Fighting a futile war

was also a big hit against us.

There should have been some major carpet bombing before the foot solders went in.

and we'll escort you back out the same way we did last time.

One of my friends was in the WTC at the time.

I would have been, but I overslep.

I did, however have the consolation prize of living in the fallout cloud.

and makes you wonder how long they had planned on getting in there. Notice two additional items; the signataries and the sites lean (to the right).

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

So since you assert that there was a link between Al Quaida and the Iraqui Government, would you be so kind as to provide a link to evidence that confirms this? I'm willing to take a look if you can provide a real, credible link.

I'm sure the Bush administration would love it too, since they had to admit to the public that no such proven link had been found.

I provide you a link that says one thing, you provide ma a link that contradicts what I just sent you. Forum ping pong.

Your mind is made up on the matter as is mine. It's nice to have the ability to put your opinions out there based on the facts as you see them but true of the matter is that I seriously doubt anyone has ever changed their opinion based on anything posted in a forum.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/war_on_terror/links_between_iraq_and_al_qaeda_right_here.LogIn.html

I saw you roll your eyes.

That link only works for paid subscribers.
You are partially right, anything posted by Rush is more entertainment than news worthy.
It would be interesting to see his twist on this though.
Would you be kind enough to cut-n-paste?

How many years of mucking with middle east politics came before that attack on US soil?

Saying "they attacked us first so we're now justified" seems like an oversimplification of a very messy political envorinment that the US earned long before the new mellenium. September 2001 just gave the polititions a free ticket for plans they'd been sitting on for years without a receptive audience.

That's not US bashing, that's just reading history of espianage related publications. The American people and land are less of an issue than your current choice of administration but hopefully the majority will show there desire for a more intelligent country in the next vote.

(Edit): I should clarify having read some of the other comments. I don't mean to say that the US citizens deserved to be harmed and wouldn't wish a second trade centre level attack on family friends who lost family or anyone else.

I won't blindly agree that the attack came out of no where without any motivations either though. "They attacked us first so we're justified" is an excuse not a supporting possition. It may be more wise to stop fighting over oil and get your own house back in order.

The theory that it's all about oil is pretty popular so it's no wonder it pops up so quickly. What is your take though. What is the war in iraq over? (serious questions)

The term "benchmark" annoys me also, did even in computer hardware comparisons. Words like "standards" and "objectives" already fit much better, no need to go concocting new "words."

[i]Yes, there has to be a goal.[/i]

Good, then we have a sensible point to begin discussion.

[i]No, you do NOT tell the world, or the people you are fighting, your f'en plan on how to fight, or how long you plan on fighting. to do so is stupid. The should remain behind closed doors.[/i]

I think the importance of "secrecy" is drastically overstated in that context, but I have to admit I have no military experience whatsoever. I do think it's completely obvious though, "your f'en plan on how to fight" is "try to kill the soldiers that are trying to kill us." What's the big f'en secret? It's not like we're all revealing military secrets, or identities of CIA agents.

That chain e-mail was a good choice, in my opinion, because it cites a logical fallacy that I saw and heard in the 1991 Iraq War, and which I hear was a fervent belief of Vietnam War Hawks also. Critique of the decision to go to war is not a betrayal of the troops. Casual commitment of military forces, based on falsehoods and hyperbole [b]is a betrayal of the troops[/b]. The common "support the troops" propaganda gets patriotism and treachery bass-ackwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

I know Wiki isn't authoratative, but this link has a lot of information about the supposed links, and its pretty balanced(from my perspective).

At this link you will find links to source material including CIA, Senate committees, FBI, 9/11 commission, Carnegie Study, British Intelligence, Isreali Intelligence, US Defense Intelligence Agency, Presidential Briefing notes, National Security Council, and World Trade Center Bombing (1993) investigations.

They all agree there is no link that ties Saddam to Al Qeada. There were a few communications between the two. There was also friction, as Al Qaeda supported an islamic group in the kurdish controlled area which was dedicated to Saddam's overthrow. I'd quote directly what Bin Ladaen said about Saddam fornicating with his mother, but the obscenity filter would catch it.

There also was a report from a Pentagon Inspector General that showed that the Pentagon's office of special plans had "developed produced and deseminated alternative intelligence assessments" which showed a link, contrary to the consensus of the intelligence community.

Saddam did have a link to a terrorist group that eventually merged with Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda's aim of having an Islamic state was directly contrary to Saddam's desire to have a secular state. There was an Al Qaeda cell in Iraq, but it was in the kurdish area that Saddam couldn't enter (or fly over). If they had been buddies, it would not have been there.

James

The US has responded exactly has hopped. Terrorism is used to change policy and it has been horrifically effective in this case. The resonse has been the exact response too support terrorism.

Someone said "fear us, we are small but we bite really hard" and everyone has done exactly what was expected. We've change our lives in favour of being ruled by terror.

The normal thing is to edit both the title and text of the second post to indicate that the Great TR Bug has struck again.

Or you can just edit the second post to say something else.

Either way, we will all understand.

:D

nt

The interent is full of information and you can find pretty much whatever you want to support whatever point you want to get across.

That not withstanding Iraq was in direct violation of the UN security council resoution (which is about as worthless as a solar powered flashlight). We pulled the trigger before he pulled it on us. No one had any way of know for sure there were no WMD's in Iraq and I don't know about you but I'm not willing to stake the safety of my family on a "we're pretty sure"

This is an age old debate, and I've been involved every time it pops up here.

The US thinks the war was about Britain empressing US sailors for the war against Napoleon. If thats their criteria, they won, Britain agreed by treaty to stop.

Canada thinks that it was all a US land grab, and there is plenty of evidence (Google Jayhawks and Clay) to support that. If thats the case the US lost because at the end, they had none of Canada, and British forces occupied parts of Michigan and Maine. The British Blockade of New england had almost ruined the merchants, while the US pirates attacked British ships had mixed success.

Yes some US will undoubtly quote Johnny Horton and "the battle of New Orleans". It had no impact at all on the war since the treaty was signed before the battle. And Britain was not trying to occupy New Orleans any more than Britain tried to occupy the white house. Both were designed to have the US committ troops to defend coastal communities, and draw them away from the US/Canada border. And by the way the burning of the white house had been inspired by a similar act by the US when they invaded York (now Toronto) and torched parliament.

The have been many comments that Britain won the war but lost the negotiations. But as Britain was entangled with a continental war with Napoleon, it was in their interest to settle as soon as possible to free up troops and ships for the war in Europe.

James

You were on about links between Al Qaeda and Saddam. You said there was solid proof. Your own government's agencies and those of other governments refute that, but you won't even read that because it isn't what you want to believe.

And then you change the subject.

James

I never said there was solid proof. I also said there isn't solid proof that there isn't. My point was that what ever you want to believe there are articles and "research" to back it up.

I merely stated that I did not have a hard time believing that there was direct links, financial or otherwise. I still believe that. Saddam and Osama have a common enemy and that can oft times make a convinient alliance. If nothing else, if Saddam did have WMD technology I think it is niave to think that he wouldn't have gladly sold it to those who wouldn't think twice about using it. That has been my contension all along.

There's been a lot of mud through about in the last seven years so bare with me but what was the imminent threat to US soverenty and security? I'm more exploring your point than trying to critisize it here so give me a chance to muttle through.

What was the threat to US security and soverenty? Was it just the hysteria over powered envelopes and posturing of some extremists that set the political environment? What other threats where present outside of an extremist group hiding in the deserts of afganistan.

Also, what was the US doing at this time. What CIA games where in play and what political muckitymuck in the region has US fingerprints on it.

Part of my scheptisism stems from reading much of the history of the CIA in south america and the resulting political mess it caused. The US is not known for mucking with other nations policy where it benefits US big business. I'm just trying to be reminded or remind myself of the complete picture at the time before and after the event.

So we forgo natural but limited resources (oil) and political intrigue from the coment above and stick too national security. remind me what it was that the nation had to be secured against.

No, you did not say "it was because of sin" and I never said YOU did say "it was because of sin". My question to you is up above this post these posts were in response to James.

Could you please elaborate on the second line of your response here? It makes no sense at all unless somehow you disagree on just how the attack on 9/11, carried out by radical Muslims, was NOT because we are who we are and brought upon ourselves by the foreign policies and actions of not only this but many other administrations, as well.

Saying that we brought an attack on ourselves by being who we are, where we are, and how we have dealt with the rest of the world is NOT the same thing as saying "we DESERVED it".

for the response about why and what to do when it happens.

The great TR bug, sounds like it's been around for awhile. :)

As you say, during the run-up to the 1812 war, Britain was fighting for her life against Napoleon. So, if we got a bit tetchy with other countries (one in particular) being a haven for deserting seamen, I forgive us.

The Yanks tend to forget that in their historical rewriting.

:D

Absolutely hardcore!! ;)

Way to keep these guys on their toes and way to be on yours as well! I'll be sure and watch/read all of the links posted after work.

Thanks for the information and keep fighting the good fight!

So your "contension" all along has been that the invation of Iraq is justifyable due to your hypothetical theories full of conjecture and speculation on what SH might have done with something he might have had to someone he might have known (OBL) who might have or might not have thought twice about using it??????????? Yeah, makes way more sense than the oil theory.

What was that about "insight"????

There was no evidence of Iraq being a nuclear power and the WMD theory was ultimately blown out of the water. The Gov is privy to those intelligence community reports that said there was nothing there, even if they sold the public on the marketing reports instead.

As for getting offended because someone spoke of the dead; please, that one's just looking for reasons to take offense. Are you a family relation of Mr Heston or have some other real reason to take offense to his mention? My grandpa's name was Ed and he has passed on; I won't be offended if want to say his name a few times.

It was your last line that really attracked my Ire though. War alone is a volitile topic so I'm surely not going to critisize you for having different feelings about the occupation of Iraq (sorry, police action). Your side "come and get me" comment does deserve some attention though.

Should we bring up the little party from Canada down past the white house and back? Why is that white house white? Who was it again that invaded the US, set fire to it and the library of congress then went home when they got bored? We probably should not bring up Pearl Harbour either though what with the US Gov and military knowing of the attack but failing to communicate with the base.

I'm a whole lot more afraid of a trained canadian soldier with a knife than I am of a fully geared up US soldier with specialized partial training. Heck, in WW2 the germans admitted that guarding against attack by guns was just part of the job but the thought of canadian soldiers sneaking up close to play with knives scared the hell out of them. All countries involved have had there failures and successes; America isn't special because it had a success in 1776 and 1812.

No US citizen should be afraid of imminent invasion just as citizens of the other as developed nations have little fear of imminent invasion. It didn't really need the snide "I'm special, I'm American" bit really.

[i]No one had any way of know for sure there were no WMD's in Iraq and I don't know about you but I'm not willing to stake the safety of my family on a "we're pretty sure"[/i]

The decision to declare war without solid evidence of any real danger to us has [b]increased[/b] our vulnerability to the rest of the world, just as sure as any schoolyard bully piles up enemies over time. Just wait.

I love when the history buffs come out with the text book acounts including events related to the point discussed. Well spoken.

when statements are said about our troops terrorizing the women and children, that is not someone supporting our troops.

When the first hint of misconduct, statements are made about our solders are murderers before their is even an investigation, let along a military trial, that is not someone supporting our troops.

Both statements came from "prominent" democrats, throwing our soldiers to the dogs to try to make some political points.

Back for Nam, when "peace protesters" screamed that our soldiers were baby killers, these people did NOT support the troops.

Finally, people in congress telling our soldiers they are fighting an unjust war while being to cowardly to do anything about it, undermines the soldiers directly.

It goes back to, whatever is bad for Bush and the Republicans is good for the Democrats.

If insurgents are emboldened by the support the insurgents receive from Americans, that is also not supporting the troops, but INCREASING the danger they are in.

We rarely see a rational breakdown of why we should not be there in the first place, and even rarer to see a rational plan to got out of the clusterf##k we are stuck in the middle of. This discussion was no exception.

you don't let them know when you will attack.

you don't let them know how you will attack.

you don't let them know any strengths or weaknesses.

you don't let them know if you are listening to their communications (like the bastards in the global press did).

You don't tell the enemy anything they can use against you, or they might draw comfort from, like watching the people in Berkeley insulting the military, intentionally.

There does HAVE to be an objective, and a plan to reach that objective, that should be re-evaluated very regularly, and make the needed changes to the plan, so the objectives can be reached.

Stating a time-table publicly is asinine.

I am less concerned at this stage with blame than about getting a solution.

No US president will be convicted of this as a crime, and is just political chest pounding here to even suggest otherwise.

The US would also never hand a President, sitting or former, over to any kind of kangaroo "world court", so again, a waste of everyones time to go down that avenue.

Where was talk about impeachment, but everyone knows that was just looking for payback for President William Jefferson Clinton getting impeached.

If President Bush would have lied under oath like clinton did, they might have stood a chance, but nothing was concrete enough or the democrats would have gone for it.

Of course history is re-written all the time.

It is amazing that with that being a well known practice through out the ages, how you don't question what YOUR history books teach on the subject?

Grain of salt...

[i]
edit to add: I do admit that I have long wanted to get my grubby little mitts on some of "your" text books on the subject though.

that it was about Neo-cons and their quest for dominence in an Oil center.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

And in the same breath, don't read our textbooks, they are pretty dry on the subject.

The book I recommend is:
http://www.amazon.ca/incredible-War-1812-military-history/dp/1896941133/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209675488&sr=8-4

The more common books to read are the pair of books by Pierre Berton: "Invasion of Canada" and "Flames across the border".

But hey, why not read the "Straight Dope" on the subject:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mwar1812.htm and chose one of their sources.

James

I'll have a chat with my godson and his sister and see if I can find out what they teach these days, find some stuff that represents current "British" ideas of history especially where it relates to the US and email it to you you. One of the problems is that it's all gone PC and the kids learn about other cultures far more than I did. What I was taught at school was the Industrial Revolution through to the start of WWII which is why I know about the War of 1812 (which we covered in about five minutes).

Neil :D

Denying they said the Iraqi threat was imminent means the Administration knows it was not imminent. Otherwise, why deny being right?!

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word "imminent." Those were not words we used." Administration spokesman, 1/27/04.

Rumsfeld: (One year after invasion) "You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase 'immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't.

Rumsfeld: (Six months before invasion) "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Their flip-flop is unimportant. What matters is that they are admitting the threat was not imminent. There was no need to rush to war without our allies and suffer 95% of the losses and costs by ourselves. Iraq was not connected to 9/11 and they knew it.

Had they not convinced America the threat was imminent, America probably would not have gone to war.

The point was you feel you as a an americun, have a right to invade another country and change their culture, morality, religion, and way of government.

If you have that right because you believe your way is right, then every one else does as well, because they do as well.

So who missed the point?

You might want to bear in mind that your independance from the british empire was won by europeans....

[i]It makes it VERY relevant. Inconvenient for people that want to [b]bash every aspect of the war and anyone that even remotely supports it[/b], but still relevant.[/i]

The previous points I've made about supporting the troops have been that fighting unnecessary, ill-advised wars is in fact the action least supportive of the troops, of all possible actions, and that equating "support for the troops" with support of all the President's decisions is a logical fallacy. I stand by that.

You're the only one here who ever made any of these remarks:

[i]when statements are said about our troops terrorizing the women and children, that is not someone supporting our troops.

When the first hint of misconduct, statements are made about our solders are murderers before their is even an investigation, let along a military trial, that is not someone supporting our troops.

Back for Nam, when "peace protesters" screamed that our soldiers were baby killers, these people did NOT support the troops.[/i]

Those are all straw men.

[i]It goes back to, whatever is bad for Bush and the Republicans is good for the Democrats.[/i]

No, we've all done an excellent job of supporting our opinions, and not descended to collectivist name-calling. This is not, so far, a Democrat v. Republican, or liberal v. conservative, or Autobot v. Decepticon thread. Let's keep it clean, gentlemen.

Helen Thomas, whose credentials get her into many (all?) Presidential Press Conferences, and has been reporting on Presidents of the United States since Kennedy, also believes it's about oil. Now that the two original reasons for invasion -- Saddam Hussein, and the fictitious weapons of mass destruction -- are both as "dead" as Monty Python's parrot, I know no other [b]plausible[/b] reason than oil for the United States to continue operations in Iraq.

[i]I despise the so called pacifists who are ready to kiss and hug with terrorist organizations, or like Carter, to trust that you can actually have faith in and negotiate with organisations like Hamas.[/i]

It's not intelligent to overlook the fact that the various "rogue" nations and organizations on Earth dislike one another as much as, or more than, they dislike "us." Matter of fact, many of them have [b]nothing[/b] against the United States [b]except[/b] our support for various puppet dictators.

Google "Pinochet." It's one thing to be afraid of the dark. We're currently shooting at the imaginary monsters under our bed, and it's embarrassing to Americans who know what the hell is going on in the world.

[i]Part of my scheptisism stems from reading much of the history of the CIA in south america and the resulting political mess it caused. The US is not known for mucking with other nations policy where it benefits US big business. I'm just trying to be reminded or remind myself of the complete picture at the time before and after the event.[/i]

I don't know nearly as much as I should about that, but what I have read is all extremely ignoble, and far beyond "unpleasant" to read.

But, just enough to be nervous when their bluff is being called.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhAokoMgSDc&feature=related

thanks. I am rather a fan of Ron Paul. Of course the machinating power mongers have ensured that he - and any like him - haven't the chance of a snowball in he// being heard.

Maybe it [b]is[/b] a cold day in hell.

The fact that his ability to raise funds from individual, citizen contributors not only eclipses, but dwarfs that of the corporate-owned, mainstream media candidates also suggests the same.

Not "individual." Individuals sometimes make mistakes. Asserting that the power of the Executive Branch is arbitrary, or limited only by whom the Executive trusts and whom he fears, is not an honest mistake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO5_64te6hM&feature=related

Hey, Russia, look what we can do to a city! Hiroshima - now you see it, now you don't!

Don't mess with us!

I wonder if the other one works? Let's try it and see. Yeah, way to go, Nagasaki!

Saddam Hussein is dead, and the non-existent weapons of mass destruction are no longer a threat to our national security, because we are now sure that they never existed.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Bring the soldiers home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1op8vwF5UA&NR=1

Of course, I would've loved things to be more planned and the aftermath smoother and better for the irakis first of all.

I found any war against tyrany and totalitarianism justifiable.

would be one that has no casualties, property damage, broken families, or profit motive.

Simply, the little boys would pick up their toys and go home.

any war against tyrany and totalitarianism is justifiable ... for me.

you're not tying one hand at your back with all that civilisation of yours. And let's not forget that the "poor" guys you are talking about were not Mother Theresa either.

so that last comment was uncalled for. A knee jerk reaction to Tony's statement of the UK coming across the pond. When in a debate personal attacks are uncalled for and show your ignorance so for that I apologize. To both of you.

The Charlton Heston thing, he did elude to shooting him so I make no apologies for my response to that.

it brought in a lot that "no one here mentioned".

Then you brought in about the way people that are against the war are painted with the broad traitor brush, but that wasn't by anyone in here either.

When a US senitor says the things I pointed out, it is a clear example of people in high places of our government and a certain political party, that do not support our troops.

I never pointed the finger at you, so it should not have been taken as an attack upon you. I was giving CLEAR examples of how leaders of a movement do not support our troops.

"Mess with us and we will do you up the ass."

Now, THAT is sending a message. :D

Wait, why are so many French men walking backwards towards us now????? :0

There was no threat to our soverenty but can you deny that there is a threat to US security?

I know that (winning Afghanistan first would've ben better).... NOW :-). But back than I thought both can be done. I was wrong.

I suppose the the people crushed to death in the towers on 9-11 would think this "reckoning" is "Futile".

This subject has alot of emotions on both sides no doubt.

Is war necessary - Sometimes it is, I dont care who you are, what you say. People that say that its not are deluded and live in a fairy tale world.

War is nasty, war is horrible. It is not a pleasant thing. Before World War II there were thousands of people in the US that were VIOLENTLY against us getting involved in Europe.

I wish it were a world where people like Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Kim Il-Jung etc didnt exist...but they do. The ONLY thing that stops madmen such as this is death.

[i]I never pointed the finger at you, so it should not have been taken as an attack upon you. I was giving CLEAR examples of how leaders of a movement do not support our troops.[/i]

Why was it placed in a reply to my comment?

Some people [b]did[/b] know that, before the invasion of Iraq began.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnQhMIdkOrA

First of all, since the 911 hijackers where already here training for the attack before Bush got into office, it is only political hacks that can try to blame Bush for 911.

I also see it as splitting hairs to say that our actions brought this attack upon us is any different than saying we deserved the attack because of our actions.

Do you really see a big difference between the two? If so, how about I change my wording to "people that say we brought it upon ourselves"?

It means the same to me, but if that modified wording resolves the difference, then cool.

And no, I do not believe that us infadels being in the holy land of a savage nation is justification to attack thousands of citizens. It was one thing that they have been hitting military instillations and embassies for over three decades, it is quite another to go for citizens.

and just what kind of ID is mrabevigoda? :D Is that part of your name or what? Where does that derive from and how should it be broken down if one were to try to say it out loud? Just curious, and not trying to belittle if it IS your name.

Most of the pre-war links to BinLadens group was found to be discounted. HOWEVER. A few months before the war started a strange thing happened. A man was found dead in Baghdad, made some news but was soon buried in the headlines.

I was in Naval Intelligence back in the late 70's and had quite a bit to do with alot of this stuff and THIS guy. His name was ABU NIDAL. If you dont know who he was, Google him. He was so bad he made Bin Laden and Yasser Arafat look like boy scouts. In fact Arafat THREW him out of the PLO because he was TOO violet. So what did he do? He formed the Black September group, responsible for the murders of hundreds of people.

This same individual was found dead there. Some reports say he died of cancer, others say he was shot - over 30 times. I have a feeling "המוסד למודיעין ולתפקידים מיוחדים" MOSSAD - FINALLY found him and took him out. Saddam had been taking care of him.

Over the years there were also credible intelligence reports of some of Saddams intelligence people meeting with Bin Ladens group, but nothing much came of those meetings.

What gets my shorts in a wad in the BS that you hear these days about WMD's. When we started all this EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMD's. We have video of our democratic leadership saying they believe he has WMD's and he better come clean or else! We have Video of European leaders saying they believe that saddam has wmd's... Saddam even boasted one time that he had every right to possess them!

Now, convieniently the same democrats say "WHERE ARE THE WMD's MR BUSH?" ...WAIT! They were up there on the house floor saying the same D*** thing! Lets all at least get real and get our stories straight for once.

EVERYBODY thought he had WMD's and was going to use them. He had already used chemcial weapons on Iran and his own people before. It was only a matter of time. We had bad intel...it was not a cover up...just bad Intel. He was a butcher and a madman and HAD to go.

I do agree we shouldnt have taken our sights off Bin Laden as much as we have though. We need to beef up the guys in Afghan and get that dirt bag who's diggin in the dirt over there.

TO THE PERSON TO POSTED BELOW ME...

I dont have to prove anything to you. I know what I did in the past and was quoting what I KNOW to be the truth. Take it or leave it, I personally dont care what you DO or DO NOT believe.

That you are too young to remember one of the great comedies of our time. Barney Miller had as one of its stars Mister Abe Vigoda. BTW he was in the Godfather too.

From IMDB:
(Explaining how he ended up playing Det. Sgt. Fish on Barney Miller) "I got the role because the producer thought I looked tired. But I looked tired because I had been jogging earlier that day. He said to me, 'You look tired, Abe.' I said, 'I am. I was just jogging five miles.' He said, 'You also look like you have hemorrhoids.' I said, 'What are you? A doctor or a producer?' And he said, 'Well, I'm a producer and you know what? You've got the role.' Just like that."

James

I come from a military family. I tried to enlist as well, but was rejected for my hearing. Military stratagy from Sun Tzu to Caesar to Alexander to Patton has been an interest of mine.

Secrecy is the single most important component of military stratagy, I would place it just ahead of morale.

It is at the pinnacle of importance for one simple reason.

Every aspect of war involves deception.

If you are weak, you want to appear strong, if you are strong you want to appear weak, if you are going to attack from the east, you want it to appear as if you are attacking from the west. Suprise, ambush, sneak attacks, hiding vulnerabilities and strengths, obfuscating the enemy are all paramount to military stratagy.

It is this secrecy and deception that has allowed inferior forces to win out against overwhelming forces time after time throughout history.

During WWII, they knew the value of secrecy "Loose lips sink ships" was far more than a slogan.

If secrecy was not important, Japan would not have devoted such efforts (and brilliant ones, BTW) at breaking our codes. The allied forces would not have sacrificed a city's population to avoid the Germans from finding out that we had a working Enigma machine that we had deciphered.

is that better?

You started to discuss how people intentionally distort reality (my words, not yours) when they try to paint the opposition on this idea of supporting the troops.

Your point, yes, you can be supportive of the troops while not supporting the war.

My point, the people that get the spotlights have NOT been supportive of the war NOR are they supportive of our troops, including members of congress as well as past and present presidential candidates.

was 8 when it came out, and did watch it a few times.

Then we went into "no tv" mode and all that went away.

the MR at the beginning threw me as I am used to someone putting a first initial and then a last name.

If the brits even SUSPECT you meant "we" as in the Americans, there is going to be hell to pay all over again... :p

Leaping into hysterics about [b]unsubstantiated[/b] reports of war crimes is not supportive of the troops, if you'll agree that nobody here has done that, nor anything like it.

[i]My point, the people that get the spotlights have NOT been supportive of the war ...[/i]

I'm not sure what to make of that; when Bush holds a press conference, he gets broadcast. Would you like to see somebody else's message, somebody who has been ignored, in the spotlight? Or, is your objection to critiques of Bush seeing the light of day? In that case, you're advocating censorship, which the Constitution prohibits.

[i]... NOR are they supportive of our troops, including members of congress as well as past and present presidential candidates.[/i]

I know that various critics of the war vary in their efforts to inject statements of their respect for military service, as such, into their critiques of policy. And I know that [b]a few[/b] are very critical of military service and those who volunteer for it, as such. Who, specifically, do you mean?

You provided no links to substantiate what looks to me like a fairy tale. You haven't established enough credibility to motivate me to Google "ABU NIDAL." That's not how a claim of new information works. Like a newsman, when you claim something that hasn't already been around the news enough to be considered "common knowledge" to the people in the discussion, you cite your sources, or you accept that you won't be believed.

[i]All The President's Men[/i] is full of interesting anecdotes about the difficulties of framing your public statements in terms of what you can prove with reliable, named sources, not what you can only claim to know. "Trust me" doesn't cut it.

Now, to:
[i]Lets all at least get real and get our stories straight for once.[/i]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BnQhMIdkOrA

You had better get busy on that. Nobody's buying the neo-con/hawks stories any longer.

This is getting absurd.

Are you seriously trying to support the war hawk line, that establishing standards of success "tips our hand" in some way? If so, [b]exactly how[/b] please.

Any other reason?

Off the topic of the original thread, perhaps, but since you mentioned it....

I think the VP candidates are going to be almost as important as the Presidential candidates this election.

McCain is already looking really worn down...and he's been on cruise control (relatively speaking) for a couple of months now. How would he stand up to the daily rigors of being President (Clinton and Lil' Bush aged horribly in office)?

Obama would need someone with credibility as a VP candidate to help defray the almost assured questions of his experience; should he get the nomination. Additionally, as much as I hate to say it, there is a large segment of the US population that would not abide someone of mixed ethnic heritage in office very long without at least taking a shot. The comparisons people like to draw with JFK may be (tragically) more apt than they realize, should he get elected.

As far as Clinton, I'd bet the farm now that if she gets elected, impeachment hearings are a certainty. I think the lawsuit out in CA with her and Bill vs. Paul is just the potential tip of the iceberg with her.

Honestly, my vote could very well be swayed (depending on match-up) on who the VP candidate is...which is the first time in my voting experience (my first presidential vote was Bush I first vs. Clinton I) I've felt that way.

Destroy your enemy(ies) ability to make war against you.

Now, I turn the question back on you.

When has any general EVER set benchmarks for any war?

Edited to add:

I have not been tauting any line, hawk or otherwise.

You stated that you were unfamiliar with the military, I gave you my input.

all in good fun Neil, all in good fun :D

I expected the 1812 response BTW :D

If I remember my reading correctly, avoiding absolute war with the soviets was by blind accident too.

The F1 spy plane happened to spot missiles being delivered (I think on the back of trucks actually). It was completely out of the scope of his mission but when the analysts looked at the photos afterward they realized Cuba had launch potential.

That's considered the accident that convinced both sides to seriously negotiate leading to the end of the cold war. It's probably the closest we've ever come to the feared final nuclear war.

During the 50s and early 60s, south america was the CIA's own sandbox. They made a huge mess of politics in the region and it didn't really stop until the Bay of Pigs emberassement demonstraited publicly that they'd been playing spy games. I think it was the head of the CIA that took the fall for the president on that one.

Make no mistake though, every country plays spy games so it's not just the US. It does help bring perspective though if you can consider what the intelligence community was doing at the time; myssdirection is the first rule of magic and governance.

They started planning for a dual front against Iraq and N. Korea.

http://zfacts.com/p/700.html

This eventually lead to the PNAC formation in 1997.

http://zfacts.com/p/775.html

some people guessed you mean to say. If the war would've had a different outcome, we would now say that other people DID now, wouldn't we ?

It's like you say from 100 people there is at least one who new before what number a dice will land on.

you're welcome.

:D

Very well put

Look at all the problems dick had.

McCain is not elderly, he is fricken OLD.

The disability has nothing to do with age, and the person that made the comment (in that link) was a retard for even saying that. I personally know two people that were on medical disability from the army before they were even 20, and looking at them, you would never know it.

Obama can not last an election process, and the whole media created "rock star" bs is going to come tumbling down once the gloves come off. Clinton has opened to many wounds in their fights for the Republicans to pick at. And don't think for a minute that if he DOES get the nomination, she will do everything to make SURE he doesn't win. She won't want a Democrat in the office because it will stop her from running effectively NEXT time around.

As for Hilary, she has to much baggage, and there are more people that are sick of the clinton crap than are still mesmerized by Bill.

Pretend I wasn't there to see all the same Fox sound bites and remind me what those threats where. I'm trying to understand your view on the war and part of that is understanding what you percieve as the threat that was responded too.

If I remember back, I think Al Queda where making anti-US threats at the time but that's extremists in Afganistan and a social group that could inherently not ever get along with the Iraq government. I don't remember if Iraq was making anti-US threats outside of the normal posturing though I do remember that Sadam was making a mess of his own citizens; it's not acceptable but it's not threatening the safety of other nations.

I'm trying to understand the specific points you have in mind that justified a military response. What where the threats to US safety at that time and what was the US government doing before and after it all? What was the foreign policy and what was the intelligence foreign policy leading up to september? I know part of US intelligence foreign policy was the US led spy games that put Sadam in power originally after ousting the previous nut job. In 2000 though, what threats where being made? What threats are still being made now that justify the need for ongoing war and a fear state? Who is/was the US protecting itself against? "Terrorists" is a buzword, what actual extremist group or government threatened imminent and unjustifiable harm? What was it that justified the US advancing on a foreign nation's soverenty? Give me the common ground to understand where you are arguing from.

This is all still a serious questions because what I remember was justifications changing weekly as each one got shot down. It's for american safety, no it's for the world's safety against Sadam, no it's for the Iraq people, oh look there's oil, wait, it's for the stability of the region.. no wait.. it's weapons of mass distruction.. oh shoot, it wasn't WMDs after all but hey.. regardless of why we started this, it is the right thing to do; go with us on this..

But if we forgo the drama that the media made it all out to be, what justified the decision to invade Iraq after invading Afganistan was abandoned?

geographically challenged people. England is in Europe, we are europeans