Transcript from The View for May 17th:
O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens? O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.
What say you?
posted by File Boy & D.Tkon at 2:14 PM
17 Comments:
Rosie went on to make the point that Iraq never actually attacked us. Do you think a foreign nation must attack us before we take action?
Rosie is a huge-headed blowhard. She might as well be talking out of her huge ass. She needs to keep her trap shut and leave TV forever...no one wants to hear her crap. If she doesn't like it here, why don't her and her lez lover move to another country?
Now Billy, be nice. She is a huge-headed blowhard, you have me there. And she might as well be talking out of her huge ass, I'll admit. And I agree that she needs to keep her trap shut and leave tv forever. But to say that no one wants to hear her crap, I mean c'mon. I think you went a little too far with that one. Take it back billy.
Billy has managed jingoism and homophobia in the same sentence. Kudos. It would seem that Rosie does in fact "like it here", but as she sees it, very bad decisions are being made by the people who run things "here". Agree with her or not, but good citizenship demands that she speak her mind and try to change things. As for pre-emptive strikes, perhaps they are justified. I think there are very serious questions as to whether this particular invasion was motivated by genuine national security concerns or rather the vague agenda of the Project for the New American Century. Right or wrong, the greatest mistake seems to be the remarkably poor planning and preparation, and an unwillingness to listen to qualified experts regarding the religious and civil divisions that would be the key to controlling a post-wra Iraq.
Rosie serves an important function. You have to hate somebody!
I've never heard of jingoism. But I'm betting Billy is actually in the military (judging from the skull and crossbone insignia with guns replacing the bones). If so, he's probably the best qualified to comment on Rosie's comments.
I think in light of the fact that the vote for invasion of Iraq was bipartisan it is a little dishonest to now play this as a Republican war. I also just don't like Rosie. I don't care if she is or is not a lesbian. I just find her repulsive, obtuse and suffering from diarhea of the mouth.
I also lament that as a country we have changed so much in 50 years that what was handed to us by the "greatest generation" is being trashed and degraded. I think if we were ever faced with an invasion or a war on our own soil most of America would be unable to cope with the sacrifices necessary to win. Look at us now. We aren't really even impacted by this war. The stock market is higher than it has ever been. Everyone who wanted to was able to make a mint in the real estate market following 9/11. If you want a job you can find one. Food is readily available. There's no shortage of sugar, rubber, or any commodity that was rationed in WWII. I think we are all spoiled sissies.
"and an unwillingness to listen to qualified experts regarding the religious and civil divisions that would be the key to controlling a post-wra Iraq."
Perhaps, but let's remember this is a hostile territory, and war is hell. In the past (all of human history) there has never been a reason to know and understand the "religious and civil divisions" of the enemy. You wiped them out. Now we have to fight a war and be politically correct and considerate of the enemies sensibilities while we do it. The enemy doesn't give a shit about your religion or civil persuasion. Remember that. And when the enemy comes to your door, go ahead and explain to him that you weren't for the oppresion of Muslims and that you voted to "get out of Iraq". I'm sure the enemy will take that into consideration while he is beheading you.
I've never heard of jingoism. But I'm betting Billy is actually in the military ... If so, he's probably the best qualified to comment on Rosie's comments.
Best qualified? Perhaps you meant most entitled? Being in the military doesn't make you a foreign policy expert. Perhaps the opposite, in fact. How objective about legitimacy can you be when you're actually in the thick of battle?
I think in light of the fact that the vote for invasion of Iraq was bipartisan it is a little dishonest to now play this as a Republican war.
Who said anything about Republicans?
Look at us now. We aren't really even impacted by this war. The stock market is higher than it has ever been.
I think if you crack a history book you'll find that warfare has very often been accompanied by economic boom. That's nothing new. Did you know that World War II helped end the Great Depression?
In the past (all of human history) there has never been a reason to know and understand the "religious and civil divisions" of the enemy. You wiped them out.
When did the Iraqis become "the enemy"? What did they ever do to us? We invaded them, and now that we found out that we did it for no reason, we still refuse to leave. They want us to get the hell out of their country so they can get on with their religious civil war against onr another. And there has ALWAYS been a reason to understand your enemy. That's how wars are won. Have you ever read "The Art of War"? What was it that Sun Tzu said? Oh yeah, "Understand the enemy". That's not political correctness, it's good strategy. And the goal of warfare historiclly has not been to "wipe [the enemy] out". That's a nuclear age cul-de-sac. It's been to subdue, dominate, control. There are no spoils when you compltely trash the place. Some sharp people figured that out a long time ago (that'd be pretty much every successful civilization ever).
And when the enemy comes to your door, go ahead and explain to him that you weren't for the oppresion of Muslims and that you voted to "get out of Iraq".
We should get OUT of Iraq so we can get back to FIGHTING "THE ENEMY, aka the people who attacked us on September 11th. You should read up on that. Guess what? They weren't Iraqis.
I've never heard of jingoism. But I'm betting Billy is actually in the military ... If so, he's probably the best qualified to comment on Rosie's comments.
Best qualified? Perhaps you meant most entitled? Being in the military doesn't make you a foreign policy expert. Perhaps the opposite, in fact. How objective about legitimacy can you be when you're actually in the thick of battle?
Would you say then that sitting in an air conditioned office makes you more of a foreign policy expert than the people actually in the foreign country? How objective can you be not having ever been in war?
I think in light of the fact that the vote for invasion of Iraq was bipartisan it is a little dishonest to now play this as a Republican war.
Who said anything about Republicans?
Rosie did, and so do all of the democrat presidential hopefuls. Watch the news much?
Look at us now. We aren't really even impacted by this war. The stock market is higher than it has ever been.
I think if you crack a history book you'll find that warfare has very often been accompanied by economic boom. That's nothing new. Did you know that World War II helped end the Great Depression?
Did you know the Great Depression followed WWI? Duh. The years after war are not always good ones. Take for example the years following the Vietnam war. The 70s? Remember the oil crisis? Christ, remember disco?
In the past (all of human history) there has never been a reason to know and understand the "religious and civil divisions" of the enemy. You wiped them out.
When did the Iraqis become "the enemy"?
When they harbored terrorists, and when they allowed a dictator to get away with crimes against humanity. Much the way Germans and Japanese did in WWII.
What did they ever do to us?
More importantly, what did they do to prevent the terrorists from florishing and what did they do to protect the innocent lives being killed in Iraq? We asked the same questions of the Germans following the fall of Berlin.
We invaded them, and now that we found out that we did it for no reason, we still refuse to leave.
Leaving = losing. Then in ten years we'll have to go back and do it again when the power vacuum created by our departure allows a new dictator to take over. See in the past (all of human history) when you invaded a country and won the war you then owned that territory. Then you don't have to worry (at least not as much) about power vacuums and the like. Nowadays (getting to my original point) we win the war and then leave. We hand the country back over to the defeated people and then send in billions in aid money.
They want us to get the hell out of their country so they can get on with their religious civil war against onr another.
Yeah, its just directed at each other, they never invaded other countries like Kuwait or anything.
And there has ALWAYS been a reason to understand your enemy.
Who said you shouldn't understand your enemy? The soldiers don't need to take into account religious sensibilities is what I said. That's not the point of a soldier. Crack open a book on Military warfare and let me know where the part is about soldiers being gentlemen. Then when you find it, send a copy to the terrorists so they'll take it into consideration next time THEY PLAN TO FLY A PLANE INTO A SKYSCRAPER FULL OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
That's how wars are won. Have you ever read "The Art of War"?
No I haven't. I doubt you have either.
What was it that Sun Tzu said? Oh yeah, "Understand the enemy".
Find that on the internet did you?
That's not political correctness, it's good strategy. And the goal of warfare historiclly has not been to "wipe [the enemy] out".
Yes it has. The civilzations that were most successful ruled with an iron fist, and those who were not wiped out were enslaved (check out the Jewish captivation under the Romans, Alexander the Great's accomplishments, hell, even take Hitler - had we not defeated him, what do you think his plan was?, take the Christians in A.D. Rome, there was a thing called the Colosseum where they fed them to wild animals, I could go on but you're not listening anyway).
That's a nuclear age cul-de-sac.
A what now?
It's been to subdue, dominate, control. There are no spoils when you compltely trash the place.
So trashing the place equals no spOILs? So then when Hussein lit the oil fields ablaze after the first war in Iraq, he totally eliminated the oil there? Or did he eliminate the spoils - if so, then we know that oil wasn't a motivation for invading Iraq. It couldn't be, because trashing the place ruins the spoils. Good point.
Some sharp people figured that out a long time ago (that'd be pretty much every successful civilization ever).
Really? What spoils were left over after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (you can let me know in your response).
And when the enemy comes to your door, go ahead and explain to him that you weren't for the oppresion of Muslims and that you voted to "get out of Iraq".
We should get OUT of Iraq so we can get back to FIGHTING "THE ENEMY, aka the people who attacked us on September 11th. You should read up on that. Guess what? They weren't Iraqis.
Good point. Which country attacked us again? Or was it not a country, but rather radicals being allowed to hide out in certain countries?
Get back to the point - Rosie O'Donnell called our troops terrorists. Even if you take her explanation that they are the "agents of a terrorist government" it is still pretty inflamatory, don't you think? Isn't it fair to say she's an asshole at this point?
she has ALWAYS been an asshole...
No one said anything about people in air-conditioned offices being foreign policy experts. The objectivity of soldiers actually fighting the war was questioned. Gunfire can discourage dispassionate consideration.
No one in this discussion said anything about Republicans.
The Depression followed World War I by twelve years. The Roaring 20s happened in between.
Vietnam was very profitable, just ask Halliburton. Brown & Root had a $380 million sweetheart contract riddled with accounting lapses.
The Oil Crisis had nothing to do with Viet Nam.
The Iraqis were not harboring terrorists before we invaded. Hussein was a secular leader who feared the religious extremism of al Qaeda. We removed him, plunged the country into chaos and created a perfect environment for the spread of Islamic fanaticsm. The US invasion of Iraq has been the best thing to happen to the Islamic fundamentalists since Reagan helped Osama bin Laden expel the Soviets from Afghanistan.
The Iraqis "allowed" Saddam Hussein to get away with crimes against humanity? weren't the Shi'a majority and the Kurds the victims of those crimes? It sounds like you're employing the same logic that Islamic radicals use when they blame rape on the woman. Japan and Germany were ethnically homogenous, established nations whose fascist leaders had broad public support. Saddam HUssein was a strongman from am ethnic minority who seized power and brutalized the great majority of his people.
Terrorism never "flourished" in Iraq until we invaded.
Leaving != losing. There is no war to win. You don't line up opposite from one another in a field and load your muskets. There is no us and them. We're simply getting in the way of a civil war that's been going on for centuries. We supported Saddam Hussein for years against the Iranians because he was OUR dictator and he quashed all of that.
We never annexed Germany or Japan and now they're close allies. The Marshall Plan was necessary because we needed to rebuild the markets of Europe for our own economy as well as those of our allies. It wasn't all charity. It was an investment.
Iraq invaded Kuwait fifteen years ago. How does that mean this isn't a largely internal civil war? Does our invasion of Grenada mean that our Civil War wasn't one?
"Who said you shouldn't understand your enemy?" You: "In the past (all of human history) there has never been a reason to know and understand the "religious and civil divisions" of the enemy."
"The soldiers don't need to take into account religious sensibilities is what I said. That's not the point of a soldier." No kidding. But the strategists and policymakers never bothered to learn the difference between a Shi'a and a Sunni. It's THEIR JOB. They never crafted an effective plan to manage the sectarian chaos that would INEVITABLY follow Saddam's ouster.
"Crack open a book on Military warfare and let me know where the part is about soldiers being gentlemen. Then when you find it, send a copy to the terrorists so they'll take it into consideration next time THEY PLAN TO FLY A PLANE INTO A SKYSCRAPER FULL OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS." They weren't Iraqis. We should be fighting those terrorists, not getting bogged down in a religious grudge match.
"Find that on the internet did you?" That's deflection. That happens when you realize you don't have an effective response. I bet Sun Tzu said something about that, too.
The Romans started with a small settlement in Italy. The conquered Europe. They did not destroy it. They destroyed Jerusalem BECAUSE they couldn't pacify it. Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world. He did not destroy it. Hitler's plan was was subdue and rule the world, not destroy it. The Christians in Rome were not a wartime enemy of the Empire, they were a dangerous internal cult that the authorities tried to stamp out.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, not Japan. That was the point. Surgical destruction meant no invasion of the Home Islands. The country was left so much intact that the same Emperor ruled after the war as before.
"Which country attacked us again? Or was it not a country, but rather radicals being allowed to hide out in certain countries?"
THEY WEREN'T HIDING IN IRAQ. They flooded the country once Saddam was out of power and we'd plunged the place into chaos.
No one said anything about people in air-conditioned offices being foreign policy experts.
No, but that's where you and I are, and you imply that you have some expertise. I simply study history. I know that in the past, great rulers did not have the impediment of conscious when they defeated an enemy. My point all along has been that we have constructed a military framework that of itself prevents military victory (for us). I believe this began following World War I.
The objectivity of soldiers actually fighting the war was questioned. Gunfire can discourage dispassionate consideration.
I think you meant "gunfire can discourage compassionate consideration". I agree. In fact, compassion is not taught in military basic training with regard to an armed enemy.
No one in this discussion said anything about Republicans. I was commenting on Rosie, who has made several references to the Republican president, as you have, and continue to do below - "the strategists and policymakers never bothered to learn the difference between a Shi'a and a Sunni." Are you now saying that the strategists and policymakers were not republican? Or isn't this a criticism of the republican president and his cabinet?
The Depression followed World War I by twelve years. The Roaring 20s happened in between.
Even if war begets economic boom, I don't think anyone is excited to enter into it. I resent the implication of Rosie and her type that a certain party is equivalent to war mongerers.
Vietnam was very profitable, just ask Halliburton. Brown & Root had a $380 million sweetheart contract riddled with accounting lapses.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to Vietnam as "profitable" before. You should go to the memorial in D.C. and let the vets who visit there know about that. We could put an asterisk next to the names of the fallen heroes. John Smith*
*Died in service to the profits of the nation.
The Oil Crisis had nothing to do with Viet Nam.
The 70s were bad years economically, for many reasons, one of which was the oil crisis. Another was inflation, another was jobs, etc... The war had a negative impact. A similar economic reaction was experienced following the Korean War. I believe the antidote for the negative economic reaction to wars is patriotism, which in my opinion has diminished with each war, as exemplified by the treatment of soldiers when they return.
The Iraqis were not harboring terrorists before we invaded.
The best intelligence at the time was that there were weapons of mass destruction being developed or existing in that country. These weapons if extant could be used by a terrorist or a dictator to attack our country. This is generally agreed upon, as supported by the almost unanymous decision to invade (republicans and democrats).
Hussein was a secular leader who feared the religious extremism of al Qaeda. We removed him, plunged the country into chaos and created a perfect environment for the spread of Islamic fanaticsm. The US invasion of Iraq has been the best thing to happen to the Islamic fundamentalists since Reagan helped Osama bin Laden expel the Soviets from Afghanistan.
Most negative perspective I've ever heard. If democracy flourishes and the systematic torture and slaughter of ethnics is prevented, I think eventually this will be one of the most positive things to happen to the Iraqis. Remember your words: "I think if you crack a history book you'll find that warfare has very often been accompanied by economic boom."
The Iraqis "allowed" Saddam Hussein to get away with crimes against humanity? weren't the Shi'a majority and the Kurds the victims of those crimes?
Yes, and weren't the American colonists the victims of the tea tax? Good thing they mounted a resistance to that and other injustices.
It sounds like you're employing the same logic that Islamic radicals use when they blame rape on the woman. Japan and Germany were ethnically homogenous,
No jews in Germany? Really?
established nations whose fascist leaders had broad public support.
Fear does not equal support.
Saddam HUssein was a strongman from am ethnic minority who seized power and brutalized the great majority of his people.
I agree.
Terrorism never "flourished" in Iraq until we invaded.
Depends on your definition - but I'd say it was the rule of the land vis-a-vis Hussein.
Leaving != losing. There is no war to win. You don't line up opposite from one another in a field and load your muskets. There is no us and them.
I disagree. You are either for democracy and freedom or you are against it. If you think there isn't a mass of people there who think you are the devil, then you will likely be surprised when the next attack happens. The fact that certain countries allow the terrorists safe harbor is the biggest problem.
We're simply getting in the way of a civil war that's been going on for centuries. We supported Saddam Hussein for years against the Iranians because he was OUR dictator and he quashed all of that.
We never annexed Germany or Japan and now they're close allies.
Germany is an ally with no military.
The Marshall Plan was necessary because we needed to rebuild the markets of Europe for our own economy as well as those of our allies. It wasn't all charity. It was an investment.
Agreed.
Iraq invaded Kuwait fifteen years ago. How does that mean this isn't a largely internal civil war?
My point of course was that had we toppled Hussein during the first war, the current war would not have been necessary.
Does our invasion of Grenada mean that our Civil War wasn't one?
Does the help from the French during our civil war mean that we weren't having a civil war?
"Who said you shouldn't understand your enemy?" You: "In the past (all of human history) there has never been a reason to know and understand the "religious and civil divisions" of the enemy."
Conceeded.
"The soldiers don't need to take into account religious sensibilities is what I said. That's not the point of a soldier." No kidding. But the strategists and policymakers never bothered to learn the difference between a Shi'a and a Sunni. It's THEIR JOB. They never crafted an effective plan to manage the sectarian chaos that would INEVITABLY follow Saddam's ouster.
I heard quite a bit about it, and I'm not sure you are in a position to make that statement. I believe it was planned and taken into consideration, though many Americans do not have the patience and stamina to actually win a war anymore - if it takes more than a few months we're not interested.
"Find that on the internet did you?" That's deflection. That happens when you realize you don't have an effective response. I bet Sun Tzu said something about that, too.
I have not read anything from Sun Tzu was my point, and neither have you. Not deflection, just a hunch.
The Romans started with a small settlement in Italy. The conquered Europe. They did not destroy it. They destroyed Jerusalem BECAUSE they couldn't pacify it.
You've just made my point.
Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world.
With pacifism and daiseys I suppose.
He did not destroy it.
Only those living in it.
Hitler's plan was was subdue and rule the world, not destroy it.
Wrong. His plan was to destroy all races except one.
The Christians in Rome were not a wartime enemy of the Empire, they were a dangerous internal cult that the authorities tried to stamp out.
Wrong. The Romans were very fearful of the Christians, as they were the Jews previously - this is proven by the many edicts issued by the Emporors (like the killing of all males 2 years and under when rumor had it that a Jewish King had been born). Don't you know your history?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, not Japan.
The targets were picked as critical economic targets which had the effect of completely crushing Japan economically as well as psychologically.
I implied no foreign policy expertise.
I meant "dispassionate".
I'm not trying to criticize anyone because of the ir political affiliation. That's partisanship. I'm trying to criticize their performance.
Your comments about Viet Nam confused me. I pointed out that American corporations profited from the war, not that nation. That's the point. Perhaps you've never heard of it described that way because wars are whitewashed.
I'm still unclear on the linkage betweent the Viet Nam war and the Oil Crisis, and how patriotism can solve economic problems. As for the treatment of soldiers, they are held in higher regard by ordinary people these days (as opposed to being spit on, the way the Viet Nam vets were), but are treated poorly by the government agencies tasked with their care, as the Walter Reed debacle revealed.
Pre-war intelligence did not support the idea that Iraq was harboring terrorists.
What's the positive perspective on Afghanistan?
There is no comparing the experience of the American colonists with the Iraqis under Hussein. Hussein used rape, torture, and chemical weapons. What did the British do that came close?
According to the US NAtional Holocaust Museum, "According to the census of June 1933, the Jewish population of Germany consisted of about 600,000 people. Jews represented less than one percent of the total German population of about 62 million people". I think you'll find that Hitler was not just feared in pre-war Germany. He was loved, given what he'd done for the economy alone.
Hussein's "rule" by terror" is not what is meant when we say "terrorism". To suggest otherwise is disingenuous wordplay.
I am for democracy and freedom. None of the major factions in Iraq are, despite the public statements. First on their agendas is elimination of those from different ethnic and religious groups. Whom should we support?
I've been saying all along that I'd wish we'd focus on destroying those that think we are "the devil" rather than setting up a giant training camp for them in Iraq.
I don't see the significance of your comments about Germany.
That was not your point about Iraq/Saddam/Kuwait. You were saying that the invasion of Iraq somehow invalidated the idea that the present conflict was a civil war.
France helped us in the Revolutionary War, not the Civil War.
How could the strategists and policymakers taken the sectarian violence into account? Cheyney: "We will be greeted as liberators". Rumsfeld: “I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do.” [Source: Reuters, “U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,” Entous, 4/11/03]. It goes on and on like that.
You have no idea how much Sun Tzu I've read.
Once again, the Christians in Rome were not a wartime enemy of the Empire, they were a dangerous internal cult that the authorities tried to stamp out.
Whether implied or not, I think we can both agree a foregin policy expert you are not.
I meant "dispassionate".
Ok, so your point was that shooting a gun will increase compassion? That seems counter to the rest of your arguments/common sense.
Your comments about Viet Nam confused me. I pointed out that American corporations profited from the war, not that nation.
So your point was that win or lose a war, the corporations benefit, but only if they are American? That makes absolutely no sense Einstein.
I'm still unclear on the linkage betweent the Viet Nam war and the Oil Crisis, and how patriotism can solve economic problems.
Let me explain. During the last 100 years, patriotism was at an all time high following WWII, right (think about the hero parades, etc...)? The '50s are generally regarded as the days of halcyon, right? Vietnam affected the American pysche negatively - my point was that a lot had to do with soldiers being asked to die for a cause that no one was behind. The reason a good many weren't behind it was political - which is what I'm accusing you of now. Had people supported the soldiers (including when they returned home) the outcome of the war (and the ensuing decade) would have been different. Instead you had several hundred thousand disenfranchised soldiers and soldier's families which created a subculture of anti-patriotism and anger directed at the government, corporations and political agendas. Soldiers wondered why no one appreciated their sacrifice.
As for the treatment of soldiers, they are held in higher regard by ordinary people these days (as opposed to being spit on, the way the Viet Nam vets were), but are treated poorly by the government agencies tasked with their care, as the Walter Reed debacle revealed.
Don't deflect with the Walter Reed debacle. The Vietnam vets were treated more poorly than any other returning vets in American history.
Pre-war intelligence did not support the idea that Iraq was harboring terrorists.
OK, and I'll conceed that Hussein was not a terrorist in the sense we're discussing if you'll conceed that he did create terror in his own people, many of whom had a limited ability to defend themselves. Thus my argument that the people of Iraq, who knew what was occurring (Mustard gas attacks on the Kurds, electric tortore, rape, beheadings, etc...) had a duty to intervene, much the way Germans were asked to march past the concentration camp victims after the fall of Berlin.
What's the positive perspective on Afghanistan?
It no longer has terrorist training camps or has many fewer after the war.
There is no comparing the experience of the American colonists with the Iraqis under Hussein. Hussein used rape, torture, and chemical weapons. What did the British do that came close?
Are you actually lobbing this softball in to me? The British are perhaps one of the most brutal emprires ever to have existed in human history. This also proves my point about how you win a war. When the sun never set on the British Empire it was extremely brutal to the occupants of any land they were seizing (you should read about the Zulus in Africa).
According to the US NAtional Holocaust Museum, "According to the census of June 1933, the Jewish population of Germany consisted of about 600,000 people. Jews represented less than one percent of the total German population of about 62 million people".
That is probably true. The other 5 million 4 hundred thousand jews killed were perhaps not German.
I think you'll find that Hitler was not just feared in pre-war Germany. He was loved, given what he'd done for the economy alone.
There's a difference between love and fear, and he was mostly feared.
I am for democracy and freedom. None of the major factions in Iraq are, despite the public statements. First on their agendas is elimination of those from different ethnic and religious groups. Whom should we support?
That's the 64,000 dollar question my friend. Back to my point of how we can't win anymore. There is only one way to win over there, which we don't have the ability to do (thankfully I think).
France helped us in the Revolutionary War, not the Civil War.
The French sympathised with the south and certainly wanted them to win (as did the British).
How could the strategists and policymakers taken the sectarian violence into account? Cheyney: "We will be greeted as liberators". Rumsfeld: “I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do.” [Source: Reuters, “U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,” Entous, 4/11/03]. It goes on and on like that.
I could pull up dozens of quotes from Bush re: how this will be a long war and a huge task.
You have no idea how much Sun Tzu I've read.
True, but I don't think you could have read any military work of repute and have the opinion you do. Sun Tzu would tell you that we can't win this war because of the attitude of our people not because we don't have the power or tools to do so.
This has gone so far from the original thread that I'm going to resist the temptation to reply and readdress the original issue.
Even if one were the agree that the pre-war intelligence was convincing, Iraq has been a disastrously planned and executed distraction from the fight against Islamic fundamentalism. Invading, and staying, is the greatest favor we've paid al Qaeda since we created them to repel the Soviets from Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Our failure to "win" has less to do with any imagined failure of character on the part of the American people or politically correct rules of engagement than it does with the fact that there is no war to win. There is merely the failure to impose unity and democracy on groups of people who have never been interested in either.
OK - I think we are probably in agreement on more than you think. I just interpret the opinions of most of those who are against the war as being disengenuous and politically motivated. Its just too huge a concidence that everyone who is for pulling out is not a Republican. It is as though the country made the decision together, and then when it didn't go easily, decided it would make for good political fodder. I think this is intellectual dishonesty.
Really its a no-lose for Dems. "You go out and say you are against the war now."
"But everyone can see that I voted for it".
"Doesn't matter. You are now against it, regardless of the consequences of pulling out now. If we pull out, you saved troops. If we don't, more die and the Republicans look bad. Either way, it paints the Republicans as pro-war, which is always political suicide. When the Republicans say that they had bipartisan support for the war, we give them Obama, who did not vote for it..."
If the war is actually us against Islamic Fundamentalism then we cannot win. To win would require Armageddon. I don't see this as a war against Islam (fundamentalist or otherwise), but rather the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. Most religious people I know are against abortion, but most religious people (even the fundamentalists) prefer to pray for the problem than to bomb a clinic.
I agree that Iraq was not the original target. Unfortunately Iraq was a problem waiting to happen, and the cheapest way to go in and fix the problem was to leverage the manpower already over there and do so now, inaccurate intelligence of WMDs be damned.
I don't know if being there has made us more vulnerable or susceptable to attack - perhaps it has. But does that in and of itself mean we shouldn't ever stand up to these people? And I have news for you - Iraq will perhaps embolden the terrorists, but not nearly as much as hunting down and martyring Bin Laden, whom I think you would agree we all want to see dead.
If you knew that killing him will cause additional attacks, would you then be against going after Bin Laden?
I think sometimes you have to stand up against the enemy even if doing so will egg-on additional attacks. You just have a duty as a rich American enjoying all the freedom you have to do so.
Post a Comment
<< Home