No 9/11, No Iraq

[dukestreetking]

I saw a bumper sticker today on a car with Veteran's plates. It read:

No Pearl Harbor
No Hiroshima

Of course the same is true about Iraq.

So there goes the whole "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" logic.

DSK

[pinky]

What the hell are you talking about?

[wzeis]

He's saying Harry Truman was upset that his father hadn't completed the invasion of Japan.

Duhhh!

[pinky]

Ah, yes, of course! :roll:

[HeldUp]

He's saying Harry Truman was upset that his father hadn't completed the invasion of Japan.

Duhhh!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

[Redrocks]

I saw a bumper sticker today on a car with Veteran's plates. It read:

No Pearl Harbor
No Hiroshima

Of course the same is true about Iraq.

So there goes the whole "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" logic.

DSK

I actually agree with DSK on this one, but not for the lame analogy he is attempting to make. Had there been no 9/11, the neocons would not have had the fear factor of terrorism to leverage over the american public and they would have had to actually justify the regime change in Iraq with their real reasons for wanting the regime change, which we still do not really know because they have not yet been called upon to explain themselves or justify their theories.

Because the american public would never have agreed to overthrow Sadaam simply because he was a despot of a leader and a despicable human being, the neocons would not have been able to start this war in Iraq. After all, there are at least 20 other countries with equally terrible and sociopathic leadership and we have not yet chosen to throw them out. It's only because we have a war on terror (started based upon 9/11) that they were able to garner the public and governmental support to take this action and start this war (no not the war ON terror, the war IN Iraq). 9/11 started the war on terror, the neocons used the war on terror to justify the war in Iraq.

A question for DSK and the others. If we were really serious about engaging the true enemy in this war on terror (which, in my mind is more like a worldwide police action rather than a traditional military action since there are no real borders, armies, governments, etc), would it not have been a better use of our billions of dollars spent in Iraq to actually investigate and fight the terrorists where they are to be found, which, as we now know was not inside of Iraq prior to our taking out Sadaam. What kind of progress could we have achieved in hunting down OBL and the new snakes if we had actually engaged the international community (including the predominately muslim nations in that community) and spent or invested our money in investigating and stopping the criminal and terrorist activities or in punishing those who actually do support them.

Are the neocons really serious about fighting a war on terror, or simply advancing their view of world politics which was being created long before they or we ever even realized there was a war on terror to be fought? Other than Iraq, what steps are they actually taking to fight this war against the terrorists?

[mhafinancial]

I saw a bumper sticker today on a car with Veteran's plates. It read:

No Pearl Harbor
No Hiroshima

Of course the same is true about Iraq.

So there goes the whole "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" logic.

DSK

No Iraq
No Hiroshima

Just doesn't seem right, Dukie.

Let's try it this way:

No Pearl Harbor
No Iraq

Still not quite a fit.

One last try:

No neo-cons running the government who had planned on an atack of Iraq even before getting elected.
No Iraq.

Ah, a perfect fit.

[Paulie]

I saw a bumper sticker today on a car with Veteran's plates. It read:

No Pearl Harbor
No Hiroshima

Of course the same is true about Iraq.

So there goes the whole "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" logic.

DSK

This is one of the most ridiculous leaps of "logic" I've ever seen.

Now this might work:

No Katherine Harris
No Iraq

Paulie

[pinky]

Or try this one:

No Reagan
No 9/11

After all, didn't the great communicator fund ObL to fight the Commies?

[dukestreetking]

A question for DSK and the others. If we were really serious about engaging the true enemy in this war on terror (which, in my mind is more like a worldwide police action rather than a traditional military action since there are no real borders, armies, governments, etc), would it not have been a better use of our billions of dollars spent in Iraq to actually investigate and fight the terrorists where they are to be found, which, as we now know was not inside of Iraq prior to our taking out Sadaam. What kind of progress could we have achieved in hunting down OBL and the new snakes if we had actually engaged the international community (including the predominately muslim nations in that community) and spent or invested our money in investigating and stopping the criminal and terrorist activities or in punishing those who actually do support them.

Other than Iraq, what steps are they actually taking to fight this war against the terrorists?

What makes you think we are not fighting against terror in other places besides Iraq?

Also, have you looked at what's happening in Gaza? Who do you think made that happen?

If you think our only strategy is to fight in Iraq and you think we have not had huge successes in the War on terror you are greatly mistaken.

DSK

[mhafinancial]

Also, have you looked at what's happening in Gaza? Who do you think made that happen?


DSK
Please don't delude yourself that Bush had anything to do with this. Unless, of course, he ordered Arafat's death.

[pinky]

If you think our only strategy is to fight in Iraq and you think we have not had huge successes in the War on terror you are greatly mistaken.
Are we safer? Are there more or fewer terrorists in Iraq today than there were in February, 2003?

How are YOU measuring success?

[Redrocks]

If you think our only strategy is to fight in Iraq and you think we have not had huge successes in the War on terror you are greatly mistaken.

DSK

Pinky asks one question that I would like to see you answer, but the statement that I would like to see some detail on is the one about other strategies. Frankly, I see no real news coverage about any other current strategies being considered or implemented by the neocons, so I am a bit in the dark on all of this. DSK, you strike me as a very knowledgeable person with regard to this administrations' grand plans and simple successes. Please illuminate with some details on these strategies? Who knows, perhaps you can convince me that these folks really do know what they are doing. Since I'm not really a far left Bush hating liberal like you might initially think, there's a real opportunity here.

[TIES2]

Please don't delude yourself that Bush had anything to do with this. Unless, of course, he ordered Arafat's death.

noooo...but it plays quite nicely to the neo-con card!

[HeldUp]

have you looked at what's happening in Gaza? Who do you think made that happen?
Too bad it has nothing to do with UN Resolutions or decades of international pressure:

Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
General Assembly Resolution 194 (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument), Dec. 11, 1948

"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 242 (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/59210ce6d04aef61852560c3005da209?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,242), Nov. 22, 1967

Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 446 (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc!OpenDocument), March 22, 1979

"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

[TIES2]

As usual, we're looking at the problem from our vantage point. Let's suppose the bumper sticker was seen on the back of OBL's Donkey (or do they prefer goats???). How might it read?

1. No _________________________ (fill in the blank)

2. No 9/11

[pinky]

Once again, Reagan. He propped up ObL when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

[Richard Tafoya]

That's crazy talk. Next think you'll be telling us we armed Saddam. ;)

[HeldUp]

That's crazy talk. Next think you'll be telling us we armed Saddam. ;)
Once again, I'm ROTFLMAO!!!!

[TIES2]

Let's try it again....

Let's suppose the bumper sticker was seen on the back of OBL's Donkey (or do they prefer goats???). How might it read?

1. No _________________________ (fill in the blank. Fill it in as often as you want)

2. No 9/11


Have we suddenly gone speechless????

[pinky]

I'm not sure your question has a valid point. DSK's original assertion seemed to be that, because he saw a bumper sticker about events that happened 60 years prior to 9/11, that somehow constitutes proof that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Therefore, the thread isn't about what led terrorists to decide that attacking us was justified.

It's about whether or not our subsequent invasion of a country not involved in the attacks that day is justified.

However, if you want at least one thing that might have proven a sore point for most Arab Muslims, how about our unconditional support of Israel, regardless of that's country's policies and their effect on us.

[TIES2]

I'm not sure your question has a valid point. DSK's original assertion seemed to be that, because he saw a bumper sticker about events that happened 60 years prior to 9/11, that somehow constitutes proof that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Therefore, the thread isn't about what led terrorists to decide that attacking us was justified.

It's about whether or not our subsequent invasion of a country not involved in the attacks that day is justified.

However, if you want at least one thing that might have proven a sore point for most Arab Muslims, how about our unconditional support of Israel, regardless of that's country's policies and their effect on us.


I believe DSK was pointing out the cause/effect: Had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbor, we would have never bombed Hiroshima; therefore had we not been attacked on 9/11; we would have never gone to war with Iraq...(okay so you do not believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 -- and that's fine).

My question is just inverting the bumper sticker....

Pearl Harbor is to Hiroshima as (blank) is to 9/11 (meaning 9/11 and Hiroshima are the response; so what's OBLs Pearl Harbor?)

And I think your answer was a good one...at least it's an oft stated one.

[Redrocks]

My opinion is, again, that of a thinking, yet naive citizen, not an expert on world politics or american policies. I don't think there is a lot of anything that we did directly, or indirectly that "caused 9/11" I do think it is about a clash of culture, economics, military power, and yes, religion. It's something that builds and brews over time, and perhaps, as much as many of my friends (and others) don't want to hear it, it was, and continues to be inevitable.

I do think the similarities of OBL and McVeigh are actually striking. The primary difference is that OBL has a much vaster reach, resources, and support, both hidden and in the open than McVeigh and his rogue band of militant terrorists did. But, they both had a deep seated anger of our government and yes, our people because they both used explosive devices to kill innocent americans. Had McVeigh had the power that OBL had and has, you would still see those terrorists active in this country as well.

Again, history, I think, is replete with these kinds of responses against others who don't share commonality of much of anything. Because of that, I am not certain that this is a "war" that can be won, which is why it is probably not a war at all. I still maintain that the appropriate response to this would have been more of an international police action (like the way the British have treated what happened there in July) where we involve world-wide, multi-jurisdicational support to track down the terrorists and bring them to justice -- or kill them. I'm not overly sentimental about using our justice system and the rights it affords accused when dealing with international criminals and terrorists who commit heinous criminal acts in our country or against our citizens.

What we have now done is taken the overly sensationalistic approach of removing a despote government in the middle east in reaction to a criminal action taken against our country. We have shown the other countries in that region and around the world that if we believe that your country will give us a strategic advantage over something, watch out. I don't really know if that strategic advantage is oil, bases of military reach and operation, economic, flexing the muscles, or just plain out right fear -- see what we can do. I do not see how it really helps to solve the problem of tracking down terrorists, either before or after they strike in our country or others.

So, in the end, I can't fill in the blank you ask me to because it's not a bumper stick moment as the neocons are trying to show, prove or convince me it is. Sorry.

[TIES2]

The answers that belong in the box have nothing to do, per se, with the neo cons you refer to. I'm a bit suprised when you say there is little we did directly or indirectly to cause 9/11. If you have not already done so, I suggest you get a hold of OBLs letters, fatwas, interviews, whatever....and actually make a list of the things he's calling the U.S. to task on. The list is long. U.S .support for Isreal is just one of the items. And while it's true that the list has grown to now include our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, there was plenty on that list to keep OBL plugging away at us for a good many years to come. Which is why the fuss over Iraq is almost comical. The suggestion gaining momentum at the moment is that our involvement in Iraq is at the root of our current woes. It's not. The problem existed long before Iraq. And the problem will continue to exist long after Iraq. And you would see that if you would just make a list.

[Redrocks]

My apologies if my answer was not clear enough. I will read the complaints spewed forth by OBL in his various writings, pronouncements, etc., and as I have consistently maintained, I am naive (and perhaps a bit ignorant), which allows me, I think to view all of this from a slightly different perspective than those who are immersed in it.

I never said that there is nothing we did directly to incite OBL's hatred and motivation to strike against all who disagree with or have harmed his views of the world. My point is that the list of grievances, even if they are legion in their number, nature, tenor, tone, etc., are relevant only to the extent that they place us on notice that there is someone or group of someones who disagree with various policies, theories, practices, ideologies, etc., that we have, and that, taken to extremes, those someones will take steps to harm us. It is not unlike the same lists that have been propogated throughout history by others, including McVeigh. What makes this one a bit unique is that he has possesses the intellect, skill, resources, and commitment to actually bring harm in mass numbers to citizens of the world (not just the US), and rather than deal with the problem, we seem to be reacting to it in ways that appear to me anyway to lend credibility to him and his proclamations and hatred for those he disagrees with.

Frankly, I don't really care much about his lists because I believe that there is little we can (or will) do to change many of the things he complains about -- that genie's been let out of the bottle so to speak, and it has been built up over decades of policy initiatives and coalitions built. I believe that even if we could, or would address every single one of his grievances, he would, and will find or create new ones that would replace the current list -- after all, as you say, it keeps expanding and is intended to wreak havoc on all who think, believe or act different than him and his followers. They don't want a little safe haven in the middle of the desert, they want more.

We created his animosity and anger not by individual or collective acts directed AT HIM, but by acting in our own interests outside of our borders in ways that we believe or hope are beneficial to us and to others in the world. It is not our historic nature to withdraw from the world community and cloister ourselves behind our own boundries. As such, we are not going to simply withdraw our activities from the world stage, not, do I think should we. As long as we have any strategic interest in the middle east or in dealing with a government (or people) of a country that he thinks we should avoid, he will take exception to our involvement and seek to strike against us. His views are not realistic or practical which makes him an impossible person to deal with or resolve the problem with. As such, he and those like him need either to be ignored (which does not seem reasonable or practical given their apparent size and strength), or dealt with directly, not indirectly.

What I do really care about is what we and the other nations he hates so much can and are doing to capture, punish and deter this (and other) group of terrorists. Unless, of course, you are telling me that there is nothing we can do (short of capitulating to his demands) that would deter these types of actions and bring peace to the world. If that is the case, then we need to be spending those billions of dollars being spent in Iraq in more productive investigative and defensive modes to take these folks out and protect our world from terrorists like him. I am not sure that offensive measures against middle eastern countries really helps solve this problem.

The struggles to even create a constitution in Iraq provides some insight into just how deep the divides are in this region of the world. Why we thought we could (or should) control this process with our military's involvement and whether the outcome will be much, if any better for the long term stability in the region (or safety for the world's citizens) is the question that needs to be explained by those supporting regime change and then debated in public arenas. How is this new three prong government protecting us or helping to protect us from the OBLs of the world?

Again, while it's an interesting question, perhaps, it's been answered by OBL himself. Why do it again here?

[TIES2]

My apologies if my answer was not clear enough. I will read the complaints spewed forth by OBL in his various writings, pronouncements, etc., and as I have consistently maintained, I am naive (and perhaps a bit ignorant), which allows me, I think to view all of this from a slightly different perspective than those who are immersed in it.

I never said that there is nothing we did directly to incite OBL's hatred and motivation to strike against all who disagree with or have harmed his views of the world. My point is that the list of grievances, even if they are legion in their number, nature, tenor, tone, etc., are relevant only to the extent that they place us on notice that there is someone or group of someones who disagree with various policies, theories, practices, ideologies, etc., that we have, and that, taken to extremes, those someones will take steps to harm us. It is not unlike the same lists that have been propogated throughout history by others, including McVeigh. What makes this one a bit unique is that he has possesses the intellect, skill, resources, and commitment to actually bring harm in mass numbers to citizens of the world (not just the US), and rather than deal with the problem, we seem to be reacting to it in ways that appear to me anyway to lend credibility to him and his proclamations and hatred for those he disagrees with.

I urged you to read his communications, in whatever form they may take, becuase he does state the problem(s) quite clearly. And his proclamations are not representative of his views alone, but of a large portion of the Muslim world, and, specifically, the Arab Muslim world. He is the spokesperson, if you will, with whom many Muslims and Arabs agree. Many, many more than the deranged few that the media consistently points to as the problem.

Frankly, I don't really care much about his lists because I believe that there is little we can (or will) do to change many of the things he complains about -- that genie's been let out of the bottle so to speak, and it has been built up over decades of policy initiatives and coalitions built. I believe that even if we could, or would address every single one of his grievances, he would, and will find or create new ones that would replace the current list -- after all, as you say, it keeps expanding and is intended to wreak havoc on all who think, believe or act different than him and his followers. They don't want a little safe haven in the middle of the desert, they want more.

I agree that when you look at the list there is little that we as a country are willing to change. For example, do you ever see the US abandoning support for Isreal? Even though, in many ways, the US stands alone in its support of Isreal. But I disagree that he will find new ways to hate us. Iraq and Afghanistan were added tot he list becuase they are consistent with already stated grievances. When you state the problem that way you reduce its relevancy. Really what I hear you saying is that the Muslim world will continue to find disfavor with us regardless of what we do, because the problem is not what we do, but who we are. And because the problem is who we are, it does not matter what we do.

We created his animosity and anger not by individual or collective acts directed AT HIM, but by acting in our own interests outside of our borders in ways that we believe or hope are beneficial to us and to others in the world. It is not our historic nature to withdraw from the world community and cloister ourselves behind our own boundries. As such, we are not going to simply withdraw our activities from the world stage, not, do I think should we. As long as we have any strategic interest in the middle east or in dealing with a government (or people) of a country that he thinks we should avoid, he will take exception to our involvement and seek to strike against us.

Hmmm, our foreign policy has been different at different times throughout the history of this country. Our forays beyond our borders are basically aligned with self-interest and aren't nearly as altruistic as perhaps the government would like us to believe. If altruism was our number one goal, why would we involve ourselves in some conflicts and not others? I believe that we act soley in our own interest at all times (I'm not saying that it's wrong, I think it's outside of the impression that most Americans have). So what is our strategic interest in the Middle East? Oil? Much has been said on this board and elsewhere about the need to finance research and development of alternative energy sources. I don't disagree, but at this juncture, time has been lost and we need to have reliable oil resources to meet our needs (I believe we are still the world's largest consumer of oil, though China could eclipse us soon). I also believe we need to weigh the environmental concerns against this country's dependcy on oil and move forward with tapping the oil reserves in the tundra. I guess the question in my mind, is the habitat of a few animals more precious than the stable habitat of millions and millions of humans? It's a balancing act.

His views are not realistic or practical which makes him an impossible person to deal with or resolve the problem with. As such, he and those like him need either to be ignored (which does not seem reasonable or practical given their apparent size and strength), or dealt with directly, not indirectly.

I agree that his views may not be practical or reasonable to us, but they are not only practical and reasonable, but just and 100% accurate to millions and millions and millions of Muslims worldwide. Given that, ignoring him is probably not our best solution nor in our best interest. Dealing with him head on is probably the way to go, since as you pointed out, we are unlikely to engage in a major seismic shift of policy. Yet, policy and prevailing attitudes at the moment also prevent us from dealing with the problem in a head-on manner. As I mentioned in some other post, we have the world's most lethal military, yet we are allowed to unleash only a portion of its fury. It's like having the fastest car in the world but being reduced to driving it at 15 mph. Some of this limitation is self imposed, much of it driven by the world community.


What I do really care about is what we and the other nations he hates so much can and are doing to capture, punish and deter this (and other) group of terrorists. Unless, of course, you are telling me that there is nothing we can do (short of capitulating to his demands) that would deter these types of actions and bring peace to the world. If that is the case, then we need to be spending those billions of dollars being spent in Iraq in more productive investigative and defensive modes to take these folks out and protect our world from terrorists like him. I am not sure that offensive measures against middle eastern countries really helps solve this problem.

The Muslim world has two enemies right now: Isreal and the United States. Striking out against other Western nations such as Spain, England, etc., is, at the moment, due to their support of the US. Do not forget that his declaration of war was aimed at the US and Isreal only.

The struggles to even create a constitution in Iraq provides some insight into just how deep the divides are in this region of the world. Why we thought we could (or should) control this process with our military's involvement and whether the outcome will be much, if any better for the long term stability in the region (or safety for the world's citizens) is the question that needs to be explained by those supporting regime change and then debated in public arenas. How is this new three prong government protecting us or helping to protect us from the OBLs of the world?

No one is as suprised at the developments in Iraq, as I am. I read yesterday in a Kurdistan paper that the Kurds are frothing at the mouth over the developments with regard to the new constitution. The Kurds supported Shari'a as part of the law, not the law. The way the constitution is shaping up it appears Shari'a will be the law, and that should be a concern not just to the Kurds, but the world. Furthermore, according to the article, the Kurds see this as a major slap in the face bythe US and completely inconsistent with the stated goals of the US. This begs the question, why the sudden departure from the plan? A government with Shari'a law at its core is not a democracy, even if the people get to participate in elections.

Again, while it's an interesting question, perhaps, it's been answered by OBL himself. Why do it again here?

I asked the question because among the many people who post here there is a large contingent opposed to the war, and who have been opposed to the war since the start. And that's mainly because they are opposed to war, regardless of circumstance, not because they have a handle on the problem (and please do not think I claim to have a handle on the problem because I don't). I do believe we spend too much time looking at the issue through our eyes only and that it would be time well spent to look at the problem through the eyes of our enemy. Posing the question was my way of learning how people really think.

[Redrocks]

I agree that his views may not be practical or reasonable to us, but they are not only practical and reasonable, but just and 100% accurate to millions and millions and millions of Muslims worldwide. Given that, ignoring him is probably not our best solution nor in our best interest. Dealing with him head on is probably the way to go, since as you pointed out, we are unlikely to engage in a major seismic shift of policy. Yet, policy and prevailing attitudes at the moment also prevent us from dealing with the problem in a head-on manner. As I mentioned in some other post, we have the world's most lethal military, yet we are allowed to unleash only a portion of its fury. It's like having the fastest car in the world but being reduced to driving it at 15 mph. Some of this limitation is self imposed, much of it driven by the world community.

I disagree with this strategy. It has been burned into my head so many times that you don't negotiate with terrorists; you capture them, convict them, and if necessary, kill them to protect us from them. Of course we have gone against that mantra many times when it is expedient or useful to us, and usually, I would argue, disastrous results. As I understand it, you don’t negotiate or accept their demands simply because their demands are, almost by definition unreasonable and unable to be met satisfactorily to either side. That's why they have resorted to terrorists acts. We have to locate him and take him out. Period. We also need to do it with others who support him (which, I remind you, there is little evidence Iraq did). That's why it's a police action, not a war. I believe that after 9/11, the world community was hugely in our camp aligned against terror and almost to the country would have helped and assisted (both monetarily and with personnel) in our efforts to hunt the terrorist down and punish them. I believe (with no real basis for my belief except that I can say it on a bulletin board like this and only be called to task by friendly foes) that if this Administration would come out and publicly refocus our war on terrorism efforts to be more in line with what I am advancing, that we would have at least a chance to regain much of that lost world support.

I am not anti-war per se. We have developed and paid for the best military in the world and we should never be affraid to call upon it to protect us (or even to advance our interests as a nation) But, and this is a big but in my mind. If you use military action, you must have a legitimate reason that has been fully vetted in our democratic processes, or you use it in defense of our country against agressive action taken against us. The war in Iraq does not pass either of my personal tests.

The Muslim world has two enemies right now: Isreal and the United States. Striking out against other Western nations such as Spain, England, etc., is, at the moment, due to their support of the US. Do not forget that his declaration of war was aimed at the US and Isreal only.

I don't think it's either fair or appropriate to lump the entire Muslim world into this statement. For two reasons. First, we are not the only western world worthy of such hatred, if the hatred is engendered based on foreign and corporate policies in the Middle East. We are simply the ones who invaded Iraq with our loose "coalition" of support. If indeed we are the only western power subject to the hatred, then I would propose that it is evidence of my point that we can never deal with these types of terrorists head on, because the other Western powers would be next, until all of us had capitulated to their demands. The second reason your statement is unfair is that these are not ALL Muslims in the world allied against us; it is a bunch of radicals who base their radical positions on their own definition of the Muslim religion.

The way the constitution is shaping up it appears Shari'a will be the law, and that should be a concern not just to the Kurds, but the world. Furthermore, according to the article, the Kurds see this as a major slap in the face bythe US and completely inconsistent with the stated goals of the US. This begs the question, why the sudden departure from the plan? A government with Shari'a law at its core is not a democracy, even if the people get to participate in elections.

Yep. Kind of begs another question. What the heck are we doing over there if our efforts to "spread democracy" and its core freedoms to the masses in Iraq leads to a government based upon a constitution that denies most of what we consider to be "core" and "fundamental" freedoms? Perhaps the neo cons can go back into their think tanks, plug in the "history telling" result and come back with a new and revised strategy. One thing I am relatively certain of -- there will be another terrorist attack on our soil so the neo cons will then have more opportunity to pander to our fears and implement the new revised Middle Eastern strategies they dream up, but are never really forced to debate in the light of day.

Am I pessimistic? You bet. Am I scared about our future? Yep, even more than my pessimism. What caused this in me? Simple. We have leadership that is both unable and unwilling to actually talk to me as an American citizen about what the hell they want to accomplish with this war, the real plan of action (if it exists), measurable and determinable results and accomplishments that I can hold them accountable to, and perhaps even more important, a real discussion about if, how, and when, their strategy will help our country protect itself against or deal with the radical terrorists that are committed to attacking us. And don't tell me that the fact we have not been the victim of an attack means that the war is working as planned. That's hogwash and I think you know it, even if DSK does not want to see or admit it. They are out there, growing stronger and waiting to see what they can do next.

Here's a radical thought. What if the real strategy of OBL was to take a significant action like 9/11 that would cause us as a nation to overreact (and thinking like the apparently brillant mind he is), knowing that the neo cons in power would use the event to implement their previously published middle east initiatives by invading Iraq (or another sovereign nation), causing more fear and paranoia in the Middle East (i.e. more converts to his radicalism) and costing us 1 TRILLION dollars that could have been put to more economically productive uses than replacing a government with one that might ultimately be worse. Wow, that's a lot of bang out of the lives tragically lost on 9/11. I suspect (and fear) that if we don't find him and his leadership (the new ones now, not the old ones), that we will suffer another relatively large loss of life at a time in the future that is designed to create another overreaction and justification for even more military action and expenditure of money. Didn't we cause the former Soviet Union to spend itself out of existence by creating fear in them, causing them to spend money they did not have on military arms to protect themselves against us? I would argue that there are some striking similarities. No, not from an intellectual level, but from a "gut" level which I seem to be so good at sharing with this board. How many more trillions of dollars can we afford to spend fighting OBL tangentally, rather than directly? Perhaps we will find out?

[Redrocks]

See, here's what I'm talking about with regard to framing and how we can't get a decent discussion or analysis flowing from the administration. At a news conference today, President Bush made the following statement:

"I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake," he said. "I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050823/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AnXwIeLkcjZh20pk2Jdmdpcb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMz BHNlYwM3MDM-

I chose this quote not because I necessarily disagree with it because I too think it would be a mistake to immediately withdraw from Iraq and leave the power vacume that we created. It's the second part of this statement I don't understand because it states the obvious but does not really advance a tenable position for anyone to actually question or talk about. Who is advocating a policy of immediate withdrawal from NOT ONLY IRAQ BUT FROM THE MIDDLE EAST? That's what OBL wants, but I have never seen a credible administration critic ask for immediate withdrawal from the Middle East. Is that what Cindy Sheehan wants? That's not what I've heard, but I could be wrong.

That's how the adinistration takes a topic -- whether we should withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible and signal that shift in policy (and perhaps renew our focus on the terrorists who attacked us) and spins it to something completely idiotic that almost everyone would agree with. How can we debate the tough points -- the timeline and terms for withdrawal form IRAQ if we have our President making completely off the wall statements that draw little objection but that don't even begin to address the actual question or stimulate the discussion? Head in sand, head in sand, spin, spin, head in sand. Aargh!

[Mr.Outside]

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. We bombed the Japanese.

So this logic does apply to us invading Afghanistan, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Iraq. At least at the time we originally invaded.

[TIES2]

I disagree with this strategy. It has been burned into my head so many times that you don't negotiate with terrorists; you capture them, convict them, and if necessary, kill them to protect us from them. Of course we have gone against that mantra many times when it is expedient or useful to us, and usually, I would argue, disastrous results. As I understand it, you don’t negotiate or accept their demands simply because their demands are, almost by definition unreasonable and unable to be met satisfactorily to either side. That's why they have resorted to terrorists acts. We have to locate him and take him out. Period. We also need to do it with others who support him (which, I remind you, there is little evidence Iraq did). That's why it's a police action, not a war. I believe that after 9/11, the world community was hugely in our camp aligned against terror and almost to the country would have helped and assisted (both monetarily and with personnel) in our efforts to hunt the terrorist down and punish them. I believe (with no real basis for my belief except that I can say it on a bulletin board like this and only be called to task by friendly foes) that if this Administration would come out and publicly refocus our war on terrorism efforts to be more in line with what I am advancing, that we would have at least a chance to regain much of that lost world support.


By saying "dealing with him head on," I was not referring to a friendly chat over a latte at Starbucks. I think we should have unleashed the full fury of our military might on Afghanistan within days, not weeks, of 9/11 and we should have leveled the place. Furthermore, we should have acted alone. Afterall, it was the US that was attacked, not England, not France, not Germany. If ever there was a defensible reason for going it alone, this was it. Instead we dithered around doing the coalition building thing, even though not all our purported allies agreed with us. In the end, we lost precious time. When we finally did engage we did so with barely any troops and we hardly unleashed the might of our military. Why? Probably because it would not play well at the polls, both domestically and abroad. We wanted to exact retribution, but not at the cost of US lives. And you can't singularly blame this administration alone.

I also disagree with your "police action" theory. Since 9/11, the US and other Western nations have thwarted many attacks, arrested many individuals with known ties to terrorist groups, disrupted key financial channels, etc., yet it is almost universally agreed that we are no safer today than on the morning of 9/11. Clearly, police action is not working either.
Mailnly because I do not think it's possible to make the world a safer place one arrest at a time.


I don't think it's either fair or appropriate to lump the entire Muslim world into this statement. For two reasons. First, we are not the only western world worthy of such hatred, if the hatred is engendered based on foreign and corporate policies in the Middle East. We are simply the ones who invaded Iraq with our loose "coalition" of support. If indeed we are the only western power subject to the hatred, then I would propose that it is evidence of my point that we can never deal with these types of terrorists head on, because the other Western powers would be next, until all of us had capitulated to their demands. The second reason your statement is unfair is that these are not ALL Muslims in the world allied against us; it is a bunch of radicals who base their radical positions on their own definition of the Muslim religion.

I think your first sentence is indicative of why we are making no headway in this war on terror. It is not only fair, it is also appropriate. Within the Muslim Arab community, unfavorable views of Isreal runs an astonishing 99% (Pew Research). Unfavorable views of the US runs in the teens (Pew Research). That translates to 80-90% of the Muslim population holding unfavorable views of the US, largely based on the same positions stated by OBL.

And while I agree that we may not be the only Western nation worthy of such hatred, that's not the case. Clearly from a Western mind-set, former colony builders England and France sould be equally shunned, but they're not. Why is that? I don't presume to know all the reasons, but one reason may be that the US alone, among Western nations, tends to side with and support Isreal 100% (I'm not, by the way, in any way saying we should or should not do this, I'm just stating a fact).

And support for Isreal is not popular among Muslims. You need look no further than this board to see that there are those who are as far removed from terrorism as could be, yet steadfastly support the Palestinian position and, therefore, also give the US low marks in this area. (I'm not making any judgements here, either)

Finally, I think you are dead wrong in attributing the problem to a deranged few. I understand that this is perhaps the prevailing attitude, but, I believe, such an attitude will find us having this debate for years to come with no apparent end in sight, not to mention the gnashing and gnawing that will result when more attacks occur and the whole situation grows more dire (as it is right now). I think it's a gross miscalculation on the part of our entire government, conservative, liberal or in between. Think about it. If it was truly just the actions of a deranged few, and if such actions are in opposition to prevailing Muslim attitudes and Islamic teaching, don't you think the Muslim community would have turned over the bad guys by now?



Yep. Kind of begs another question. What the heck are we doing over there if our efforts to "spread democracy" and its core freedoms to the masses in Iraq leads to a government based upon a constitution that denies most of what we consider to be "core" and "fundamental" freedoms? Perhaps the neo cons can go back into their think tanks, plug in the "history telling" result and come back with a new and revised strategy. One thing I am relatively certain of -- there will be another terrorist attack on our soil so the neo cons will then have more opportunity to pander to our fears and implement the new revised Middle Eastern strategies they dream up, but are never really forced to debate in the light of day.


I agree it begs the question, "What were they thinking." You're keen on the neo-con theory, so what is it about the neo-cons, in general, and more specifically, the ones currently surrounding the president, that would make removal of Saddam a national imperative? Who are these neo-cons? Can you name them? And what do they have in common?

Am I pessimistic? You bet. Am I scared about our future? Yep, even more than my pessimism. What caused this in me? Simple. We have leadership that is both unable and unwilling to actually talk to me as an American citizen about what the hell they want to accomplish with this war, the real plan of action (if it exists), measurable and determinable results and accomplishments that I can hold them accountable to, and perhaps even more important, a real discussion about if, how, and when, their strategy will help our country protect itself against or deal with the radical terrorists that are committed to attacking us. And don't tell me that the fact we have not been the victim of an attack means that the war is working as planned. That's hogwash and I think you know it, even if DSK does not want to see or admit it. They are out there, growing stronger and waiting to see what they can do next.

I agree with you on this, too, but not entirely. I do think another attack will occur, and sooner rather than later. And that it will be as or more magnificent than 9/11 in terms of its scope and the number of casualties. I think that it will happen because we are not paying attention to what the enemy is saying, hence we are incapable of formultaing a workable plan. Heck, I don't even think we're sure who the enemy is, other than perhaps just a few misguided terrorists. And you'd think if it was truly just a few misguided and deranged individuals, they's be dead or behind bars by now.

Truthfully, I think we still do not understand the problem (and I'm not suggesting by any means that I do). Nor do I think we would be faring any better right now under different leadership. I have yet to hear or read anything to suggest that any of our officials in Washington (liberal, conservative, whatever) have a complete grasp on the issues we're facing.

Here's a radical thought. What if the real strategy of OBL was to take a significant action like 9/11 that would cause us as a nation to overreact (and thinking like the apparently brillant mind he is), knowing that the neo cons in power would use the event to implement their previously published middle east initiatives by invading Iraq (or another sovereign nation), causing more fear and paranoia in the Middle East (i.e. more converts to his radicalism) and costing us 1 TRILLION dollars that could have been put to more economically productive uses than replacing a government with one that might ultimately be worse. Wow, that's a lot of bang out of the lives tragically lost on 9/11. I suspect (and fear) that if we don't find him and his leadership (the new ones now, not the old ones), that we will suffer another relatively large loss of life at a time in the future that is designed to create another overreaction and justification for even more military action and expenditure of money. Didn't we cause the former Soviet Union to spend itself out of existence by creating fear in them, causing them to spend money they did not have on military arms to protect themselves against us? I would argue that there are some striking similarities. No, not from an intellectual level, but from a "gut" level which I seem to be so good at sharing with this board. How many more trillions of dollars can we afford to spend fighting OBL tangentally, rather than directly? Perhaps we will find out?

Probably not far fetched. Who knows, it may even be true. But let's just hope the next time we have to pull out the big guns, we use them as a means to forge a lasting solution. 'Cause right now, I think the enemy sees us as being a bit wimpy...or perhaps too polite to exact a victory. But whatever they perceive as our shortcomings, it's certainly playing to their favor.

[TIES2]

See, here's what I'm talking about with regard to framing and how we can't get a decent discussion or analysis flowing from the administration. At a news conference today, President Bush made the following statement:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050823/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AnXwIeLkcjZh20pk2Jdmdpcb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMz BHNlYwM3MDM-

I chose this quote not because I necessarily disagree with it because I too think it would be a mistake to immediately withdraw from Iraq and leave the power vacume that we created. It's the second part of this statement I don't understand because it states the obvious but does not really advance a tenable position for anyone to actually question or talk about. Who is advocating a policy of immediate withdrawal from NOT ONLY IRAQ BUT FROM THE MIDDLE EAST? That's what OBL wants, but I have never seen a credible administration critic ask for immediate withdrawal from the Middle East. Is that what Cindy Sheehan wants? That's not what I've heard, but I could be wrong.

That's how the adinistration takes a topic -- whether we should withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible and signal that shift in policy (and perhaps renew our focus on the terrorists who attacked us) and spins it to something completely idiotic that almost everyone would agree with. How can we debate the tough points -- the timeline and terms for withdrawal form IRAQ if we have our President making completely off the wall statements that draw little objection but that don't even begin to address the actual question or stimulate the discussion? Head in sand, head in sand, spin, spin, head in sand. Aargh!

The call for abandoning the Middle East is gaining support...mostly among liberal camps including those who fronted Cindy Sheehan....but as you so eloquently pointed out in an earlier post that would be pure capitulation and as the President pointed out, not likely to happen any time soon. And, by the way, it's not up to us to debtae the timeline and terms for withdrawal from Iraq. I think the administration clearly knows it needs to head for the exit, unfortunately it may be shooting itself in the foot in its haste to get there. Perhaps it was the intent all along, but to let the new Iraqi constitution stand with shari'a law as the law of the land, effectively making it an Islamic state, is mind boggling. Perhaps the hope is that it won't be ratified...who knows...I recall reading it needed to be brought to closure by "X" date or it would jeapordize ratification of it later this year, thereby really throwing off the timetables, however arbitrary they may be. But, again, I think there's far more to this story than has been reported.

But maybe the results are not that surprising...One would think an Islamic state based on Shari'a law would be a significant win from Bin Laden's vantage point and, perhaps, quell the insurgency (or at a minimum, not escalate matters). Perhaps it's being engineered that way for a reason. If the perception is that the situation is improving in Iraq than the furor at home will quiet down as well. Again, perhaps there's more to going on than meets the eye.


Truthfully, I don't really have a clue. All I know is what I read. The rest is just pure speculation on my part. I'm just trying to make sense of what seems a disasterous decision, with long term consequences, none of which I would describe as good.

Here's another one for you. I read in one of the foreign newspapers that Saddam's son was planning a coup that was to have occurred around the same time we invaded Iraq. I have no idea as to the authenticity of the claim (I could not seem to find any other news reference on the topic), but it's yet another angle and perhaps even a plausible one. Who know!

[Redrocks]

By saying "dealing with him head on," I was not referring to a friendly chat over a latte at Starbucks. I think we should have unleashed the full fury of our military might on Afghanistan within days, not weeks, of 9/11 and we should have leveled the place. Furthermore, we should have acted alone. Afterall, it was the US that was attacked, not England, not France, not Germany. If ever there was a defensible reason for going it alone, this was it. Instead we dithered around doing the coalition building thing, even though not all our purported allies agreed with us. In the end, we lost precious time. When we finally did engage we did so with barely any troops and we hardly unleashed the might of our military.

I agree with everything you say. Gads, did I say that. I also believe that many of the so called liberals on this board and throughout the country would feel the same. After all, that is the action that had almost universal support and the action that seems now to be almost universally ignored.

Why? Probably because it would not play well at the polls, both domestically and abroad. We wanted to exact retribution, but not at the cost of US lives. And you can't singularly blame this administration alone.

I disagree with you on this one and I can't believe that you really think it either. My opinion is that we were dithering around tring to formulat our policies for dragging Iraq into this thing and that distracted the real experts (i.e. those tenured governmental employees, intelligence officers (who were silenced by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) and military officers with a history of dealing with OBL) from being heard and from acting upon their advice and strategy. Unlike you, I don't think it was because we were afraid of international repurcussion or polls of Americans (after all this administration has shown time and again that it does not care about international sentiment or the feelings of the majority of Americans). Rather, I speculate that we purposefully dithered and delayed so that the administration could buttress its case FOR invasion of Iraq. It buttressed its case not to the international community, although that was quite show it staged for months, but rather for the benefit of our own Congress and the majority of americans who while they may be moderately conservative and immensely proud, are not supporters of the neo-con initiatives in the abstract. No, if we had exacted retribution swiftly and taken out OBL (and anyone who harbored or protected him) that quickly the administration could not have successfully used 9/11 to instill the fear required in Americans to support the invasion of Iraq.

I also disagree with your "police action" theory. Since 9/11, the US and other Western nations have thwarted many attacks, arrested many individuals with known ties to terrorist groups, disrupted key financial channels, etc., yet it is almost universally agreed that we are no safer today than on the morning of 9/11. Clearly, police action is not working either.
Mailnly because I do not think it's possible to make the world a safer place one arrest at a time.

I would argue that we do not have a sufficient amount of evidence to say that it can't work, and, I'm not opposed to using our military might to take the action. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. Let's put that money to better use with direct spending going after these folks and quit "dithering around" in Iraq. Go get the bastards first and then let's see if it works as a deterent or makes us safer. Clearly not all these folks are suicide bombers -- there's some real thinkers and strategists in that organization too.

Finally, I think you are dead wrong in attributing the problem to a deranged few. I understand that this is perhaps the prevailing attitude, but, I believe, such an attitude will find us having this debate for years to come with no apparent end in sight, not to mention the gnashing and gnawing that will result when more attacks occur and the whole situation grows more dire (as it is right now). I think it's a gross miscalculation on the part of our entire government, conservative, liberal or in between. Think about it. If it was truly just the actions of a deranged few, and if such actions are in opposition to prevailing Muslim attitudes and Islamic teaching, don't you think the Muslim community would have turned over the bad guys by now?

You may be right, conspiracy theorists and really bright and thougtful people might see the work of other more moderate middle eastern governments at work here in the background as well. I'm not talking about the rogue middle eastern states, but the allegedly more moderate ones. After all, did I not hear recently that Clinton overruled a cruise missle strike against OBL in Afghanistan because OBL was meeting at that time with representatives of the Saudi government (or royal family)? I'm not sure which. If you are right, we are in really BIG trouble, because the whole problem IS significantly bigger, vaster and significantly more dangerous than my simple deranged but brillant terrorist theory. Now, I am really getting scared, and the direction Irag is going ain't making me feel any better or more secure.

I agree it begs the question, "What were they thinking." You're keen on the neo-con theory, so what is it about the neo-cons, in general, and more specifically, the ones currently surrounding the president, that would make removal of Saddam a national imperative? Who are these neo-cons? Can you name them? And what do they have in common?

I'm not completely well versed in this stuff because I run out of time in my day to research and sort through it all. I prefer to shoot from the hip with a stream of consciousness based upon my collective memory and reasonings. A bit crude and certainly a method that opens me up to attack for naivete and ignorance from time to time, but it does keep me on my toes. Anyway, to answer your question, let's start with "The Project for a New American Century" and a "Letter to President Clinton on Iraq" It's dated January 26, 1998 and available for review here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

It's signed by a multitide of well known neocons including:

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Note that there are several folks who hold high ranking positions in the current administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and Paul Wolfowitz. I am sure that some of the other names have an active role in the administration, although I am not sure. The cite is a historical treasure trove of neocon thinking on many things, including middle east policy.

I suspect there are many more, and I am not sure how many you want me to list. But, frankly, I've seen enough to feel as strongly as I do, which is why I am so "keen on the neo-con theory" There's enough empirical evidence to, in my mind, prove it, as a lawyer would say, beyond a reasonable doubt. Apparently, I like howling in the wind though cause it's not getting much traction, here, or anywhere else.

Truthfully, I think we still do not understand the problem (and I'm not suggesting by any means that I do). Nor do I think we would be faring any better right now under different leadership. I have yet to hear or read anything to suggest that any of our officials in Washington (liberal, conservative, whatever) have a complete grasp on the issues we're facing.

Sadly, I believe you are correct in this, primarily, because the abyss that we are sinking into in Iraq is a area that most of us have no ability to comprehend, let alone plan for or perhaps, even react to. The problems are exceptionally complex, intertwined, and arise from decades, centuries, and perhaps milennia of history that our rather short lived republic has very little ability to understand or interact with. Certainly the neocon leaders in this administration who do not seek help from those who differ in view from them ARE NOT ASKING FOR HELP. Which begs another question, why pick a fight in a region of the world that this administration seems to understand so little about?

[TIES2]

I'm not completely well versed in this stuff because I run out of time in my day to research and sort through it all. I prefer to shoot from the hip with a stream of consciousness based upon my collective memory and reasonings. A bit crude and certainly a method that opens me up to attack for naivete and ignorance from time to time, but it does keep me on my toes. Anyway, to answer your question, let's start with "The Project for a New American Century" and a "Letter to President Clinton on Iraq" It's dated January 26, 1998 and available for review here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

It's signed by a multitide of well known neocons including:

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Note that there are several folks who hold high ranking positions in the current administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and Paul Wolfowitz

I was trying to lead you down a path...your last sentence above comes close...but you need to add a few more names among the high-rankers in the administration and then ask yourself again what the common thread is....the answer sheds Iraq in an entriely new light. And, yes, I'm being obtuse, but for a reason.

[TIES2]

I disagree with you on this one and I can't believe that you really think it either. My opinion is that we were dithering around tring to formulat our policies for dragging Iraq into this thing and that distracted the real experts (i.e. those tenured governmental employees, intelligence officers (who were silenced by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) and military officers with a history of dealing with OBL) from being heard and from acting upon their advice and strategy. Unlike you, I don't think it was because we were afraid of international repurcussion or polls of Americans (after all this administration has shown time and again that it does not care about international sentiment or the feelings of the majority of Americans). Rather, I speculate that we purposefully dithered and delayed so that the administration could buttress its case FOR invasion of Iraq. It buttressed its case not to the international community, although that was quite show it staged for months, but rather for the benefit of our own Congress and the majority of americans who while they may be moderately conservative and immensely proud, are not supporters of the neo-con initiatives in the abstract. No, if we had exacted retribution swiftly and taken out OBL (and anyone who harbored or protected him) that quickly the administration could not have successfully used 9/11 to instill the fear required in Americans to support the invasion of Iraq.

My view of Clinton is that he consulted his mirror as often as his advisors. He was definitely a man concerned about how his actions would play in Peoria. I think it's the reason he only lobbed a few missiles in OBLs general direction. I definitely think our politicians, in general, are driven by this. it was, and still is, one of the things I find most appealing about GWB -- he just doesn't seem to care what the polls say (which is probably, at this juncture, a good thing!).

As for the populace, I don't think Americans are anywhere near as tough as we think we are...we've gone soft....we can't handle the going when it gets tough...it's no longer part of our make-up. Take your average American and tell them we can catch OBL and bring his head to GWB on a silver platter, but, it's going to cost us. It will cost at least 15,000 lives; $6.00 a gallon gas, restrictions on foreign imports and just about double-prices for all other essential goods and services (food, electricity, etc.) and that it will stay this way for at least a year, if not longer. The collective howl would be deafening. I say this because we've become the ultimate entitlement society brought on by a severe case of affluenza.

[Redrocks]

I was trying to lead you down a path...your last sentence above comes close...but you need to add a few more names among the high-rankers in the administration and then ask yourself again what the common thread is....the answer sheds Iraq in an entriely new light. And, yes, I'm being obtuse, but for a reason.

TIES, I am sorry, but I can't play this game. I'm better off when you simple make a point or analogy, present an analysis, give me an opinion and move on. I'm not a politician and I can't for the life of me understand them, on either side of the equation. Go back a few years and read some postings of mine surrounding politics and you will find a lost soul who clearly does not understand the game or how it is played. I don't have your knowledge or history regarding these folks so need some help with that.

I do know what I believe, and I believe that these guys that I listed have a definate secondary agenda regarding Iraq that does not and has never involved OBL and terror and that they have never really put it out there for us to talk about and understand -- where's the town hall meetings on middle east policy? Help me out here. Don't be obtuse -- Don't try to trap me into something. Just tell me what you mean or think.

[Redrocks]

My view of Clinton is that he consulted his mirror as often as his advisors. He was definitely a man concerned about how his actions would play in Peoria. I think it's the reason he only lobbed a few missiles in OBLs general direction. I definitely think our politicians, in general, are driven by this. it was, and still is, one of the things I find most appealing about GWB -- he just doesn't seem to care what the polls say (which is probably, at this juncture, a good thing!).

As for the populace, I don't think Americans are anywhere near as tough as we think we are...we've gone soft....we can't handle the going when it gets tough...it's no longer part of our make-up. Take your average American and tell them we can catch OBL and bring his head to GWB on a silver platter, but, it's going to cost us. It will cost at least 15,000 lives; $6.00 a gallon gas, restrictions on foreign imports and just about double-prices for all other essential goods and services (food, electricity, etc.) and that it will stay this way for at least a year, if not longer. The collective howl would be deafening. I say this because we've become the ultimate entitlement society brought on by a severe case of affluenza.

I don't have a problem with consulting your mirror or worrying about how things play in Peoria. In fact, if you get the tenor and tone of my entire theme it's that our current leadership is leading by obscuring their intentions and plans and by keeping the american population in the dark about what they want to do, WHY they want to do it, what the real costs are, and what the real possible outcomes might be. As I have told my local elected officials here in Colorado, that's not leadership at all, at least not in a democracy.

I also disagree with you on your second point about Americans going soft -- and perhaps that may be the biggest difference in our politics. You see, I define leadership as being willing to present those hard questions you pose, contrast them with the goal sought to be achieved, present the plan of action to be pursued, and then actually find out what the nation wants to do -- through our elected officials if you want since that's the way we do things in this country. I have a bit more faith in the strength of this nation and its citizens. I BELIEVE in our ability to come together as a nation to do what is in the best interest of our nation, and I believe that we proved that after 9/11 when there was almost unaimous support for going into Afghanistan after OBL -- at whatever cost. In fact, that's when and why many of our current crop of soldiers signed up -- to fight terror and go get OBL. At least that's what my local paper's "profiles" of the lost soldiers reports to me.

I have no idea where you get your numbers or if they are realistic. I also am not sure how my fellow Americans would react to your numbers because NO ONE has ever asked or presented them to me. I actually have a bit more faith than you. I also think that it would require our country to assess their own fears and to place them in contrast with their other fears surrounding economic gains or losses versus potential loss of american lives, including their own. Now that's a risk-reward analysis that I would actually like this country to become engaged in.

I suspect that you would find that we as a nation really are willing to accept the risk of terrorists attacks as long as our economic standard of living was not impacted too much, and I think that is really what you are saying when you say we have gone soft. You think we should not make that decision, that we should make the hard choices, pay the high prices (both in lives and in our wallets) to achieve those outcomes. I think the current administration thinks that too. I don't, and it's not because I've gone soft or am affraid to lose my money or quality of life. Rather, it's because no one has shown me how paying those prices will make ME OR MY FELLOW AMERICANS any safer or make my (or their) life any better once we have paid them -- that's the hard sell in this country and it takes real leadership to make the pitch AND accept the outcome (even if the outcome is different than what you believe or think). See, I think that is my fundamental gripe with this administration and the neo-con movement. They are so end-game oriented that they really don't seem to give a what I or the majority of americans believe. They simply do what they want and then frame it to either sell it or justify it to us -- even if the outcome is bad or wrong. I think it's the willingness to accept the fact that you don't have all of the answers and may occasionally be wrong that is also the hallmark of a true leader.

You raise and interesting question -- if the government can't really protect me 100% (i.e. it can't guarantee my safety), at what point do the costs become too great in its effort to try? While a primary function of government is to protect its citizens from those trying to harm them, I believe that even you have to concede government is not expected to, and cannot absoluetely guarantee our safety. If it cannot guarantee our safety, then it is relevant to the decision to discuss and to decide at what point the costs that are or will be incurred to do so become too onerous to bear, and at what point do we simply need to accept those risks and get on with our lives, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The longer we put off these discussions, the harder it is for us to address them, accept the outcome (whatever they may be) and move on.

Before you dismiss my point as something irrational, I would ask you to consider if we have already had these types of discussions in our public and private lives with regard to domestic governance issues -- Everyday, we recognize that there is not enough money to put a policeman on every corner (even if Clinton wanted to do so -- great frame, by the way), a fire station in every block, or so overly restrict the manufacture and sale of certain beneficial products because there are risks associated with the use of those products. I don't think we've had that national debate on the issue of terrorism, although what you are seeing now may in fact be the start of it.

I am not sure where you fall out on that question, but I am starting to feel and to believe personally that this administration has reached the tipping point on this one. Our country would not support the efforts you outline because the costs that you present are not rationale and do not make sense -- because the outcome of the effort does not produce the necessary reward -- safety guaranteed. Think of it another way. If you were to tell americans that for the prices you list they would be guaranteed to NEVER suffer another terrorist attack anywhere in this country (taking away the randomness), I believe that we would be willing to pay those prices -- because it would alleviate these gnawing fears. So, I don't consider our country to be soft if it fails or refuses to make the decision to pursue OBL at the costs you outline. I don't think we are soft at all. As a nation, we have simply learned the basic tenets of capitalism all too well -- risk/reward, supply/demand. What I think you are seeing now is a backlash against the government choosing to impose its own outcome and reward analysis on us without fully explaining the benefits or the costs of the plan and expecting that we will simply "trust" them to do what's right by us

[TIES2]

We're soft and entitlement driven. Especially where our wallets are concerned, but, in fact, we're soft with regard to any inconvenience or hardship. We no longer live in a do without society. Psychologically we may have pulled together after 9/11, and sure, we emptied our wallets in support of victims, but like the sports fan watching his favorite team, as soon as the ball is intercepted or a touchdown pass thrown incomplete, we're ready to fire the coach or replace the quarterback. We have lost our ability to be patient. We want supersized, instant results. We whine and complain about everything. Some of this is promulgated by the media, who over scrutinize every little thing and some is just a result of our affluenza. The end result is a crop of leaders, also schooled in this entitlement mentality, who can't or won't make the hard decisions because it won't sell in Peoria. And the reason it won't sell has nothing to do with whether it the right or wrong thing to do, but whether the American people will tolerate the higher prices or the incovenience or the whatever.