Question for you know it alls....

[UConn James]

The old theory that suicide bombers are uneducated aloof loners is being disproven.  More and more, they are coming from the middle of the society, and disenfranchisement may be their leading impetus to join the fight.

 

The question I have for your logic is that since you acknowledge a major problem facing the future of an average Arab, what is your solution?  Do you honestly think that sitting down with the despots and laying out the untenable situation they're facing is going to make them implement reforms?

 

Or do we twist in the wreckage of blzrul's convoluted logic where forcing a change of civilization is obviously wrong, but so are Saud's moves to continue curtailing women's rights?

 

Please, I've been asking for this answer for over a year now.  If you don't agree with the neocon strategy of taking the fight to the Mid East, forcing a change in the region, and stabilizing the supply of one of the (if not the) biggest underpinnings of the global economy - what's the REALISTIC alternative?

68061[/snapback]

 

Well, I'm not being paid to come up with a realistic solution and I don't have the resources they have, so I have no concrete answer. Go ahead and spout off the "See, you don't have answers" line. But I know enough to see when the problem is being made worse both in the current time and for the future, and the neocons have no concrete answer either, other than a level of war and occupation that we're too overstretched to take much further. I think the No. 1 step would begin by becoming energy independent at more than the snail's pace b/c the administration lets the monolpolistic domestic oil companies stonewall alternative energy for the simple fact that they don't have a monopoly on it too. Forcing the MidEast to adapt their economy to something other than profit-rich oil would go some of the way toward the end. Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

As for those who will still flock to AQ, you can't invade and topple every country that has a few AQ cells. And if you think Iraqis aren't going to do what they're going to do, namely become an Islamic theocracy worse than Saddam, or start a civil war five seconds after we pull out of there (be it next week or 50 years from now) you're kidding yourself! Thinking you're going to solve it with military might isn't necessarily the answer. Didn't work for the Romans, won't work for us. Giving a :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: to the world and invading other countries at will, will come back to bite us in the ass. That's guaranteed.

[_BiB_]

There is a lot more at play right now than "military might". Iraq has center stage and all the media attention. The vast proponderance of GWOT activities are low key and much more associated with criminal type investigation and countermeasure than brute force. There are "quiet" interdictions that take place almost daily throughout the world. Most being conducted by our allies that so many of you seem to think do not exist and that Kerry will create. You apply the appropriate tools to the appropriate situation. Get over the idea that there is a quick solution. Oil is going to be the dominant economic force for a long time to come. Face it. Way it is. One can burn cow turds all they want here in the US, but is that going to make Europe, China and the rest of the world? No. Redirection of energy requirements may well be applied to a long term maintenance strategy looking decades down the road-but it has no bearing on the immediate situation-say from now through the next five to ten years.

[Adam]

Yes, but a sinus infection is merely a nuisance. 

 

A better analogy perhaps, and I'm no MD, but when someone has a potential terminal illness such as cancer it may not be wise to treat it with aspirin.

66573[/snapback]

 

I've had sinus infections before, and they are MUCH more than a nuisance!

[jjamie12]

I've outlined basically the primmer. This is a tremendously complex and multi-layered situation. It is very difficult to articulate to the American public, who for the most part politically are very narrowly focused and accustomed to receiving their information in very small doses. The WMD scenario was/is sound. right now, the most dangerous scenario is AQ either procuring or developing their own stockpile of WMD. Look how much damage they can do with 3-4 Boeings. In the months/weeks leading up to the invasion there was what looked like very sound, accurate information as to the types, locations and amounts of stockpiled Iraqi WMD. About two years ago, I was earmarked to lead one of the teams charged with exploiting the weapons sites-collecting and disposing of what was thought to be on-hand. I had a portfolio of locations complete with suspected types and amounts of material. Why? I had to plan for the logistics of getting the weapons from point A to point B for their ultimate disposal. If you knew what you were looking at, there would have been little doubt in your mind that there was a serious problem. I'm an operations person, not an intell analyst. I have little knowledge of how this info was put together. But you better believe it looked "good". From what I know of this business, there is no way this was a fabrication for political purposes. This was info that came from somewhere.

 

I think this was a palatable "reason" for the invasion, an important primary cause. The WMD, however, are just one of several reasons to be there and continue to stay there. You also have to understand that there is a lot of information out there that the news organizations, and by extension the public, are not going to be privy to. That doesn't help the explanation "cause".

67988[/snapback]

 

It is very difficult to articulate to the American public, who for the most part politically are very narrowly focused and accustomed to receiving their information in very small doses.

 

But you just did it wonderfully, BIB. I don't think it's too much to ask the President to be as good at that as somebody who posts on twobillsdrive.com, do you??

 

 

I agree that the public is used to their info in small doses, and soundbites, however, is that because that's all we get, or because we aren't able to process the information? I just think that the President should be able to articulate the plan. In truth, the public (of the US, and the world, actually) were ready to get behind the President and pretty much do whatever it was that he wanted to. He could have gotten up before the world and talked about root causes of terrorism, and express how important it is to have a democratic stronghold in the Middle East to give people hope AND to help stop the proliferation of WMD's, by going in and getting rid of a murderous dictator who ruthlessly kills his own people, has started wars in the past, and who continued to have the ability to manufacture these WMD's at some point in the future. I really believe people would have rallied to that... But that's not what they did. They framed it completely as a "He's going to kill us, and kill us soon.", which turned out to be completely (? I don't presume to know FOR SURE that this part is true, but it would seem so) false. If they framed this invasion differently, and explained themselves differently, I really believe it's a completely different situation, and you have much more support throughout the world, and more importantly, at home. The danger, in my opinion, is that we swing too far the other way, (and that's why I'm torn over who to vote for in this case...) and abandon what would seem to be good policy because that policy was articulated in such a piss poor way that people don't really know what we're doing there. They told us it was WMD. There are no WMD (with the caveat that I don't know that for sure), so it would seem that the policy is a failure... Except that it isn't the real policy...

 

 

I think this was a palatable "reason" for the invasion, an important primary cause. The WMD, however, are just one of several reasons to be there and continue to stay there.

 

I agree as well, but if that "reason" turned out to be wrong (or, at least, is perceived to be wrong), there should have been something else to fall back on as a "reason", right? I think it was a big political miscalculation, if you believe that this is all part of a larger strategy, rather than they actually believed that Saddam had WMD pointed at us, or was ready to sell them to terrorists. If that's what they believed, then it's just a muck-up.

 

If they had explained it properly, it's not a big deal that there are no WMD, because that wasn't necessarily the only reason to go there (which is true, and always was, just not used as part of the discussion and NEEDED to be in order for all of the things that they are saying now about bringing democracy and doing it for human rights reasons to be taken seriously). They framed it this way, and have to deal with the consequences of that framing instead of doing other things that might be more productive...

 

I guess I just don't understand why they didn't, at the least, *try* to frame it your way. I think it was a real big political mistake (they are obviously dealing with the ramifications of that now), and I fear that it's going to be a real big mistake strategically.

 

Baically, what I'm saying is this: Why not BIB for National Security Advisor!?!?!

 

EDIT:

Then again, I just looked at the front page, and we have a thread that is four pages long with the title "Vote for John Kerry and Parapalegics will walk again", so maybe you're right that we're too stupid (or blinded by partisanship) to understand the intricacies of global foreign policy.

[GG]

Well, I'm not being paid to come up with a realistic solution and I don't have the resources they have, so I have no concrete answer. Go ahead and spout off the "See, you don't have answers" line. But I know enough to see when the problem is being made worse both in the current time and for the future, and the neocons have no concrete answer either, other than a level of war and occupation that we're too overstretched to take much further. I think the No. 1 step would begin by becoming energy independent at more than the snail's pace b/c the administration lets the monolpolistic domestic oil companies stonewall alternative energy for the simple fact that they don't have a monopoly on it too. Forcing the MidEast to adapt their economy to something other than profit-rich oil would go some of the way toward the end. Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

But you do not have an answer, and are backing away with a wishy response that your don't have the resources.

 

It seems that you are capable of doing research, but have not done so on this topic. Blaming Big Oil for the mess we're in is a ridiculous cop out. Oil companies get the blame for maintaining the status quo, when even the basic analysis of the petroleum industry will show you how deeply oil is integrated within nearly every aspect of your life.

 

The other point is that oil is a commodity that is used by the whole world, not just US. Even if we achieve the goal of US independence on energy sources will not dry up the revenues for Mid East oil regimes, because there are plenty of other willing buyers. Would you be equally sanguine about the Mid East situation, knowing that those regimes would not have any economic ties to USA?

 

If necessity is the mother of invention, what would necessitate the Mid East regimes to change if China & Europe continue to buy their oil?

 

Blaming oil companies also gets you off the hook of real accountability for a potential energy crisis. Oil has been the economic driver of the industrial West for over 150 years, and it's a bit disingenuous to blame the current administration for all the ills.

 

Oil is a very cheap energy source, and there's very little on the horizon that will replace its efficiency in the near future. If you're thinking, "well, we should bear the higher cost of seeking energy replacement." Yes, that is correct. But that cost should not be pie in the sky technologies. Are the oil companies blocking new nuclear plants, giant windmills, drilling in ANWAR, liquified natural gas. Personal accountability goes a long way as well. Is it oil companies that refuse to replace old windows & retrofit insulation in older houses? If you're willing to pave the way for new technologies, you should not cry about a significant increase in your cost of living.

 

If DEMs are so concerned about the future, why are they mum about the need for the US auto industry to develop cars that get 50MPH? Could it be that the US is behind the Japanese & Europeans, and the move would throw thousands of US auto workers on the street?

 

The easy answer is energy independence - the hard answer is gteting there and paying for it.

 

As for those who will still flock to AQ, you can't invade and topple every country that has a few AQ cells. And if you think Iraqis aren't going to do what they're going to do, namely become an Islamic theocracy worse than Saddam, or start a civil war five seconds after we pull out of there (be it next week or 50 years from now) you're kidding yourself! Thinking you're going to solve it with military might isn't necessarily the answer. Didn't work for the Romans, won't work for us. Giving a :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: to the world and invading other countries at will, will come back to bite us in the ass. That's guaranteed.

68144[/snapback]

 

The strategy is not to invade every country, but to change a few to show that democracy and free markets can work. End the end, military conquest didn't work for the Romans because the cost of colonialization was too high. In the current US empire, the cost of "colonialization" is upfront, and then gets recouped by new countries entering the global economy.

[_BiB_]

Everything I have posted may or may not be "correct", but it is certainly not "politically correct". I have very little confidence that America, and the world at large would accept our actions based on what I have laid out.

 

As I said, this is very multi-layered and intertwined. There is a lot of high value economic interest in the region belonging to France, Germany, Russia and China. Those countries are never going to fully support something detrimental to their own economy and political interests. There's no morality here. If France thought it was in their best interest to help invade Iraq, they would have done so WMD or no WMD. France is VERY closely allied with us in other matters-such as President Bush's Proliferation Security Intitiative which is global cooperation effort to track and interdict the expansion of WMD capabilities and materials. France has also been very helpful in the "understated" War on Terror that one doesn't read about too much.

 

This is where I begin to get aggravated with the political rhetoric. I honestly don't understand what new allies Kerry is going to bring to the table. The UN is a liability, not an asset. Check out Oil for Food and about 200 toothless resolutions. Many of the members of the UN either support or have a politcal/economic interest in a shift of power. There is also, and has been a global jealousy of the United States. We are the only Superpower. The European Union wants to create it's own, to counter us politically and economically. Chirac would love nothing better than to be the big dog. Why do you think Tony Blair is such a staunch supporter of ours?

 

Everyone is working in their own self interest. When those interests match-you have an ally. When they don't? You don't have an ally. It's not nation against nation, it's situations against situations. Everyone that isn't Iran has a vested interest in curbing Islamic Terrorism. Ergo, most everyone is an ally. Joe the Fishmarket guy might not like us-but he is not important. What is important is which governments work with us, and which don't. That invites the "Oh, but world opinion is important"

 

Well, no it's not. That's just the way things are.

[_BiB_]

So, whatever happened to Buftex? Folks want to debate issues? No, they don't. Most folks do drive bys with no thought nor purpose.

[chicot]

But you do not have an answer, and are backing away with a wishy response that your don't have the resources. 

 

It seems that you are capable of doing research, but have not done so on this topic.  Blaming Big Oil for the mess we're in is a ridiculous cop out.  Oil companies get the blame for maintaining the status quo, when even the basic analysis of the petroleum industry will show you how deeply oil is integrated within nearly every aspect of your life. 

 

The other point is that oil is a commodity that is used by the whole world, not just US.  Even if we achieve the goal of US independence on energy sources will not dry up the revenues for Mid East oil regimes, because there are plenty of other willing buyers.  Would you be equally sanguine about the Mid East situation, knowing that those regimes would not have any economic ties to USA?

 

If necessity is the mother of invention, what would necessitate the Mid East regimes to change if China & Europe continue to buy their oil?

 

Blaming oil companies also gets you off the hook of real accountability for a potential energy crisis.  Oil has been the economic driver of the industrial West for over 150 years, and it's a bit disingenuous to blame the current administration for all the ills. 

 

Oil is a very cheap energy source, and there's very little on the horizon that will replace its efficiency in the near future.  If you're thinking, "well, we should bear the higher cost of seeking energy replacement."  Yes, that is correct.  But that cost should not be pie in the sky technologies.  Are the oil companies blocking new nuclear plants, giant windmills, drilling in ANWAR, liquified natural gas.  Personal accountability goes a long way as well.  Is it oil companies that refuse to replace old windows & retrofit insulation in older houses?  If you're willing to pave the way for new technologies, you should not cry about a significant increase in your cost of living.

 

If DEMs are so concerned about the future, why are they mum about the need for the US auto industry to develop cars that get 50MPH?  Could it be that the US is behind the Japanese & Europeans, and the move would throw thousands of US auto workers on the street?

 

The easy answer is energy independence - the hard answer is gteting there and paying for it.

The strategy is not to invade every country, but to change a few to show that democracy and free markets can work.  End the end, military conquest didn't work for the Romans because the cost of colonialization was too high.  In the current US empire, the cost of "colonialization" is upfront, and then gets recouped by new countries entering the global economy.

68223[/snapback]

 

"The strategy is not to invade every country, but to change a few to show that democracy and free markets can work."

 

And what happens if the populations of these countries don't actually want a free market economy? What happens if they actually prefer (horror!) socialism? Do you then force it on them? How does that then square with democracy - isn't the basis on which your countries economy is to be founded a fundamental issue that should be decided by the government of that country and not imposed on them from without? How do you think the Iraqis that have been made redundant by Bremer's glorious reforms feel about the US? People don't generally like losing their jobs at the best of times. Having a foreign occupying power telling them they are surplus to requirements is not going to do much to win hearts and minds.

[Kelly the Dog]

Ok, let's put it this way.  The war on terror will be officially over when there as not been any terrorist acts anywhere in the world for an eternity.  That's what Bush meant when he said the war on terror cannot be won.  It will always exist.  All we can hope to do is limit it's scope.

67581[/snapback]

That's without question, clearly and precisely what Kerry said with the nuisance quote.

[_BiB_]

"The strategy is not to invade every country, but to change a few to show that democracy and free markets can work."

 

And what happens if the populations of these countries don't actually want a free market economy? What happens if they actually prefer (horror!) socialism? Do you then force it on them? How does that then square with democracy - isn't the basis on which your countries economy is to be founded a fundamental issue that should be decided by the government of that country and not imposed on them from without? How do you think the Iraqis that have been made redundant by Bremer's glorious reforms feel about the US? People don't generally like losing their jobs at the best of times. Having a foreign occupying power telling them they are surplus to requirements is not going to do much to win hearts and minds.

69011[/snapback]

 

Nice try, Dave. "Socialism" isn't an issue here. We were doing a lot better security-wise when the evil Soviet Empire had a stake. This is not a war against Islam, but it is a war against a well funded fundamental sect smart enough to use the ideological rhetoric in a play for regional domination. What is really dangerous is that the ideology comes before the strategy. I'd be happier if they were just power crazy nut cases like the rest of us. They are smart enough to understand global economics and the dynamics and interplay of global politics. They are very, very good strategists to a point. They screwed up on 9/11-they succeeded in a decisive brilliant sneak attack, but are now struggling with the war. They never expected the response they got-they expected a few airstrikes, a bunch of feel good TV soundbites and a dozen or so cruise missiles. Now they are not sure of the response they will get. I've mentioned many times before that the only deterrent to Al Qaida is fear of failure. There is nothing militarily to hold at risk with them, other than that. Well, we have them there. They are uncertain. Going back to the days of "ask the UN" and "building coalitions" plays right into their hands. It becomes predictable, and restores their advantage. They, for the most part are not predictable. Right now, neither are we. I'd hate to see that change for the sake of a vote so that somebody can be a something, rather than somebody wanting to do something.

[chicot]

Nice try, Dave. "Socialism" isn't an issue here. We were doing a lot better security-wise when the evil Soviet Empire had a stake. This is not a war against Islam, but it is a war against a well funded fundamental sect smart enough to use the ideological rhetoric in a play for regional domination. What is really dangerous is that the ideology comes before the strategy. I'd be happier if they were just power crazy nut cases like the rest of us. They are smart enough to understand global economics and the dynamics and interplay of global politics. They are very, very good strategists to a point. They screwed up on 9/11-they succeeded in a decisive brilliant sneak attack, but are now struggling with the war. They never expected the response they got-they expected a few airstrikes, a bunch of feel good TV soundbites and a dozen or so cruise missiles. Now they are not sure of the response they will get. I've mentioned many times before that the only deterrent to Al Qaida is fear of failure. There is nothing militarily to hold at risk with them, other than that. Well, we have them there. They are uncertain. Going back to the days of "ask the UN" and "building coalitions" plays right into their hands. It becomes predictable, and restores their advantage. They, for the most part are not predictable. Right now, neither are we. I'd hate to see that change for the sake of a vote so that somebody can be a something, rather than somebody wanting to do something.

 

69045[/snapback]

 

I think you slightly misunderstood my post as it wasn't really about the rights and wrongs of the war so much as about the series of cockups that followed it and contributed to the mess Iraq is in now. I actually believe that there was a chance that this all could have gone fairly well and that Iraq would now be fairly peaceful and Bush would be smelling of roses and well ahead in the polls at this stage - there was a great deal of gratitude towards the US immediately following the fall of Saddam. Unfortunately, the arrogance and incompetence shown in the handling of post-war Iraq has squandered all this. It should be pretty obvious to anyone with a bit of common-sense that one of the first things the coalition should do is to reduce unemployment in Iraq - people whose livelihood depends on being employed by the CPA are far less likely to join the resistance. Sadr City is a good example of this - the immediate priority should have been to provide the basic services that these slum areas have been lacking for so long. They should have ensured that the population were involved in this effort - it doesn't matter what they got them doing - unskilled labour, whatever, just so long as they were putting them to work. Had they done so, Al-Sadr would have found it far more difficult to recruit so many of the inhabitants into his Mehdi Army. Instead, the CPA blind idealogical adherence to free market principles, wherever, whatever the situation, meant that exactly the opposite happened- many Iraqis lost their jobs as a direct result of the CPA's reforms. Maybe these free market reforms will, in the long term, benefit Iraq and it will be a land of milk and honey in fifty years time. That should not have been the priority at this time - it should be obvious that having thousands of young men sitting around doing nothing and seriously pissed at the US is fertile recruiting ground for an insurgency. When you add that to the absurdity of failing to secure the weapons depots (Kerry was spot on when he mentioned this - people from my relative's village were going to US soldiers and begging them to secure these sites as they were getting pretty worried about unsavoury characters marching in and walking off with mortars, RPGS, etc), you have a recipe for disaster.

[Kelly the Dog]

Nice try, Dave. "Socialism" isn't an issue here. We were doing a lot better security-wise when the evil Soviet Empire had a stake. This is not a war against Islam, but it is a war against a well funded fundamental sect smart enough to use the ideological rhetoric in a play for regional domination. What is really dangerous is that the ideology comes before the strategy. I'd be happier if they were just power crazy nut cases like the rest of us. They are smart enough to understand global economics and the dynamics and interplay of global politics. They are very, very good strategists to a point. They screwed up on 9/11-they succeeded in a decisive brilliant sneak attack, but are now struggling with the war. They never expected the response they got-they expected a few airstrikes, a bunch of feel good TV soundbites and a dozen or so cruise missiles. Now they are not sure of the response they will get. I've mentioned many times before that the only deterrent to Al Qaida is fear of failure. There is nothing militarily to hold at risk with them, other than that. Well, we have them there. They are uncertain. Going back to the days of "ask the UN" and "building coalitions" plays right into their hands. It becomes predictable, and restores their advantage. They, for the most part are not predictable. Right now, neither are we. I'd hate to see that change for the sake of a vote so that somebody can be a something, rather than somebody wanting to do something.

69045[/snapback]

 

The insurgents that are non-iraqis chose to go there, they could have stayed wherever they were hiding and planned more attacks on various targets around the world. But they figured, rightly or wrongly, that they could either win this guerrilla war, or kill enough Americans, or get enough bad press about Americans, or stop the American presence in the Middle East because they wanted to be there. The Iraqis insurgents, the vast majority of them, just seem to hate America because they were attacked and overthrown and now Saddam is no longer in power.

 

Even if Saddam was the biggest !@#$ in the world, and even if he did have plans to attack the US (which I doubt), or plans to pass WMD to terrorists, I don't think that automatically included the majority of Iraqi citizens, or army or many of them at all that hate the US enough to want to go blow themselves up in a car. I'm sure a small number may, but there isn't any history of it to my knowledge. The war seems to have created millions, if not ten million, common Iraqi citizens or Iraqi soldiers that are willing to die to kill Americans that likely weren't willing before the war.

 

You know so much more about this than I do, and I respect your opinion about it greatly, but even if Saddam was the biggest terrorist in the world, what makes you think his citizenry followed that same philosophy. The terrorists, real terrorists, that were terrorists before the war, may not have expected our response, but they didnt have to come to Iraq to fight it. They chose to. And they seem to be gaining support in numbers rather than losing it despite how many of them we kill.