and are getting angry.
When you continue to deny the obvious truth over and over again it tends to make people angry.


That's a method of operation, i.e. a tactic. What is it supposed to achieve? In other words, what strategy is it serving? You know why you cannot answer it? Because there is no strategy.
Deploying 20,000 troops is not a tactic. And yes I have answered all of those question. You just ignore them. I'll post it again but until you actually address it I'm done with you. All you do is ignore posts and deny truths. We are changing the force structure to entail platoon level OP's inside cites and forces attached with Iraqi units to work more directly with them and give them more power. The more dispersed and in cities change is to protect the people better, get more intel and have units know their AO better. The attaching with Iraqi units allows for less troops to be needed and allows us to mentor the IA and IP better.
You can go over this as many times as you like. The problem is not with my memory. How could it be? You've repeated this bull so many times I practically have it memorized by now. The problem is that your bull is....well, bull. And no amount of repetition is going to make it magically turn into anything other than bull.
When all you can say is that something is bull w/ no reason besides that it doesn't fit your ideology then there is a problem.


Bush is the boss = the policy is his. Get over it.

George Kenan came up with the policy of containment. It was his policy. Other people used it. Same here.



No, it isn't. Read a dictionary. And you clearly have nothing left to say.

Not that you ever had anything to say, of course...

Ask anybody with any knowledge and they will tell you what I told you. But you wouldn't want to find that you are wrong so you obviously won't.

When you make 5 posts in the space of 3 minutes then you are bound to make one or two mistakes. It really doesn't make any difference. My finger slipped. What does it have to do with anything? This is what you would call lazy debating.
Try thinking before posting. It will slow you down, and it might be difficult at first, but I'm sure you'll get the hang of it, if you just apply yourself.

I think that might fall under the heading of Freudian Slip. But then, self-contradiction has been vital to USMC's "arguments" throughout.

Yeah, cause copying and pasting wrong was real freudian.

Look up the 3 clausewitz levels of war.
Look up the words in any standard English dictionary.


When you continue to deny the obvious truth over and over again it tends to make people angry.
Your personal opinions, speculations, lies, and fantasies =/= truth, obvious or otherwise.


Deploying 20,000 troops is not a tactic.
Yes, it is. See any standard English dictionary.

And yes I have answered all of those question. You just ignore them. I'll post it again but until you actually address it I'm done with you. All you do is ignore posts and deny truths. We are changing the force structure to entail platoon level OP's inside cites and forces attached with Iraqi units to work more directly with them and give them more power. The more dispersed and in cities change is to protect the people better, get more intel and have units know their AO better. The attaching with Iraqi units allows for less troops to be needed and allows us to mentor the IA and IP better.
You are the one who seems to be ignoring my posts. I have responded to every single thing you've posted that was addressed to me. I have ignored nothing. I have explained to you over and over precisely how and why you are wrong. And all you do is keep typing the same bullshit again and again.

Well, I am not insane, so I am done doing the same thing over and over to see if I'll get a different result. I have explained myself to you. I will not repeat myself again. From now on, any time you post the same bull, I will simply refer you back to the history of this thread for my rebuttals. They have all already been posted.

When all you can say is that something is bull w/ no reason besides that it doesn't fit your ideology then there is a problem.
Talking about yourself again, eh?



George Kenan came up with the policy of containment. It was his policy. Other people used it. Same here.
Point?


Ask anybody with any knowledge and they will tell you what I told you. But you wouldn't want to find that you are wrong so you obviously won't.
I would gladly talk to someone with knowledge rather than continue to waste my time with you.

Only -- for the last frigging time, already -- that is NOT what the theory predicted. It predicted the entire region would fall. Not two tiny countries. The entire region, which would then continue to spread its nasty commie contagion to threaten the rest of the world.
The theory predicted that other countries in the region would fall to communism if S. Vietnam did. They did fall. Even if it did predict that all of E. Asia would fall then it would be amended and it would be usable. In science you don't just throw out a theory b/c it doesn't go to the full extent that you thought, you change it to account for reality.

More speculation, and another strawman. You're running on fumes. Give it up.
Kinda reminds me of you.
Oh, and hilarious -- you want us to move into Afghanistan. NEWS FLASH!!!: We're already in Afghanistan.
You fail at reading. I said that extremists would move to afghanistan. You really just suck. Try thinking before posting. It will slow you down, and it might be difficult at first, but I'm sure you'll get the hang of it, if you just apply yourself.

Yes, it is. See any standard English dictionary.
Since when did a basic dictionary account for technical language?

You are the one who seems to be ignoring my posts. I have responded to every single thing you've posted that was addressed to me. I have ignored nothing. I have explained to you over and over precisely how and why you are wrong. And all you do is keep typing the same bullshit again and again.

Well, I am not insane, so I am done doing the same thing over and over to see if I'll get a different result. I have explained myself to you. I will not repeat myself again. From now on, any time you post the same bull, I will simply refer you back to the history of this thread for my rebuttals. They have all already been posted.
If you did what post #?

Talking about yourself again, eh?




Point?



I would gladly talk to someone with knowledge rather than continue to waste my time with you.
Musta been a Fruedlian Slip.

No, I think Bush is responsible for everything that is done under his command.

You said that you don't trust Bush but if he isn't coming up with anything then that shouldn't be a problem. Unless you think he is doing everything.

Point?


That it isn't Bush's policy.

I get the distinct feeling that this Muravyets doesnt know how to read posts, seems to be a usual thing on ehre from some posters.

I have been keeping up withthe posts between these two and all i see is USMC repeating what he said because this other poster isnt reading his posts, and all Muravyets say si look at a dictionary, even though USMC actually gives sources of his definitions in his posts and actually talks with out insults(until of recent because the other poster is just acting(not nessacarly one) like an ass because he is not getting his way.

Frankly, some on here need to learn military terminalogy.

When you make 5 posts in the space of 3 minutes then you are bound to make one or two mistakes. It really doesn't make any difference. My finger slipped. What does it have to do with anything? This is what you would call lazy debating.

If you're lazy to the point of not checking for logical inconsistencies, much less correcting them when pointed out, you're likely to be too lazy to research your material.

Thereby, you fail at debating. Nothing you say can be taken factually.

Frankly, some on here need to learn military terminalogy.

So basically you're a FLA who CBA to SFS much less SP and BSMP WUYB?

Learn some terminology hmm?

So basically you're a FLA who CBA to SFS much less SP and BSMP WUYB?

Learn some terminology hmm?

Hahahahahahahaha! Now that is funny.

But seriously do you know any terminalogy of the military WITHOUT looking it up?

If you're lazy to the point of not checking for logical inconsistencies, much less correcting them when pointed out, you're likely to be too lazy to research your material.

Thereby, you fail at debating. Nothing you say can be taken factually.

Yet you have YET to point out any inconsistances of this other poster either? How is that consistant?

Egghiccup;12583973']Also, to be fair, the Taliban had tried to kill old Saddam, as they hated the bugger. But under Shrub's logic they where bossom buddies.

The Iraq war is because Mr Hussein tried to kill daddy.

But ain't all A-Rabs in 'Fghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and 'dem places all terrorists?

If yer from the Middle East, you caused 9-11.

Or if you're pro choice or not a graduate of Liberty University.

The theory predicted that other countries in the region would fall to communism if S. Vietnam did. They did fall. Even if it did predict that all of E. Asia would fall then it would be amended and it would be usable. In science you don't just throw out a theory b/c it doesn't go to the full extent that you thought, you change it to account for reality.
First of all, it was a political theory not a scientific one, so there are no reason to expect the same rules and accuracy to apply.

Secondly, the theory fails. Just look at China and Cuba and their neighbouring countries as examples. You can't say the theory is correct because one single country (Laos, since Cambodia fell to communism before South-Vietnam) fell to the communists... And the rest of the coutries that were predicted to fall to the contageous communism did not.

I said that extremists would move to afghanistan.
Who? Why? Have you got anything to back up this theory?

First of all, it was a political theory not a scientific one, so there are no reason to expect the same rules and accuracy to apply.
Why wouldn't they apply?
Secondly, the theory fails. Just look at China and Cuba and their neighbouring countries as examples. You can't say the theory is correct because one single country (Laos, since Cambodia fell to communism before South-Vietnam) fell to the communists... And the rest of the coutries that were predicted to fall to the contageous communism did not.
The only reason that more countries didn't fall was that refugees with stories of hardship under communism were able to effectively kill all of the movements that were underway in countries such as Thailand.

Who? Why? Have you got anything to back up this theory?
Who: Islamic Extremists
Why: To fight for allah and to expand caliphate
Back up: Common sense

If you're lazy to the point of not checking for logical inconsistencies, much less correcting them when pointed out, you're likely to be too lazy to research your material.

Thereby, you fail at debating. Nothing you say can be taken factually.

An obvious copying and pasting error is not a logical inconsistency. If this is you're entire argument then you are just a waste of life.

Why wouldn't they apply?
Do you know what a scientific theory is?


The only reason that more countries didn't fall was that refugees with stories of hardship under communism were able to effectively kill all of the movements that were underway in countries such as Thailand.
I don't believe that, but feel free to back it up... Especially in a way that explains the growth of communist regimes and movements in other countries.

Though, wouldn't that prove that the idea was completely wrong? Since the influx of refugees would tell their horrifying stories it would rather be an anti-domino movement where the neighbouring countries were bolstered against communism and made less suspectible to their influences?

Who: Islamic Extremists
Of what kind? Sunni? Shi'a? Others? Of what schools and doctrines? And countries?

Why: To fight for allah and to expand caliphate
Why would they want that? Why not take the fight home, and topple the unislamic dictatorships of Syria, Egypt etc? Why kill infidels just for the hell of it? Why in Afghanistan?

Back up: Common sense
So you've got nothing? No indication that it'll actually happen?

Do you know what a scientific theory is?
Yes. Do you?

I don't believe that, but feel free to back it up... Especially in a way that explains the growth of communist regimes and movements in other countries.
B/c in those countries there was already a repressive goverment so the word couldn't get out. In countries where it didn't take hold quite yet it was allowed to get out. In Afghanistan the movement has already started. In others it would be harder to start.
Though, wouldn't that prove that the idea was completely wrong? Since the influx of refugees would tell their horrifying stories it would rather be an anti-domino movement where the neighbouring countries were bolstered against communism and made less suspectible to their influences?
True, their theory didn't take that into account. However if that factor was taken out then it would work. Right now I don't see that factor hampering a Domino Theory for Afghanistan. There are no Iraqi refugees there. However in other closer neighbors there are.
Of what kind? Sunni? Shi'a? Others? Of what schools and doctrines? And countries?
Sunni. The caliphate is Sunni.
Why would they want that? Why not take the fight home, and topple the unislamic dictatorships of Syria, Egypt etc? Why kill infidels just for the hell of it? Why in Afghanistan?
B/c of the "anti-domino theory." Trade marked USMC leathernecks2. They want to kill infidels b/c then they get 72 virgins. It's the basis behind all Jihad.
So you've got nothing? No indication that it'll actually happen?
It's basic military theory. Once you have one victory you exploit. Once they have one victory they will have thousands of free assets to claim a second victory.

It was obviously a copy and paste error as is evident in that it is mis exact words. A little common sense is in order.

A copy and paste error? You were copying and pasting the "theory is right" and you meant to copy and paste, "theory is wrong?"

How interesting. Perhaps all of your inconsistencies and fallacies are just copy and paste errors because all of your posts are copied and pasted.

A copy and paste error? You were copying and pasting the "theory is right" and you meant to copy and paste, "theory is wrong?"

How interesting. Perhaps all of your inconsistencies and fallacies are just copy and paste errors because all of your posts are copied and pasted.

No, I went to copy and paste the [quote] and i accidentally got some of his text. You are an idiot.

You are an idiot.

Ad hominem fallacy. I suppose *that* was a copy and paste error *too!*

Ad hominem fallacy. I suppose *that* was a copy and paste error *too!*

Well when you come off all high and mighty when you are dead wrong then that makes you an idiot. Simple.

Well when you come off all high and mighty when you are dead wrong

Dead wrong? If you'll notice, I was asking a question. How can questioning be wrong?

then that makes you an idiot. Simple.

I'm sure it feels that simple to you, but that's more likely due to the fact that you're a brainless baby-killer.

Dead wrong? If you'll notice, I was asking a question. How can questioning be wrong?
What you said"How interesting. Perhaps all of your inconsistencies and fallacies are just copy and paste errors because all of your posts are copied and pasted.
Do you need the definition of a question?
I'm sure it feels that simple to you, but that's more likely due to the fact that you're a brainless baby-killer.
Wouldn't I need to kill babies in order to have that title? Wouldn't defending school children negate that title? Talk about Ad hominem

What a great discussion! I'm glad petty nagging on both sides didn't entirely obscure the real issue in this thread!

The fact is, Americans needed September 11th to mean something. Otherwise it was just 3,000 people killed for an obscure religious purpose. Assigning various connections to Saddam, to North Korea, and to various other international pariahs makes it understandably easier for deterministic Christian fundamentalists to cope.

Only one problem: September 11th was in fact a mass murder committed for an obscure religious purpose. Nothing more, nothing less. Justifying the invasion of an unrelated country, while understandable in the light of an American need for coping, self-validation, and perceived retaliation, is absolutely unconscionable.

Seriously though, I have no idea what you two were originally arguing about. Quit whinging about semantics.

Only one problem: September 11th was in fact a mass murder committed for an obscure religious purpose. Nothing more, nothing less. Justifying the invasion of an unrelated country, while understandable in the light of an American need for coping, self-validation, and perceived retaliation, is absolutely unconscionable.
A country sheltering the people who planned and carried out the attack is unrelated? News to me.

A country sheltering the people who planned and carried out the attack is unrelated? News to me.What country are you talking about?

Seriously though, I have no idea what you two were originally arguing about. Quit whinging about semantics.

I was debating about several things in Iraq with other posters. This joke just came in a starting whining about how I accidentally copied and pasted text instead of a [quote] thing.

What you said"
Do you need the definition of a question?


Clearly, that was a conditional response based on the question which you, naturally, failed to include in your quote. But you knew that, since you're so very, very intelligent - right?


Wouldn't I need to kill babies in order to have that title?

Wouldn't I need an IQ of less than 10 to have the title of idiot?

Wouldn't defending school children negate that title?

Not at all. I could kill a baby. And then defend school children. One doesn't make the other untrue.

Talk about Ad hominem

OK, let's talk about ad hominem. I ask a question, and you declare that I'm an idiot. Is this, or is this not, a reasonable way to converse?

What country are you talking about?

Afghanistan.

Clearly, that was a conditional response based on the question which you, naturally, failed to include in your quote. But you knew that, since you're so very, very intelligent - right?
So you had an answer to your questions before they were answered. So they were rhetorical. So they weren't really questions at all but were statements.


Wouldn't I need an IQ of less than 10 to have the title of idiot?
Nope. The word means much more than it's original medical definition. And thanks for taking back your careless words.


Not at all. I could kill a baby. And then defend school children. One doesn't make the other untrue.
However i didn't kill babies but have organized the defense of a school.


OK, let's talk about ad hominem. I ask a question, and you declare that I'm an idiot. Is this, or is this not, a reasonable way to converse?
OK, let's talk about ad hominem. I make a statements and you call me a baby killer. Is this, or is this not, a reasonable way to converse?

Pardon me, but my family is from Afghanistan, and I can say with all authority that a country being too poor to defend its borders from the unpermitted entry of mostly Saudi and Egyptian extremists does not equal a country sheltering the people who planned and carried out the attack.

Yes. Do you?
Apparently moreso than you, seeing as you have trouble differentiating between a scientific theory and a political one.

B/c in those countries there was already a repressive goverment so the word couldn't get out. In countries where it didn't take hold quite yet it was allowed to get out. In Afghanistan the movement has already started. In others it would be harder to start.
Don't mix the original domino theory and the new one, please, if that's what you're doing. It makes your arguments extremely difficult to follow.

As it stands now, this doesn't make sense at all. Could you please try again? I just can't understand you here.

True, their theory didn't take that into account. However if that factor was taken out then it would work. Right now I don't see that factor hampering a Domino Theory for Afghanistan. There are no Iraqi refugees there. However in other closer neighbors there are.
So the theory failed. Right.

As for Afghanistan, they're not neighbouring Iraq so why would they be affected?

Sunni. The caliphate is Sunni.
So only Sunni Islamists, that's one step closer... But still: Of what schools and doctrines? Which sub-groubs if any? And what countries do they hail from?

B/c of the "anti-domino theory." Trade marked USMC leathernecks2. They want to kill infidels b/c then they get 72 virgins. It's the basis behind all Jihad.
Ah. So you don't know what Jihad is. Because you are simply wrong, the part about the virgins is not the basis for Jihad. Not even for violent Jihad.

It's basic military theory. Once you have one victory you exploit. Once they have one victory they will have thousands of free assets to claim a second victory.
Perhaps it's a basic military theory, but this is not a basic military movement is it? And the goals of the Islamists are differing... Most do not fight for the establishment of the global caliphate.

So you had an answer to your questions before they were answered.

One answer, obviously not yours.

So they weren't really questions at all but were statements.

I guess we really do need the definition of question.

Merriam-Webster:

1 a (1) : an interrogative expression often used to test knowledge (2) : an interrogative sentence or clause

It doesn't seem that "having an answer" makes a question no longer a question. But perhaps you have your own definition.

Nope. The word means much more than it's original medical definition.

That's true, it's just an insult.

And thanks for taking back your careless words.

I didn't.

OK, let's talk about ad hominem. I make a statements and you call me a baby killer. Is this, or is this not, a reasonable way to converse?

I knew you were going to say that. The difference is, my statement came first and your insult came first. You made the first ad hominem and mine was a direct response to turn the table on you and see how you liked it. You didn't seem to like it very much. I've thus made my point.

And so USMC devolves to using the Pee Wee Herman technique of debating.

"I know you are, but what am I? Haaa-ha! Ha ha."

Apparently moreso than you, seeing as you have trouble differentiating between a scientific theory and a political one.
A theory is a theory is a theory. The same rules apply.
Don't mix the original domino theory and the new one, please, if that's what you're doing. It makes your arguments extremely difficult to follow.

As it stands now, this doesn't make sense at all. Could you please try again? I just can't understand you here.
They are intertwined. The original had flaws and the new fixes those flaws. The original didn't take into account that people who suffered under communism would get out. The countries where this happened didn't fall to communism. Those where it didn't did. In Afghanistan there are no Iraqi refugees.


As for Afghanistan, they're not neighbouring Iraq so why would they be affected?
Iran has been pretty good about allowing anti-U.S. forces through their country. And in todays ME borders have very little meaning.

So only Sunni Islamists, that's one step closer... But still: Of what schools and doctrines? Which sub-groubs if any? And what countries do they hail from?
The fundamentalist doctrine. They are all connected. Nearly every fundamentalist group has a militant side. They will hail from the countries that they hail from now. Namely Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. Iran very well may support them as well.
Ah. So you don't know what Jihad is. Because you are simply wrong, the part about the virgins is not the basis for Jihad. Not even for violent Jihad.
It is how they recruit people for Jihad. If people were just doing it to serve Allah then they wouldn't get nearly as many recruits. It may not be how it is in the Quran but it is how the Mullahs say it is.
Perhaps it's a basic military theory, but this is not a basic military movement is it? And the goals of the Islamists are differing... Most do not fight for the establishment of the global caliphate.
It is the ultimate goal of any Sunni fundamentalist to establish a global caliphate. No it isn't a military movement but it does have a very deep military side to it. And that side understand what it has to do.

Pardon me, but my family is from Afghanistan, and I can say with all authority that a country being too poor to defend its borders from the unpermitted entry of mostly Saudi and Egyptian extremists does not equal .

If you really were from Aghanistan then you would understand their culture. They shelter anybody. If an American is stranded in their village they will shelter them. If an terrorist needs food they will give it to them. It's not their fault but they were still nevertheless and the connection is evident.

snip

Your question was rhetorical. That means that you already had an answer and didn't want to hear another. Therefore it was just another way of making a statement. This will be the last response I will make to you as this is completely irrelevant and quite frankly thread jacking. And yes, you did start this.

If you really think that then why aren't you arguing NATO or U.N. intervention?

UN intervention? "Yeah, we kicked you in the balls and told you to go fuck yourself so we could have theis fancy little war...So can you help us now that we've FUBAR's the damn thing?" I'd love to be in the room to hear that conversation. The bottom line is that if you break it you fix it. Bush nbroke it and he wants others to fix it. It's like me walking into your house and knocking your candy bowl over and then I say, "now what are you going to do to fix that candy bowl? Get it done now boy! It might take me 10 years to get it fized, but you better be able to do it in the next 10 minutes?" You get it now? That's the logic that you and other defenders use. "Well come on guys, we know who broke it but now you fix it." How about listening to the people who told you not to F it up in the first place? Also, cut the crap with saying he didn't like Al Qeada and Iraq. Any one of us can go back and get 100 links from Rummy, George, and Cheney if we wants. So let's not try and attack what has already been set up as a given constant. They linked it for propoganda, and now they F'd it up. How are THEY going to fix it?

UN intervention? "Yeah, we kicked you in the balls and told you to go fuck yourself so we could have theis fancy little war...So can you help us now that we've FUBAR's the damn thing?" I'd love to be in the room to hear that conversation. The bottom line is that if you break it you fix it. Bush nbroke it and he wants others to fix it. It's like me walking into your house and knocking your candy bowl over and then I say, "now what are you going to do to fix that candy bowl? Get it done now boy! It might take me 10 years to get it fized, but you better be able to do it in the next 10 minutes?" You get it now? That's the logic that you and other defenders use. "Well come on guys, we know who broke it but now you fix it." How about listening to the people who told you not to F it up in the first place? Also, cut the crap with saying he didn't like Al Qeada and Iraq. Any one of us can go back and get 100 links from Rummy, George, and Cheney if we wants. So let's not try and attack what has already been set up as a given constant. They linked it for propoganda, and now they F'd it up. How are THEY going to fix it?

1) Then you agree that it is our responsibility to fix it? B/c that was my argument. I was just trying to show them how infeasible their position was.

2) We are currently there by U.N. mandate.

what the name for the logical fallacy of thinking that if you just keep posting the same nonsense over and over again you win?

and the one where you think that getting in the last post means you win?

what the name for the logical fallacy of thinking that if you just keep posting the same nonsense over and over again you win?

and the one where you think that getting in the last post means you win?

What is it called when you keep ignoring what someone says and ask the same question over and over again?

What is it called when you keep ignoring what someone says and ask the same question over and over again?In this particular case it's called reason.

In this particular case it's called reason.

I'll have to remember that. Ignoring=reasoning. Especially when the person you are ignoring has infinitely more experience than you in the area being discussed.

what the name for the logical fallacy of thinking that if you just keep posting the same nonsense over and over again you win?

and the one where you think that getting in the last post means you win?

I think USMC Leathernecks is lobbying to get it renamed after himself.

I think USMC Leathernecks is lobbying to get it renamed after himself.

And yet all you are capable of is saying baseless bullshit w/ no support.

And yet all you are capable of is saying baseless bullshit w/ no support.
You have no idea how deeply you have wounded me with your cutting remark. Why, I think I'm starting to feel a little faint at your overwhelming ire, and overcome by your incisive wit. I do declare, sah.

A theory is a theory is a theory. The same rules apply.
Ah, but no. This political theory is more akin to a scientific hypothesis. See the difference now? A theory isn't a theory when the theory is an hypothesis, as it were...


They are intertwined. The original had flaws and the new fixes those flaws. The original didn't take into account that people who suffered under communism would get out. The countries where this happened didn't fall to communism. Those where it didn't did. In Afghanistan there are no Iraqi refugees.
The country which people got out of because they suffered under communist rule did not fall to communism? Logical disconnect there...

And what is your point? Because Afghanistan don't see any Iraqi refugees, it will become a theocratic country if Iraq does? :confused:


Iran has been pretty good about allowing anti-U.S. forces through their country. And in todays ME borders have very little meaning.
So there really isn't a domino theory, is what you're saying... It's more of a Skipping Stones theory?

The fundamentalist doctrine. They are all connected. Nearly every fundamentalist group has a militant side. They will hail from the countries that they hail from now. Namely Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. Iran very well may support them as well.
You have no idea how diverse these fundamentalist doctrines are, have you? Or the differences between the ideologies you find in Egypt and in Jordan?

Are you aware that one of the most active movements for real democracy in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic fundamentalist organisation? Are you aware that they seek to restore the islamic caliphate in the muslim world, but opposes using violence as a means to achieve those goals? That's an example of fundamentalist doctrine right there.

It is how they recruit people for Jihad. If people were just doing it to serve Allah then they wouldn't get nearly as many recruits. It may not be how it is in the Quran but it is how the Mullahs say it is.
It's one of the ways they recruit - but not at all "the basis behind all Jihad" as you previously stated.

It is the ultimate goal of any Sunni fundamentalist to establish a global caliphate. No it isn't a military movement but it does have a very deep military side to it. And that side understand what it has to do.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's only a very small minority which has a goal of global jihad. When it comes to violent jihad, the vast majority stuggle with an internal jihad (against Muslim regimes) or an irredentist jihad (fighting to redeem land ruled by non-Muslims); the global jihad is only undertaken by a few.

Ah, but no. This political theory is more akin to a scientific hypothesis. See the difference now? A theory isn't a theory when the theory is an hypothesis, as it were...
Okay, then the hypothesis left out a factor. With that factor put in it holds true

The country which people got out of because they suffered under communist rule did not fall to communism? Logical disconnect there...
Vietnam did suffer under communist rule. And it did fall to communism. What are you talking about?
And what is your point? Because Afghanistan don't see any Iraqi refugees, it will become a theocratic country if Iraq does? :confused:
Sunni fundamentalists will seek to exploit their victory and continue jihad in Afghanistan. The anti-domino theory won't take place b/c there will be no refugees. (For shorthand sake I will call the refugee point the anti-domino theory) Understand?

So there really isn't a domino theory, is what you're saying... It's more of a Skipping Stones theory?
Don't know where you're going with that. How does the path through which the fighters go affect what the theory is called?
You have no idea how diverse these fundamentalist doctrines are, have you? Or the differences between the ideologies you find in Egypt and in Jordan?
There is an overlying theme in what each Mullah professes. That American is the infidel. That Allah commands Jihad. And that Jihad brings good for the Jihadist.
Are you aware that one of the most active movements for real democracy in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic fundamentalist organisation? Are you aware that they seek to restore the islamic caliphate in the muslim world, but opposes using violence as a means to achieve those goals? That's an example of fundamentalist doctrine right there.
Thats not fundamentalist in the sense that I am using it. Forgive me for not defining it for you as I am using it but I will attempt to now. An Islamic fundamentalist is somebody who uses violence to carry out strict enforcement of traditional Islamic values. I would venture to say that extremist is a better term.
It's one of the ways they recruit - but not at all "the basis behind all Jihad" as you previously stated.
If they get no recruits then there is no Jihad. So if it is what draws those who carry out the Jihad then it is the basis.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's only a very small minority which has a goal of global jihad. When it comes to violent jihad, the vast majority stuggle with an internal jihad (against Muslim regimes) or an irredentist jihad (fighting to redeem land ruled by non-Muslims); the global jihad is only undertaken by a few.
The opposite is evident on the propaganda websites and literature of extremists in Iraq.