Kerry: US troops are terrorists

[luchog]

Which is one of the reasons I supported the Iraq war. However, it hasn't worked out as good as I was hoping it would.

Hey, don't let it be said that I won't admit I was wrong.

I think it's going to take rather more time before that judgement can be made one way or the other. It's just too soon to call right now.

This isn't something that's going to be sorted out in a few years. I admit, I don't like the way that's it's being run, and there have been some serious screw-ups by the powers-that-be; but the situation is hardly the insoluble quagmire that the BUSHITLER!!one! types want to paint is as. Having a substantial number of friends and aquaintances in the military who are serving, or have recently served, in Iraq helps me get a somewhat different picture of "life on the street" compared to what is commonly bandied about by the mainstream and "alternative" news sources.

 

[Freakshow]

I think it's going to take rather more time before that judgement can be made one way or the other. It's just too soon to call right now.

This isn't something that's going to be sorted out in a few years. I admit, I don't like the way that's it's being run, and there have been some serious screw-ups by the powers-that-be; but the situation is hardly the insoluble quagmire that the BUSHITLER!!one! types want to paint is as. Having a substantial number of friends and aquaintances in the military who are serving, or have recently served, in Iraq helps me get a somewhat different picture of "life on the street" compared to what is commonly bandied about by the mainstream and "alternative" news sources.

Oh, I also have stated on this board that I think it is too soon to declare success or failure. It will take more time. It is just taking more time, money, and lives (listed in no particular order) than I expected/hoped it would.

 

[Mark]

Oh, I also have stated on this board that I think it is too soon to declare success or failure. It will take more time. It is just taking more time, money, and lives (listed in no particular order) than I expected/hoped it would.

How much longer? Viet Nam was 15 years and 59,000 dead Americans soldiers. Do we wait that long?

Serious question.

 

[Freakshow]

How much longer? Viet Nam was 15 years and 59,000 dead Americans soldiers. Do we wait that long?

Serious question.

Any estimates by anyone are nothing more than guesses, no matter what the person making the guess wants to claim.

My guess: another 3 to 5 years.

Vietnam was different, because we never overthrew the government in question. At this point in the Vietnam war, we were still fighting the main war, with us in the south and the communists in the north. The situation in Iraq is not seeing near the rate of conflict and casualties as we were in Vietnam.

 

[RandFan]

Vietnam was different, because we never overthrew the government in question.

Valid point. Success will be determined if there is no civil war and the government stabilizes and insurgent activity decreases after we leave. That seems like a reasonable benchmark to me. Of course nothing will satisfy some. They know our efforts are a failure so why bother setting a benchmark.

 

[Mark]

Any estimates by anyone are nothing more than guesses, no matter what the person making the guess wants to claim.

My guess: another 3 to 5 years.

Vietnam was different, because we never overthrew the government in question. At this point in the Vietnam war, we were still fighting the main war, with us in the south and the communists in the north. The situation in Iraq is not seeing near the rate of conflict and casualties as we were in Vietnam.

As far as I can tell, at this point Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. And is that 3-5 years from now, or are you including the years we have already been there?

Randfan

Valid point. Success will be determined if there is no civil war and the government stabilizes and insurgent activity decreases after we leave. That seems like a reasonable benchmark to me. Of course nothing will satisfy some. They know our efforts are a failure so why bother setting a benchmark.

Iraqi's are already fighting Iraqis...when does that become a civil war, in your view? The "insurgent activity" is still increasing. How do you define "success?" Seems to me nothing will ever be bad enough for some to admit this war isn't working.

Until a Democrat gets in the oval office, maybe?

 

[Jocko]

Onus this.

Oh, so it's gonna be one of those conversations, is it? Okay, suit yourself, junior.

One exception held up as an example is not safely considered to be precedent on your side.

Er, since it's the only comparable situation on record, I rather think it is a precedent and obviously a good one, otherwise you'd come up with a counterexample.

You may have noticed that the US has troops on the ground in Iraq. And Afghanistan. And had troops on the ground in Grenada and Panama and Bosnia.

And you may have noticed that dusting a nuclear site was an objective in none of those situations. See, that's the thing about precedents, Bob, they have to somehow relate to the subject at hand.

Oops - I did leave out 'necessarily' - that is a longer word and I was typing fast - so feel free to insert 'necessarily' as often as you like.

Sure, it's incumbent on you to necessarily come up with a better example before trying to summarily dismiss mine. I know you're a little fast and loose on things, but just humor me on minor little issues like this, willya?

 

[RandFan]

Iraqi's are already fighting Iraqis...when does that become a civil war, in your view?

Hmmm.... I suppose an argument could be made that there technically is a civil war. This is certainly not what I had in mind but I will grant you your point. I think the insurgents are largely targeting Americans and the activity is not what most would think of as a civil war. When significant numbers of resident Iraqis rise up against the government of Iraq then I would say that was a civil war. Right now we have insurgents many from outside of the region trying to disrupt America's goals.

The "insurgent activity" is still increasing. How do you define "success?" Seems to me nothing will ever be bad enough for some to admit this war isn't working.

Can you support your claim of increasing insurgent activity?

One of the problems is that we are there. We are a source of agitation. Many insurgents don't want us there. The numbers of Iraqi troops are also increasing which means nothing in your mind. The people are choosing for themselves how they will govern themselves. Which also means nothing in your mind. When there are sufficient Iraqi forces and the government is stable we will leave. That is a concrete goal that is absolutely achievable no matter how fatalistic you are. It's not assured but we are working towards real goals and making real progress. What will it take for you to admit that we are making progress and there can be success? Let me guess, nothing. You know that it is a failure so why bother with considering anything else, right?

 

[Freakshow]

As far as I can tell, at this point Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. And is that 3-5 years from now, or are you including the years we have already been there?

Um...dude...did you miss the word "another" in my post?

 

[fishbob]

Possible; but any action we take is likely to be guided by laser and delivered from 35,000 feet, not on the ground.

It's tricky because no one is going to come right out and say, "holy crap, the US is serious about pushing reform, better get on board before I get steamrolled." But the best evidence is the sheer number of reforms, big and small, all happening in the span of a year and a half. The chances of it all being coincidental are stupefyingly small.

Subject - US serious about pushing reforms - of which implementation from 35,000 feet is not likely. Change the subject to dusting a nuke plant - which would be the first step in a long long walk, which most likely would end with our guys on the ground. You tried to hide that from consideration to make a your sound byte point and you got called you on it. Junior.

Nice example of 'a little fast and loose', though.

 

[Mark]

Um...dude...did you miss the word "another" in my post?

Yes. My bad. Head hung in shame.

 

[Mark]

Hmmm.... I suppose an argument could be made that there technically is a civil war. This is certainly not what I had in mind but I will grant you your point. I think the insurgents are largely targeting Americans and the activity is not what most would think of as a civil war. When significant numbers of resident Iraqis rise up against the government of Iraq then I would say that was a civil war. Right now we have insurgents many from outside of the region trying to disrupt America's goals.

Can you support your claim of increasing insurgent activity?

One of the problems is that we are there. We are a source of agitation. Many insurgents don't want us there. The numbers of Iraqi troops are also increasing which means nothing in your mind. The people are choosing for themselves how they will govern themselves. Which also means nothing in your mind. When there are sufficient Iraqi forces and the government is stable we will leave. That is a concrete goal that is absolutely achievable no matter how fatalistic you are. It's not assured but we are working towards real goals and making real progress. What will it take for you to admit that we are making progress and there can be success? Let me guess, nothing. You know that it is a failure so why bother with considering anything else, right?

Increasing insurgent activity (From August):

The number of car bombs (which are mostly suicide attacks) in Iraq has increased from roughly twenty per month last summer to 135 per month in April and May this year, according to the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index. The frequency of suicide attacks has picked up since the end of April, when Iraq’s new government was formed; more than ninety suicide bombs occurred in May alone, according to the Washington Post. The worst suicide attack took place July 16 when a bomber blew himself up under a fuel tanker in Mussayib, a small town south of Baghdad, leaving at least 90 Iraqis dead and 156 wounded.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8583/iraq.html?breadcrumb=default

You may be right that things would calm down if we left. I doubt it, though. There is a power vacumm there, and I guess that it will get a lot worse before it gets better. I hope I am wrong...trends say I am not.

I have no idea how to respond to your little reading-my-mind dig, and, frankly, am not in the mood to bother. Maybe another time.

 

[RandFan]

Increasing insurgent activity (From August):

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8583/iraq.html?breadcrumb=default

Thank you.

I have no idea how to respond to your little reading-my-mind dig, and, frankly, am not in the mood to bother. Maybe another time.

I'm not sure why you say it is reading your mind. You have said that the war is a failure. I'm not reading your mind I'm responding to that position.

I will note that you now say that things could calm down even if you think that is unlikely.

If so, then for me that is a huge success? I can accept that you don't think that such a scenario is likely. I wouldn't even bother responding to a post that made such a claim. I don't agree but it is a reasonable claim. Demanding that everyone accept that our efforts can only be viewed as a failure is what I have a problem with.

Thanks Mark

 

[peptoabysmal]

You forgot one. Never mind that these are not the reasons the public were given for invading (at least not before the invasion).

You mean this reason?

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
...from Bush's State of the Union message.

Does this sound like someone who is cooperating or trying to buy time?

Earlier, the United Nations announced that Gen Amir Al Saadi, a top adviser to President Saddam Hussein, had sent a letter to chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, saying Baghdad had accepted UN order to destroy Al Samoud 2 missiles.

In the letter, Iraq said it accepted “in principle” the destruction of the missiles. But it said Mr Blix’s decision was “unjust and did not take into consideration the scientific facts regarding the issue.”

“In order to establish a timetable and other technical and procedural criteria required for implementation, we suggest dispatching a technical team urgently for this purpose,” the letter added.

“There will be technical discussions between UN weapons teams and Iraq on Saturday morning following which the destruction process could start,” a UN spokesperson said.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/01/top1.htm

(bolding mine)

Saddam was not disarming, he was doing the same as he had gotten away with for the last 12 years and waiting for the day when he could re-build his beloved WMD.

After six months searching for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on October 3, 2003. The team has found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In addition to details of dormant WMD programs, the October 2003 report also includes discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the U.N. and concealed during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections that began in 2002. The discoveries made by the ISG include a "clandestine network of laboratories . . . that contained equipment . . . suitable for continuing chemical biological weapons research" and vials of "live C botulinum Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced." [2]. Lines of enquiry adopted by the ISG include the examination of sites across Iraq, as well as interviewing scientists, truck drivers and other workers with possible knowledge of WMD. The failure to find any stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons has proved a problem for Washington and London, who used intelligence indicating that Iraq did possess WMD stockpiles as one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Iraq. The British government, in particular, placed very heavy emphasis on this intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group

(bolding mine)

The POV challenge on this page is about the political implications section, not this section.

 

[Mark]

Thanks Mark

No worries.

 

[clk]

Just when I start to believe the liberal chant that Bush is a moron and I was wrong to vote for him; you remind me why I was right all along....

Thanks man.
-z

When I provided you a CBS news link, you said it was editorial innuendo, even though it was a hard news article. So why don't you use the same standard for this article? Oh wait, it's because it supports your disfavorable view of Kerry.

 

[fishbob]

You mean this reason?

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
...from Bush's State of the Union message.

Does this sound like someone who is cooperating or trying to buy time?

Neither.

This sounds like Bush stating 'disarm' while at the same time offering as a given that Saddam had banned weapons that could threaten the safety of US citizens.

Saddam was not disarming, he was doing the same as he had gotten away with for the last 12 years and waiting for the day when he could re-build his beloved WMD.

Channeling Saddam? That is a slightly disproven unsupported assertion.

found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

How could he disarm but have to wait to re-arm at the same time? Either he had banned weapons or he did not. And we have not found them, so it looks like he did not.

 

[Leif Roar]

What do you call one who "terrorizes," Mark?

"Terrifying."

The word "terrorist" does not mean "one who terrorises," but rather "one who conducts terrorism." Terror and terrorism are related, but quite distinct terms.

To claim that "x terrorized y" implies that "x is a terrorist" is just as inane as claiming that "x loves y" implies that "x is y's lover."

 

[a_unique_person]

Having a solid, friendly base in the Middle East will make the job at hand that much easier.

It's a pretty remarkable attitude to have about the world, from where I sit. The US appears to be pretty much the only country that feels justified in creating a base in any country it wants.

 

[Jocko]

Subject - US serious about pushing reforms - of which implementation from 35,000 feet is not likely. Change the subject to dusting a nuke plant - which would be the first step in a long long walk, which most likely would end with our guys on the ground. You tried to hide that from consideration to make a your sound byte point and you got called you on it. Junior.

Nice example of 'a little fast and loose', though.

Well, some people are capable of handling two subjects in a single post. Take it up with Mark if you don't like it; it was his two-part post I was repsonding to. Now, if you want to claim it's a non sequitur, then by all means show me the context by which you see things that way.

Sorry if you got confused, but I do enough hand-holding for the 'tards here at the office. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to expect a bit more from you by way of attention span.