Almiranta, Newsmax referenced McCains comments, but I don’t think he directly mentioned Kerry in his 14 May 1973 article for US News and World Report, “How the POWs Fought Back.” His words in that were;
“This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us-speeches and statements by men who were generally respected in the United States.
They used Senator Fulbright a great deal, and Senator Brooke. Ted Kennedy was
quoted again and again, as was Averell Harriman. Clark Clifford was another favorite,
right after he had been Secretary of Defense under President Johnson.
When Ramsey Clark came over they thought that was a great coup for their cause. The
big furor over release of the Pentagon papers was a tremendous boost for Hanoi. It
was advanced as proof of the "black imperialist schemes" that they had been talking
about all those years.”
There is a lot of reference of animosity between Kerry and McCain until they seemingly “settled their differences,” many years afterward.
The Newsmax reference is at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/183220.shtml
UPI referenced other exPOWs who distinctly remember Kerry’s words being used against them and spoke out about it during the campaign.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040803-123611-2794r
There have been several references to General Giap considering negotiating a surrender after the defeat of his forces and the Viet Cong in the failed Tet 0f ’68 Offensive. His memoirs are written in Vietnamese and that I know of, there isn’t a fully translated edition available just yet.
In the October 2005 edition of VIETNAM magazine, there is an interview with retired North Vietnamese General Nguyen Duc Huy where is asked, “After the war, Giap told a group of Western reporters that Communist losses in the Tet Offensive were so devastating that if the American forces had kept up that level of Military pressure much longer North Vietnam would have been forced to negotiate a peace on American terms. Do you agree?”
General Huy replied, “If the American army had fought some more, had continued, I don’t know. Maybe. I can’t say what would have happened.”
Found on page 38 in the center of the right column.
An excellent source for the chronicle of the defeat of the North Vietnamese Army and the decimation of the Viet Cong would be the book “Unheralded Victory,” by Mark W. Woodruff. It’s probably the most complete account of the Tet Offensive.
In the August 3, 1995 Wall Street journal, Colonel Bui Tin was interviewed and the account was printed as “How North Viet Nam Won The War.” In part, Col. Tin, who defected from Viet Nam after becoming disillusioned with the communist, when asked the question, “Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?” Answered Tin, “It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.” “Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.”
When asked what was the purpose of the Tet Offensive, he replied, “To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.”
Asked about the results of the Tet Offensive, he said, “Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.”
There are so many books and articles about Viet Nam, I’m not sure exactly which one you are mentioning. Surely, I can’t have them or have read them all, LOL. As for being an “expert” on Viet Nam, I’m not really. Just one of the over 2 million who served and have been trying to speak out with the truth about that and now trying to see a repeat of it in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Well if this is the "even more dangerous America Bush has created", then keep it up mr. president! Make me as unsafe as possible! Maybe our lefty friends will be so scared of how unsafe America is that they'll move to the UK or France or Spain. Speaking of which, why haven't all our favorite lefties moved to Canada? I mean they keep saying they will... if Bush steals elections then liberals have no future in the government... so what's keeping them?
Whenever the first sentence of one of your posts contains the word "leftist," I know what remains will be nonsense.
Besides the fact that you're implicitly (and of course erroneously) conflating the "war on terror" with the Iraq occupation, you state nothing to suggest that your strawman "leftist" is against stopping terrorists.
I should know better, but I am still always surprised when you can't pull together a coherent argument.
Actually, prior to WWI and WWII there was a strong anti-war or isolationist sentiment. In fact, that is often evident in the left. They want us to stay out of world politics, as if that will keep the world from attacking us. It did not work in WWII (think Pearl Harbor) and it will not work now. Thank God for a strong Republican administration when we were attacked this time.
Anyone who feels what is happening in Iraq is either an occupation nor a part of the overall war on terror is a bigger fool than those who believed all the crap reported on Viet Nam.
Just as in WW2, the WoT will be fought on many fronts, especially so because we are not fighting a country, but because we are fighting a misled ideology that seeks safe harbor in several countries.
It is completely assinine to believe Al Qaeda was in every country except Iraq. It is equally as assinine to believe Saddam had the WMDs the entire world felt he had (and which I and many others feel were spirited away in the months long "rush to war") and leave them in his possession to one day hand over or be captured by terrorists to use against the West.
War is not pretty or nice, never is, never will be. But, until there is some way besides subjecting to something as worthless as the Useless Nations and radicals like the Islamofascists are extinct, they will keep coming and be necessary if we wish to retain our way of life.
All the choruses of Kumbaya sung by the leftists will not stop or appease the terrorists.
You were lied to about Viet Nam and once again, the useful idiots of the left are swallowing the lies hook, line and sinker about Iraq and the WoT.
Rest easy leftists, real men and women with a true love of freedom are on watch and doing the dirty jobs so you may be free.
I'm still waiting for an answer from our leftists like minnowhead, why is it that you wanted al Qaeda to set up shop in Iraq? Is there a reason you wanted Zarkawi and his gang to have sanctuary there? Wasen't 9-11 enough for you?
I'm still waiting for an answer from our leftists like minnowhead, why is it that you wanted al Qaeda to set up shop in Iraq? Is there a reason you wanted Zarkawi and his gang to have sanctuary there? Wasen't 9-11 enough for you?
I think it is telling that leftists don't like others calling them as they are. (winnowhead crying about the term leftist)
They often try to disguise themselves with other words that on the surface suggest something other than what they really are.
Progresives, Pro Choice come to mind.
Everything is deception with these folks. If you are so sure your postitions are correct, then be proud of it instead of hiding behind words that dumb down the meaning of your cause.
Deleted - Off Topic
War is not pretty or nice, never is, never will be.
Lew, I'm reminded of a wonderful quote by British philosopher, John Stuart Mill:
Don't worry, winowhead, "better men than you" will continue to ensure that you have the right and the opportunity to disagree with them. And yes, you are a Leftist. I can't think of any word that better describes you.
Lew,
Great post!
Spook, that is an amazing quote. And Lew, thanks for chiming in. You are smart and articulate and knowledgable, and we'd like to see more of you.
CJ, you make an excellent point, which had gone right past me---the desire of the neorads to make Iraq a safe haven for Al-Queda. Hmmmmm. However, you have to remember that it was not really Al-Queda behind 9/11---it was the Bush Administration, trying to create a reason for going into Iraq to disguise their true motivation. That motivation was oil, or blood lust, or revenge for Pappy's mistakes....the list keeps growing. And of course, any plot we uncover is a fake, too, invented to create a false sense of insecurity in the country and lead the sheep to vote Republican again. And any new attack will be the same.
Porter hits it on the head---there is nothing the Left likes less than an accurate description of who they are, what they want, and how they try to get it. Masters of Double-Speak, they constantly redefine terms to make them usable by them---Liberal, to describe the most intolerant, illiberal, political doctrine there is; Progressive, to describe punitive and regressive policies and philosophies; Pro-choice, to describe the effort to remove actual choice (which has to be based on complete information) and replace it with guesses, based on false beliefs. Truth to a Liberal is like light to a cockroach.
When I was a Liberal, I read a John Dos Passos account of socialists infiltrating labor meetings in Depression-era California, a la Grapes of Wrath. A few months later, I went to the national SDS convention and saw the exact same thing taking place there. It was so by-the-word the same, it was eerie. That was my first nudge away from the Left---I really have a thing about being lied to, and once I catch on, my trust is gone. (I still can't figure out why so many Dems tolerate the lies, even when they are proved to be lies. I think that is where the Hate Bush thing comes in---hate seems to trump truth, at least on the left, and to justify lying.)
Almiranta
Retired Spook and Keefer are long term commentors. Both have been around as long as I have which was December 2003. Other great commentors like Scaramanga and Michael in MI have left because of the troll infestation. Scaramanga was the best in the blogosphere at dissecting a trolls "arguement." I wish he would come around every now and then.
Actually, prior to WWI and WWII there was a strong anti-war or isolationist sentiment. In fact, that is often evident in the left. They want us to stay out of world politics, as if that will keep the world from attacking us. It did not work in WWII (think Pearl Harbor) and it will not work now. Thank God for a strong Republican administration when we were attacked this time.
-- How can something not have succeeded that has never been tried? Your arguement regarding WWII makes no impact because the U.S. was poking around in world affairs back then as well. Much as you would like to deny it, and pretend that the US was attacked simply because the Japanese were tired of watching the U.S. mind its own business.
Axis, if you would like to see just how effective the anti-war left is, try asking any of the multitudes of Cambodian, Laotion and Vietnamese that flooded here after our departure from Southest Asia.
They are the ones, the ones that are still alive, that can tell the world what was the true outcome of the left's pressure to abandon Viet Nam in their hour of need.
"Your arguement regarding WWII makes no impact because the U.S. was poking around in world affairs back then as well." axis
So Pearl Harbor was OUR fault???? By the tone and context of your post you must also believe that 9/11 was OUR fault.
This sort of logic is based on hatred of the US and nothing more. If not please expand on the justification for either attack.
CJ, I saw a post by Scaramonga a few days ago, but I agree, he is missed.
I've seen and respected the Spook's contributions for a long time. As you and I agree, no one who posts with facts, logic, and fairness can possibly be a lefty infiltrator. The "con to the core" is proof of that.
Yeah, what is it with the trolls? Is some minder somewhere sending them out on these intellectual suicide missions? If so, they are coming unarmed.
While it is funny, in one way, to see the absolute nonsense they spout so earnestly, it is creepy to realize that they really don't believe most of what they write, just write it because it makes them feel good so be so vicious. I'd like to think that these nutters are all clustered in one dank basement somewhere, high-fiving each other over every "gotcha" they think they score.
Thanks for what you do---you're on top of it.
Lew, I don't think they even know that millions were slaughtered as the direct result of the disinformation campaign started by Kerry and Fonda. Not that they would care.
Do you have a source for the info that the Viet Cong officer who was in charge of torturing McCain told him that they did not need to surrender, that Kerry and Fonda would win the war for them? I have my books in storage, getting ready to move, and can't find that reference or the one about the North going to US allies to start negotiating a surrender, starting with a demand that they not be tried as war criminals were at Nuremburg. You seem to be the Viet Nam go-to guy.
look more people falling for the left-right paradigm, its sad really.
"intellectual suicide missions"-Almiranta
Bwahahaha!
:)
"This is a war like no other - this is a war to the death between free people on one hand, and murderous enslavers on the other."-Mark Noonan
To illustrate your point, Mark-
"Somali Islamic Militiamen Break Up Wedding"
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — The Islamic militiamen controlling the Somali capital broke up a wedding celebration because a band was playing and women and men were socializing together, witnesses said Saturday, describing the latest crackdown by a group feared to be installing Taliban-style rule in this African nation.
The Islamic fighters beat band members with electric cables and confiscated their equipment, said Asha Ilmi Hashi, a singer with the group Mogadishu Stars.
“We had warned the family not to include in their ceremony what is not allowed by the sharia law. This includes the mixing of men and women and playing music,” Sheik Iise Salad, who heads an Islamic court in the northeastern Huriwaa District, told The Associated Press. “That is why we raided and took their equipment.”
“What was going there was un-Islamic,” Salad said.
I'm still waiting for an answer from our leftists like minnowhead, why is it that you wanted al Qaeda to set up shop in Iraq?
That's the wrong question warboy. Why they have set up shop in Iraq is because we are occupying it. You should have to answer why we chose to invade Iraq instead of Iran which of course is more problematic.
So, warboy tick, tock, you're on the clock........
To further illustrate your point, Mark-
Poll: Majority of Palestinians back kidnappings, Qassam fire
Haaretz.com: [..] Of the 1,197 respondents from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 66.8 percent expressed support for further kidnappings of Israeli civilians while 77.2 percent backed the Kerem Shalom tunnel operation and subsequent kidnapping of Israel Defense Forces Corporal Gilad Shalit.
[..] The poll also showed that 60 percent of the public supports the continued Qassam rocket fire into Israel as opposed to 36 percent who oppose.
***************
Unbelievable! 66.8% of Palestinians expressed support for further kidnappings of Israeli civilians! Worse, 60% of the public supports the continued Qassam rocket fire into Israel. Those Qassam rockets randomly target Israeli civilians!
"So, warboy tick, tock, you're on the clock........"
Just like I am still waiting on your plans to help defend this country, Ash. I've been waiting about, ohhhh, 2 months for your plan to keep our country safe. When we left off, I believe your last idea was "Shore up national defense" and that was it. I'm still waiting on you to expand on that. Stop demanding others answer questions when you won't answer them yourself.
Yeah, what is it with the trolls? Is some minder somewhere sending them out on these intellectual suicide missions? If so, they are coming unarmed.
Almiranta, that one is going into the archive of great quotes. The pen is, indeed, mightier than the sword, sharper too. heh.
I've seen and respected the Spook's contributions for a long time.
The respect is mutual.
I've given you my answer nc cop. you refusal to accept it is your problem, not mine.
Almiranta, Newsmax referenced McCains comments, but I don’t think he directly mentioned Kerry in his 14 May 1973 article for US News and World Report, “How the POWs Fought Back.” His words in that were;
“This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us-speeches and statements by men who were generally respected in the United States.
They used Senator Fulbright a great deal, and Senator Brooke. Ted Kennedy was
quoted again and again, as was Averell Harriman. Clark Clifford was another favorite,
right after he had been Secretary of Defense under President Johnson.
When Ramsey Clark came over they thought that was a great coup for their cause. The
big furor over release of the Pentagon papers was a tremendous boost for Hanoi. It
was advanced as proof of the "black imperialist schemes" that they had been talking
about all those years.”
There is a lot of reference of animosity between Kerry and McCain until they seemingly “settled their differences,” many years afterward.
The Newsmax reference is at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/183220.shtml
UPI referenced other exPOWs who distinctly remember Kerry’s words being used against them and spoke out about it during the campaign.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040803-123611-2794r
There have been several references to General Giap considering negotiating a surrender after the defeat of his forces and the Viet Cong in the failed Tet 0f ’68 Offensive. His memoirs are written in Vietnamese and that I know of, there isn’t a fully translated edition available just yet.
In the October 2005 edition of VIETNAM magazine, there is an interview with retired North Vietnamese General Nguyen Duc Huy where is asked, “After the war, Giap told a group of Western reporters that Communist losses in the Tet Offensive were so devastating that if the American forces had kept up that level of Military pressure much longer North Vietnam would have been forced to negotiate a peace on American terms. Do you agree?”
General Huy replied, “If the American army had fought some more, had continued, I don’t know. Maybe. I can’t say what would have happened.”
Found on page 38 in the center of the right column.
An excellent source for the chronicle of the defeat of the North Vietnamese Army and the decimation of the Viet Cong would be the book “Unheralded Victory,” by Mark W. Woodruff. It’s probably the most complete account of the Tet Offensive.
In the August 3, 1995 Wall Street journal, Colonel Bui Tin was interviewed and the account was printed as “How North Viet Nam Won The War.” In part, Col. Tin, who defected from Viet Nam after becoming disillusioned with the communist, when asked the question, “Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?” Answered Tin, “It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.” “Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.”
When asked what was the purpose of the Tet Offensive, he replied, “To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.”
Asked about the results of the Tet Offensive, he said, “Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.”
There are so many books and articles about Viet Nam, I’m not sure exactly which one you are mentioning. Surely, I can’t have them or have read them all, LOL. As for being an “expert” on Viet Nam, I’m not really. Just one of the over 2 million who served and have been trying to speak out with the truth about that and now trying to see a repeat of it in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Almiranta, Newsmax referenced McCains comments, but I don’t think he directly mentioned Kerry in his 14 May 1973 article for US News and World Report, “How the POWs Fought Back.” His words in that were;
“This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us-speeches and statements by men who were generally respected in the United States.
They used Senator Fulbright a great deal, and Senator Brooke. Ted Kennedy was
quoted again and again, as was Averell Harriman. Clark Clifford was another favorite,
right after he had been Secretary of Defense under President Johnson.
When Ramsey Clark came over they thought that was a great coup for their cause. The
big furor over release of the Pentagon papers was a tremendous boost for Hanoi. It
was advanced as proof of the "black imperialist schemes" that they had been talking
about all those years.”
There is a lot of reference of animosity between Kerry and McCain until they seemingly “settled their differences,” many years afterward.
The Newsmax reference is at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/183220.shtml
UPI referenced other exPOWs who distinctly remember Kerry’s words being used against them and spoke out about it during the campaign.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040803-123611-2794r
There have been several references to General Giap considering negotiating a surrender after the defeat of his forces and the Viet Cong in the failed Tet 0f ’68 Offensive. His memoirs are written in Vietnamese and that I know of, there isn’t a fully translated edition available just yet.
In the October 2005 edition of VIETNAM magazine, there is an interview with retired North Vietnamese General Nguyen Duc Huy where is asked, “After the war, Giap told a group of Western reporters that Communist losses in the Tet Offensive were so devastating that if the American forces had kept up that level of Military pressure much longer North Vietnam would have been forced to negotiate a peace on American terms. Do you agree?”
General Huy replied, “If the American army had fought some more, had continued, I don’t know. Maybe. I can’t say what would have happened.”
Found on page 38 in the center of the right column.
An excellent source for the chronicle of the defeat of the North Vietnamese Army and the decimation of the Viet Cong would be the book “Unheralded Victory,” by Mark W. Woodruff. It’s probably the most complete account of the Tet Offensive.
In the August 3, 1995 Wall Street journal, Colonel Bui Tin was interviewed and the account was printed as “How North Viet Nam Won The War.” In part, Col. Tin, who defected from Viet Nam after becoming disillusioned with the communist, when asked the question, “Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?” Answered Tin, “It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.” “Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.”
When asked what was the purpose of the Tet Offensive, he replied, “To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.”
Asked about the results of the Tet Offensive, he said, “Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.”
There are so many books and articles about Viet Nam, I’m not sure exactly which one you are mentioning. Surely, I can’t have them or have read them all, LOL. As for being an “expert” on Viet Nam, I’m not really. Just one of the over 2 million who served and have been trying to speak out with the truth about that and now trying to see a repeat of it in Iraq or Afghanistan does not happen.
Considering every "rightist" here (for an equally stupid and non-informative term) is either willfully ignorant of the background of Islamist terrorists or a completely blind partisan fool, engaging the the afterthought talking points seem a bit silly.
When talking about Iraqi sectarian violence in terms of 9/11 - thanks to artificial Iraqi borders post WWII, US support of Hussein under Reagan when we thought him convenient, and a militarized bunch due to the US occupation - is so f*cking stupid to the point of being mind blowing.
I'd like to ask - would I be putting on the "blinders" by pointing out that if this happened in the US we'd be reliving 9/11?
Winnowhead,
You mean this Islamist terrorists background?-
There is almost no attempt to educate the public as to the historical basis in Islamic history for this "sectarian" violence between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims. So why does a Sunni Islamic terrorist blow himself up in a crowded Shiite marketplace? Well, it all started back in AD 680.
LAtimes.com: "Shiites and Sunnis -- centuries of strife"
"But sectarian strife is nothing new in Islamic history, and battles between Shiites and Sunnis have erupted periodically since Hussein challenged the Umayyad claim to the caliphate and raised the banner of revolt in AD 680. In the late 13th century, for instance, the Sunni Mamluks of Egypt were as anxious about Shiite expansion as that of the Crusaders, who were still in the coastal and northern parts of Syria. They sent expeditions to check the spread of Shiism in the mountain region of Kisrawan, which overlooks the coastal area north of Beirut. The Mamluk expeditions, sanctioned by the respected Sunni jurist Ibn Taymiya, forced Shiites in Kisrawan to conceal their identity during the 14th century."
[..] In Saudi Arabia, the religious-ideological divide has played a decisive role in shaping relations between the Saud ruling family, backed by the state's clerical establishment, and the Shiite minority concentrated mainly in the Hasa region, site of the country's oil. The rulers' adoption of Wahhabi-Hanbali Islam as the state's religious ideology has meant an inferior status for Shiites, whom the Wahhabis view as infidels. Shiites regard themselves as second- and even third-class citizens within the kingdom."
****
Trudy Rubin-The Philadelphia Inquirer
"Iraqis will dictate when U.S. will exit"
But fear and mistrust divide the two communities. Some Sunnis regard Shiite Muslims – who believe in a different line of succession to the Prophet Muhammad – as infidels. The language used by some educated Sunnis to refer to Shiites sounds like 1950s Ku Klux Klanners talking about blacks.
*************
Qur’an 49:9 “If two parties among the Believers fall into fighting, make peace: but if one becomes aggressive, then fight against the one that transgresses until it complies.”
I'd like to ask - would I be putting on the "blinders" by pointing out that if this happened in the US we'd be reliving 9/11?-
Posted by: winnowhead
How would you solve almost 14 centuries of Sunni vs. Shia violence? I'd suggest the solution is freedom and democracy.
Freedom,
Isn't that what they have now? I mean they have a "unity" government and a police and army, seems to me that the violence has gotten worse with more freedoms.
I am not saying that what they need is more authoritarian strong-men, but it might be much more plausible to advocate for a VERY loose federation with oil-revenue sharing, and regional autonomy...although that wouldn't be the most effective way to reap oil profits since each "state" would be able to negotiate their own oil contracts, and the taxes associated with them.
Yeah right, Ash, a four word answer. "Shore up national defense" Wow! I can't imagine why nobody takes you seriously on this site.
Yeah right, Ash, a four word answer. "Shore up national defense" Wow! I can't imagine why nobody takes you seriously on this site.
Third Eye Open,
"Isn't that what they have now? I mean they have a "unity" government and a police and army, seems to me that the violence has gotten worse with more freedoms."-TEO
Most of Iraq is relatively peaceful. Baghdad is decidedly not peaceful. The Iraqi army is getting better, but still has a long way to go. The Iraqi police have a longer way to go to develop into an effective police force. Both the Iraqi army and police force need training, development, experience and most importantly time. They'll get there, TEO, we just need to be patient and help them along the way.
Remember, America declared indepence in 1776. America didn't even have a constitution until 1787. The Iraqis have only had 3 years to go from a totalitarian dictatorship to a brand new democracy. We must be patient, TEO. I believe the Iraqis will get there.
:)
Freedom,
I have no doubt "they will get there" too--eventually--but I am not prepared to keep 20,000 troops holed up in the center of Baghdad, and other far-flung locations for the next 50 years while it happens.
At some point we have to admit that our presence is instigating violence, and allowing the political structure to shirk its responsibility by allowing us to play their scapegoat. After our civil-war, we had hard decisions to be made, we rebuked the South, put them in their place, and went on with our business, unfortunately this is the 21st century, and the insurgency is really good at playing the part for western media; what happens when 20 years from now we are still seeing weekly bombings? Are we willing to live with a mosque bombing here and there? At what point can we pack up our toys and go home...COMPLETELY?
This is not an invitation to an open-ended stay to place the crown jewel in Rummy's "lily-pad" war-theory. IMO, we need to leave these people to their own devices, at some point we have to be able to live with the thought that maybe they WANT theocracies, and if they are democratically elected, then what are we going to do, spend the next generation meddling like we did in Iran?
Third Eye Open,
"I have no doubt "they will get there" too--eventually--but I am not prepared to keep 20,000 troops holed up in the center of Baghdad, and other far-flung locations for the next 50 years while it happens."-TEO
Why not? Not that I'm advocating that they stay for 50 years, but several decades-yes. This Global War on Terror will most likely last as long as the Cold War. America still has 37,000 troops in Korea 50 years after the Korean Armistice. America still has troops in Germany 60 years after World War II. America still has troops in Japan 60 years after World War II. Why not Iraq? Think of the advantage of having 20,000 (or whatever) troops in Iraq for a few decades. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and all of the other Islamic theocracies will be wary of those troops. They will be less likely to attack Iraq, or other American interests for fear of immediate American reprisals against their nations. Make no mistake about it, Third Eye Open, Iraq is the current front of the Global War on Terror.
"At some point we have to admit that our presence is instigating violence..."-TEO
Third Eye Open, our very existence as non-Muslim Westerners "instigates" violence. This is a religious war. Don't think about it entirely in political terms because they definitely do not.
Islamist terrorists always have some excuse to "justify" their violence-even before Iraq. The Crusades has always been one of their favorites.
Thanks, Lew. You gave some great info, particularly regarding the quote from Col. Bui Tin. I'll keep looking for the quote I am thinking of. It was about concerns of being tried for war crimes---evidently Nuremburg made quite an impression.
In the world according to ash and teo, if the United States did not exist, there would be no war, no cruelty, no famine, nothing bad at all.