Bush equates Iraq with Vietnam

[Paddy]

For instance, they've left out completely the President's remarks on the rebuilding of Japan and Germany after WWII.  It seems there were a lot of people who felt neither Japan or Germany could have a democratic form of government, and the attempt wasn't worth the effort and doomed to failure.

Where have I heard that lately?

Of course, the nay-sayers were correct.  Japan is a still a feudal empire based on Emperor worship and Germany is a dictatorship just like it was in the days of Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler.  We completely wasted our time and resources.

The premature and precipitous removal of troops from Vietnam resulted in a peaceful and harmonious Marxist utopia.  The only people who died when the Communist government took over died from joy.

Afghanistan and Iraq will be just the same.  If we just cut and run, the spirit of John Lennon will descend and happiness will reign and gas prices will go down and AIDS will stop and the Cubs will win the pennant.

I'm sure we can all agree with the sentiment, but those expectations are just not realistic.  Despite their political systems, Japan and Germany were industrialized nations and each constructed a formidable war machine.  OTOH, Iraq and Afghanistan remain fractionalized tribal societies. Their primitive inhabitants are still wandering around the desert killing each other over a 12 centuries old argument about whether Ismail is the missing Imam who fell down the well and will he return.

Secondly, the comparison fails again when you consider geography.  Germany is in Europe surrounded by democratic countries and Japan is an island.  Afghanistan and Iraq are in the Middle east surrounded by dictatorships and Islamic states completely hostile not only to the United States but the entire western world.

The notion that Afghanistan and Iraq will become modern industrialized democracies is just wishful thinking.

[The Rabbi]

Neither Japan nor Germany had a history of democracy (Germany's was a miserable failure).  Japan was mostly still a feudal society.  Korea was certainly a 3rd world country not industrialized and not democratic.

[Phyphor]

Yea, but Japan and Germany are countries with a few centuries under their belts.  There's nowhere near the level of ethnic...difficulties that Iraq must deal with.

[Perd Hapley]

As for beefing up the borders, I refer you to the FBI's remarks from Oct 2001 in the article I posted above:

Did the six unknown suspected hijackers walk across the Mexican border somewhere in the California desert? Maybe. Did they walk across the Canadian border in the deep woods of Washington State or Maine? Maybe. Did they fly into Kennedy International Airport in New York on legal visas, and then falsify their identities after they arrived? Maybe. Did they drive a cigarette boat to Florida just as if they were drug traffickers working for the Columbian cocaine cartel? Maybe.

These six suspected hijackers could have entered the United States in any of these ways-just as a terrorist could enter the United States in any of these ways today or tomorrow, unless the government takes significant steps to increase the security of our borders.

Riley, I already agreed with you that the borders should get more enforcement (which will use up some body-bags, mind you).  But think about what you're saying.  You're content to let red tape and bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo keep al-Qaeda out of the country?  Unlike most illegals, they're not here to lay low and cut the grass.  They only need to be here long enough to blow some stuff up.  Your plan would never have prevented 11 Sept.  It would only have made it more difficult.  They would have had to go to flight school elsewhere.  They might have needed some fake ID's.  Not much of a hurdle, really.

And you can't catch them all by monitoring comms with Sudan.  Terrorists are active in Germany, Great Britain and everywhere else.  Monitoring comms on a basis of "this country has lots of terrorists" isn't going to work as well as what Bush is already doing.  If the courts are still allowing that.  Speaking of which, how are you going to get around your own objections about civil rights and such? 

[wooderson]

Neither Japan nor Germany had a history of democracy (Germany's was a miserable failure).  Japan was mostly still a feudal society.  Korea was certainly a 3rd world country not industrialized and not democratic.

Weimar was a functional democratic republic that failed for a variety of reasons (including hostility to the idea of democracy from the right) - but that wasn't the extent of their democratic tradition. The Reichstag was a respected, relatively independent body under the Kaisers. Prior to 1871, various German states had legislative bodies and, of course, in a way the tradition of the 'elected prince' was itself democracy of a sort.

Japan had a lesser history of democracy (and I didn't refer to it), but it was liberalized and westernized to a far greater degree than Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, after the complete cessation of hostilities, our occupation force for almost five years numbered what - 500,000 including Allies?

Korea was certainly a 3rd world country not industrialized and not democratic.

Wasn't even democratic after we asserted our will, ironically.

[Paddy]

You're content to let red tape and bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo keep al-Qaeda out of the country?  Unlike most illegals, they're not here to lay low and cut the grass.  They only need to be here long enough to blow some stuff up.

Are you suggesting that 'homeland security' should be privatized?

Your plan would never have prevented 11 Sept.  It would only have made it more difficult.  They would have had to go to flight school elsewhere.  They might have needed some fake ID's.  Not much of a hurdle, really.

They did use fake ID's.  Nobody bothered to verify their identities.  I said 'vetted', remember?

According to your logic, why even lock the door when you leave the house?  A determined burglar will just break in anyway. 

[RevDisk]

So, what are your suggestions for realistically getting the Iraqis motivated to rebuild their country?  I'm legitimately curious as I haven't heard too many from my former coworkers.

If it was any other place I would say money.  But that really isn't a motivating factor over here.  What I mean is that there isn't the "greed" factor that you see in Western cultures.  They just want enough to live day to day.

Careful, wmenorr, you are starting to sound like a defeatist Liberal.  Obviously you have no knowledge of the situation in Iraq, and are only a step above the 'cut and run' Defeatocrats.     


Na, seriously, you did hit the nail on the head, wmenorr.  They're different people with different priorities.  I prefer my society, but that's just personal preference.  Good luck, keep your head down and keep hoovering up all the info you can.

[Perd Hapley]

You're content to let red tape and bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo keep al-Qaeda out of the country?  Unlike most illegals, they're not here to lay low and cut the grass.  They only need to be here long enough to blow some stuff up.

Are you suggesting that 'homeland security' should be privatized?

Your plan would never have prevented 11 Sept.  It would only have made it more difficult.  They would have had to go to flight school elsewhere.  They might have needed some fake ID's.  Not much of a hurdle, really.

They did use fake ID's.  Nobody bothered to verify their identities.  I said 'vetted', remember?

According to your logic, why even lock the door when you leave the house?  A determined burglar will just break in anyway. 

Well, that's a total mistranslation of what I said.  My point was that we should do those parts of your plan and then do more.  We're not going to stop every attack by being ultra-cautious and defensive.  But we should still be cautious and defensive.  What has actually prevented further attacks is the fact that we have gone out and killed the terrorists where they are.  Also, we've lured them to Iraq and killed them there. 

[Paddy]

Honestly, fistful.  Sometimes I think you just like to argue.

[Perd Hapley]

I do.  And sometimes I think you just enjoy seeing what kind of bizarre interpretations you can draw from what other people say.  On second thought, you don't do that intentionally, you just have trouble with reading comprehension. 
 
The point is that shuttering America against the bad guys and trying to monitor their communications is not going to be enough.  The program has to be pro-active.  Which is why we're OVER THERE. 

[wooderson]

Which is why we're OVER THERE.

So we destabilized Iraq to draw in foreign fighters to keep them occupied there. Humanitarian mission, WMDs, 'threats to America' - just joking. We needed to open up a theater of operations to invite the terrorists in to play (Afghanistan had lost its luster). Even spotted the enemy home field advantage to make things interesting.

Since it worked so well at Keeping America Free this time, how many more fronts should we open up? Is invading New Zealand viable - an island to keep the Jihadists quarantined and the weather's certainly superior to Iraq.

[Monkeyleg]

Let's just do what the Brit's did: make Australia a prison island, and ship all of the terrorists there.

But what  to do with the Australian citizenry?

[Perd Hapley]

Wooderson,

I see that you are also of the breed that can't visualize more than one reason at once.  I'm not sure the administration had the idea of drawing terrorists into Iraq.  I think they were more interested in having forces on the ground right there between Syria and Iran.  And in making other countries nervous.  But those aren't the kind of things Presidents can talk about openly.  So, the WMDs and terrorist links had to do the trick.  All of which are good reasons, taken cumulatively. 

[wooderson]

But what  to do with the Australian citizenry?

I will volunteer to help repatriate a few of the women to Texas. Naomi Watts, Rachel Hunter, et al..

[wooderson]

I see that you are also of the breed that can't visualize more than one reason at once.

Which, let's be honest, is just a way of saying "we must trust Big Brother implicitly."

There's no logic to this statement, no factual basis, nothing but pure and unadulterated belief that Iraq Is The Right Thing and any succeeding justification for it is acceptable because that's in support of The Right Thing. (ie 'the ends justify the means') Any objection can be dismissed out of hand because "it was Bush's plan from the beginning YOU just didn't know and you'd have been ok if only you placed absolute trust in your leaders."

[Perd Hapley]

Wow.  I see that you also cannot consider more than one sentence at one.  Did you see this part?

I'm not sure the administration had the idea of drawing terrorists into Iraq. 

In other words, I don't think that Bush and Co. were expecting terrorist activity in Iraq of the level that has occurred.  I think they've said as much.  (But you can't believe them, can you?)  Of course, it is possible they may have been hoping that lots of terrorists would come streaming in, that would be killed by our GIs, rather than cooking up more plots inside the U.S.  But, again, I don't think it would have been a good idea for him to say so, either now or then.

In any case, the man presented plenty of reasons for the war, which I found to be valid at the time, and still agree with.  I'm not sure how that makes me a sheep.  The fact that you don't understand how those reasons made a good case, might mean that you're a bit dense. 

There's no logic to this statement, no factual basis, nothing but pure and unadulterated belief that Iraq Is The Right Thing and any succeeding justification for it is acceptable because that's in support of The Right Thing. (ie 'the ends justify the means') Any objection can be dismissed out of hand because "it was Bush's plan from the beginning YOU just didn't know and you'd have been ok if only you placed absolute trust in your leaders."

I don't see any logic or factual basis here, either.  Just you emoting all over me.  You can hardly use that particular sentence of mine as a case for the judgment you have just made.  It's terribly ironic that you're not satisfied with Bush's case for the war in Iraq, yet you are quite content to jump to conclusions. 

[roo_ster]

In wooderson logic, I am lying when I say, "I traveled to Atlanta for the purpose of visiting my sister, BIL, and nephews for Christmas; as well as stopping by Anniston, Alabama, to gawk at Garands.  Serendipitously, I met an old Ranger buddy at a bar in Buckhead and we reminisced."

The logic being twofold:
1. I can not have more than one purpose driving one action.
2. Both stated reasons are lies because

• I really went there to spite my wife's father who resides in S Texas.
• I don't really believe in Christmas, anyway, because I am a necon Jooo-boy chickenhawk Ranger poseur.

[Paddy]

jfruser:

No, I think wooderson is saying that a plethora of reasons don't automatically make for more credibility. fistful has already acknowledged that WMD's and terrorism were simply cover stories.

And please don't make any more nasty personal remarks in my thread.

Thank you. 

[Tallpine]

I don't think that Bush and Co. were expecting terrorist activity in Iraq of the level that has occurred.

Wow!  That is the understatement of the decade 

[Paddy]

Here's the latest proclamation:
 Bush says offensive in Iraq just beginning     
Aug 25 02:22 PM US/Eastern
   

      US President George W. Bush signaled Saturday his unwillingness to consider early US troop reductions in Iraq, saying new offensive operations there were just in their "early stages."

The statement, made in his weekly radio address, followed a fervent plea by John Warner, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who publicly asked the president to initiate by September 15 at least a symbolic drawdown of US military forces from Iraq.

Warner, a former secretary of the Navy and a widely respected authority on military affairs, suggested Thursday the president bring home up to 5,000 US troops as "the first step in a withdrawal of armed forces" in order to "send a sharp and clear message" to the Iraqi government that the US commitment was not open-ended.

Bush has not formally responded to the appeal. But in his address, he expressed satisfaction with offensive operations launched in the wake of a nearly 30,000-troop surge he announced at the beginning of the year -- and said they were just beginning.

"We are still in the early stages of our new operations," the president said. "But the success of the past couple of months have shown that conditions on the ground can change -- and they are changing."

He argued that every month since January, US forces have killed or captured on average more than 1,500 Al-Qaeda fighters and other insurgents in Iraq.

Young Iraqi men are signing up for the army, Bush went on to say, police are patrolling the streets, and neighborhood watch groups are being formed in Iraqi cities.

Bush said Iraqis were now volunteering important information about insurgents and other extremists hiding in their midst more frequently, which had led to a "marked reduction" in sectarian murders.

"We cannot expect the new strategy we are carrying out to bring success overnight," the president concluded. "But by standing with the Iraqi people as they build their democracy, we will deliver a devastating blow to Al-Qaeda, we will help provide new hope for millions of people throughout the Middle East, we will gain a friend and ally in the war on terror, and we will make the American people safer."

The address was part of a broad public relations offensive launched by the White House ahead of a crucial report to Congress by the top US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

The two officials are to present their views in mid-September on whether efforts to halt sectarian violence and return Iraq to viable self-governance with the help of about 160,000 US troops now in the country were bearing fruit.

Bush defended his Iraq strategy in a major speech before an annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City this past week and is expected to reinforce the message on Tuesday, when he addresses members of the American Legion at their convention in Reno, Nevada.

But his upbeat assessment of the military campaign has been undercut by a somber analysis presented Thursday by the US intelligence community, which warned in a declassified estimate that despite security gains, "Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively" and sectarian violence "probably will intensify."

Warner, who has just visited Iraq together with Democratic Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, also came back in a pessimistic mood.

The two senators said in a joint statement that while the US troop "surge" had given Iraqi politician some "breathing space" to make compromises "which are essential for a political solution in Iraq, we are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises."

However, The Washington Post reported Saturday the White House plans to keep its existing military strategy and troop levels in Iraq in place, even after the report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070825182213.bptmot4o&show_article=1

He's got until noon, January 20, 2009.  Do you think

by standing with the Iraqi people as they build their democracy, we will deliver a devastating blow to Al-Qaeda, we will help provide new hope for millions of people throughout the Middle East, we will gain a friend and ally in the war on terror, and we will make the American people safer."

will all be realized by then?

Of course, if it isn't, if there are 'setbacks' or failures of any kind, it will be the fault of his critics.   

[wooderson]

In wooderson logic, I am lying when I say, "I traveled to Atlanta for the purpose of visiting my sister, BIL, and nephews for Christmas; as well as stopping by Anniston, Alabama, to gawk at Garands.  Serendipitously, I met an old Ranger buddy at a bar in Buckhead and we reminisced."

No, I'm not. I'm actually saying that the current explanations for Iraq ("OVER THERE NOT HERE") are BS being shopped around because prior explanations were so clearly incorrect. That explanations made after the fact with no factual basis deserve not one moment of my time.

The comparison would be "I'm going to Atlanta to visit my sister" and then you spend a week in the strip clubs and later tell your wife that you MEANT you were visiting your sister and visiting all the strip clubs, you just didn't think she was on a need to know basis for the latter.

[Perd Hapley]

fistful has already acknowledged that WMD's and terrorism were simply cover stories. 

Riiiight.  I didn't say they were cover stories, Riley.  I said they were valid reasons to invade, without acknowledging additional goals, such as establishing more bases in the Mid-East.     

I'm actually saying that the current explanations for Iraq ("OVER THERE NOT HERE") are BS being shopped around because prior explanations were so clearly incorrect.

The one shopping BS is you, sir.  When I spoke of dealing with terrorism "over there," I referred to all our pro-active anti-terror programs occurring outside CONUS.  From Afghanistan to Iraq to Pakistan to the Philippines, and everywhere else our military, intelligence, diplomats and bureaucrats are dealing with terrorist threats. 

"Over there, not here" was the rationale for the Iraq war from day one.  WMDs?  We were going to secure them over there, before they were used over here.  The Baathist regime's terrorist connections?  Dealing with it there, before they were involved in attacks here. 

Which explanations were incorrect, and why? 

[Gewehr98]

But what  to do with the Australian citizenry?

That's easy.  Nicole Kidman can stay at my place.   

[Perd Hapley]

You can have her.   

[Paddy]

I referred to all our pro-active anti-terror programs occurring outside CONUS.  From Afghanistan to Iraq to Pakistan to the Philippines, and everywhere else our military, intelligence, diplomats and bureaucrats are dealing with terrorist threats.

That would be the 'red tape and bureaucratic mumbo jumbo to which you referred earlier.