Ineffective war on terror

[varwoche]

Remember the question that Rumsfeld posed in the leaked private memo...? Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us? People with serious credentials in the region, and in counter-terrorism, have answered "No" to this question -- Admiral Zinni and Richard Clark come to mind. "Anonymous", the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror is another source I take seriously.

- He was in charge of the CIA station dedicated to bin Laden
- The only reason he is anonymous is because of the CIA; he is known to the WA press corp.
- He can't be easily dismissed as a left wing partisan seeing as he advocates military measures more extreme than anything the administration has advocated.

Quoting Anonymous from his none-too-reassuring interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, emphasis mine: ...we remain in a state of denial about the size of the organization we face, the multiple allies it has, and more importantly probably than anything, the genius of bin Laden that's behind the movement and the power of religion that motivates the movement.
...
And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax.
...
And the genius that lies behind it, because he's not a man who rants against our freedoms, our liberties, our voting, our — the fact that our women go to school. He's not the Ayatollah Khomeini; he really doesn't care about all those things. To think that he's trying to rob us of our liberties and freedom is, I think, a gross mistake. What he has done, his genius, is identify particular American foreign policies that are offensive to Muslims whether they support these martial actions or not — our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian Peninsula, our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims, be it India, China, Russia, Uzbekistan. Bin Laden has focused the Muslim world on specific, tangible, visual American policies.
...
No, I don't think they [the Muslim world] hate everything that we stand for. In fact, the same polls that show the depths of their hatred of our policies show a very strong affection for the traditional American sense of fair play, the idea of rule by law, the ability of people to educate their children. I think the mistake is made on our part to assume that they hate all those things. What they hate is the policy and the repercussions of that policy, whether it's in Israel or on the Arabian Peninsula. It's not a hatred of us as a society, it's a hatred of our policies.
...
I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — [b]it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived. We've arrived at the point where the only option is military. And quite frankly, in Iraq and in Afghanistan we've applied that military force with a certain daintiness that has not served our interests well.
...
Well, I think we made no impression on them with our military might. We are unquestionably the strongest military power on earth. And in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our opponents rode out that war.
...
We seem to have a little bit of trouble distinguishing between winning a war and winning a battle.
...
The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism. But more importantly, it allowed—it made us invade, or it caused us to invade a country that's the second holiest place in Islam.
When asked what he would like to tell the president, Anonymous replied:
I genuinely think that we have underestimated the scope of the enemy, the dedication of the enemy and the threat that it poses to the United States. I think someone should have gone to the president when the, when the discussion of going to Iraq was broached and have said, Mr. President, this is something that can only help Osama bin Laden. Whatever the danger posed by Saddam, whatever weapons he had, is almost irrelevant in that the boost it would give to al-Qaida was easily seen. And if that message wasn't delivered, then I think there was a mistake made. I also think that Mr. Lincoln's view that one war at a time is plenty is probably a good piece of guidance.
article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/)

[varwoche]

The reason he is anonymous is because the CIA won't let him release his name. (Though it's been reported anyway.) What's interesting is that the book is sourced from the public domain, and supposely it's unusual for the CIA to require that the name be withheld under these circumstances. "The requirement that someone publish anonymously is rare, almost unheard-of, particularly if the person is not in a covert position," says Jonathan Turley, a national-security-law expert at George Washington University Law School. "It seems pretty obvious that the requirement he remain anonymous is motivated solely by political concerns, and ones that have more to do with the CIA. While I’m sure some would argue that there’s some benefit to book sales in being anonymous because it’s mysterious and fuels speculation, the fact is that if his full name and history were known and on the book, it would get a lot more attention. It’s difficult for the media to cover an anonymous subject who has to abide by limits on what he can say about himself or anything that might reveal who he is."
article (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/03949394.asp)

[varwoche]

As to the not very anonymous author, emphasis added:
"bin Laden's words are the most overlooked part of the tape," writes the "Imperial Hubris" author, who has been named in news reports as Michael Scheurer.

Thus "bin Laden's post-[9/11] rhetoric again shows he knows us, and how we will react, far better than we know him," writes Scheurer.article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1013/p01s04-usgn.html)

[varwoche]

If "Scheurer" is correct, by invading Iraq the administration has screwed the war on terror up so bad that you don't want to even think about it.

I wish I was alone in my view that we are fighting a losing war. I see little reason to doubt that events far more tragic than 9/11 will occur in the future.

I don't see Kerry as much hope either. A little, but not much. Neither will tackle the core treatable issue: Palestine*.

* I'm leaving it at that, in hopes of not veering off.

[shecky]

I've been pretty pessimistic regarding the possible outcome of this war. You're not helping much. :(

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

Originally posted by shecky
I've been pretty pessimistic regarding the possible outcome of this war. You're not helping much. :( Luckily, it's all sunshine and roses from here on out. Hope that helps.

[merphie]

I wonder what people said during the first 3 years of the civil war.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by merphie
I wonder what people said during the first 3 years of the civil war. Pretty much gloom and doom. And the ripples of that stone in the lake continued on for well over 100 years (and are still seen today). Your point?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Pretty much gloom and doom. And the ripples of that stone in the lake continued on for well over 100 years (and are still seen today). Your point?

I don't think anyone would argue against Lincoln being one of the greatest presidents in history. My point was not the over all ideals or effects of the war itself.

The war went baddly for the union during the first few years. Do you think people said Lincoln was incompetent after the appauling loses suffered at places like Fredricksburg? Did they blame all the actions of the generals on Lincoln? I am sure they blamed the rise of the rebels on Lincoln.

<sarcasm>
Surely the first 2 -3 years of terrible tragedies for the Union was the cause of the North losing the civil war to the south. It must have been hopeless.
</sarcasm>

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by merphie
I don't think anyone would argue against Lincoln being one of the greatest presidents in history. My point was not the over all ideals or effects of the war itself.

The war went baddly for the union during the first few years. Do you think people said Lincoln was incompetent after the appauling loses suffered at places like Fredricksburg? Did they blame all the actions of the generals on Lincoln? I am sure they blamed the rise of the rebels on Lincoln.

<sarcasm>
Surely the first 2 -3 years of terrible tragedies for the Union was the cause of the North losing the civil war to the south. It must have been hopeless.
</sarcasm> So the war in Iraq is like the civil war and Bush is like Lincoln, got it, thanks. Have you contributed to the GWB on Mount Rushmore fund yet? :rolleyes:

[varwoche]

The thread title is inappropriate. "Ineffective" suggests that little or no progress is being made. Whereas it is Scheurer's position that we are working in concert with the enemy to further their goals -- that we're backpeddling.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by shecky
I've been pretty pessimistic regarding the possible outcome of this war. You're not helping much. :( Sorry about that! You're welcome to commiserate over here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41942).

[merphie]

Originally posted by DavidJames
So the war in Iraq is like the civil war and Bush is like Lincoln, got it, thanks. Have you contributed to the GWB on Mount Rushmore fund yet? :rolleyes:

I never made those comparisons.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
I never made those comparisons.

Lol. And if you did, someone will question your avatar.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Lol. And if you did, someone will question your avatar.

You can't say anything around here without someone going to some extreme.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
You can't say anything around here without someone going to some extreme.

You betray your Christian theocratic bias by using the word "extreme", which contains the letter "x", clearly a deliberate reference to the crucifixion! Go commit your hate crimes elsewhere, you fundamentalist.

:arrow:

Going to extremes may not be productive, but it's entertaining!

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
You betray your Christian theocratic bias by using the word "extreme", which contains the letter "x", clearly a deliberate reference to the crucifixion! Go commit your hate crimes elsewhere, you fundamentalist.

:arrow:

Going to extremes may not be productive, but it's entertaining!

ACK!

:brk:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by merphie

The war went baddly for the union during the first few years. Do you think people said Lincoln was incompetent after the appauling loses suffered at places like Fredricksburg? Did they blame all the actions of the generals on Lincoln? I am sure they blamed the rise of the rebels on Lincoln.


Yes to all three, at least to an extent. Much of McClellans campaign against Lincoln in 1864 was centered around discontent about the way the war was being handled. THough he lost pretty handily in the electoral college, he stil managed to get 45% of the popular vote, which is a pretty significant amount in my book.

It could also be argued that had Lincoln not managed to turn things around by the election time, i.e. witht he capture of Atlanta, that McClellan might have won.

The difference here is, Lincoln may have had some difficulties, but he got good results in the end. Bush has yet to do so.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
The difference here is, Lincoln may have had some difficulties, but he got good results in the end. Bush has yet to do so.

AH-HA! We have a winner!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by merphie
AH-HA! We have a winner!

My point is, that just because Lincoln prevailed despite early losses, doesn't mean Bush will. We can't see the future so until things pan out, we have only the past to go on, and for every time that someone has snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, there is an incidence of someone being on the verge of defeat then going right over the edge. So ANY comparison betweent he war on terror and the Civil War is invalid. Only time will tell how the WOT will go.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
My point is, that just because Lincoln prevailed despite early losses, doesn't mean Bush will. We can't see the future so until things pan out, we have only the past to go on, and for every time that someone has snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, there is an incidence of someone being on the verge of defeat then going right over the edge. So ANY comparison betweent he war on terror and the Civil War is invalid. Only time will tell how the WOT will go.

I wasn't implying that Bush will win the election based on Lincoln winning. So you comparison between the civil war and war on terror is invalid.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by merphie
I wasn't implying that Bush will win the election based on Lincoln winning. So you comparison between the civil war and war on terror is invalid.

Exactly what I was trying to say. The WOT might turn around, it might not. The way the Civil War went has nothing to do with it. I brought up McClellan and the 1864 election because you implied that people didn't blame Lincoln when the Civil War was going badly (and by extension, that they shouldn't blame Bush for lack of success in the WOT) and I mantain they did.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Exactly what I was trying to say. The WOT might turn around, it might not. The way the Civil War went has nothing to do with it. I brought up McClellan and the 1864 election because you implied that people didn't blame Lincoln when the Civil War was going badly (and by extension, that they shouldn't blame Bush for lack of success in the WOT) and I mantain they did.

That wasn't my point either. The idea was they probably blamed Lincoln for problems and yet he still prevailed. This doesn't mean Bush would win or fail. My only point it is still too early to tell. Some are using the war for political gain just like McClellan did.

It seems some people are ready to give up because of some bad events.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
It seems some people are ready to give up because of some bad events.

And others want to press on regardless of bad events, because they don't want to be quitters. "Throwing good money after bad" is how my grandpa would say it.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by merphie
That wasn't my point either. The idea was they probably blamed Lincoln for problems and yet he still prevailed. This doesn't mean Bush would win or fail. My only point it is still too early to tell. Some are using the war for political gain just like McClellan did.

It seems some people are ready to give up because of some bad events.

Then I misinterpreted you, and I apologize.

It looks like we were arguing roughly the same point.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Then I misinterpreted you, and I apologize.

It looks like we were arguing roughly the same point.

It's ok. I didn't realize what you were getting at until your last post.

For the most part we seem to agree.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by merphie
I wonder what people said during the first 3 years of the civil war. AGHH! thud. GAAH! clump. BwaaaAAA! flump-flump-flump. And so on.

[merphie]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
AGHH! thud. GAAH! clump. BwaaaAAA! flump-flump-flump. And so on.

How do you know? Maybe they stood in front of the White House chanting "rabble, rabble, rabble!"

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by merphie
I don't think anyone would argue against Lincoln being one of the greatest presidents in history.Then you haven't discussed the man with Shanek, apparently.The war went baddly for the union during the first few years. Do you think people said Lincoln was incompetent after the appauling loses suffered at places like Fredricksburg?Yes. Lincoln was lambasted and pilloried and personally insulted at nearly every turn.Did they blame all the actions of the generals on Lincoln?Of course not. "All the actions" are hardly ever blamed on any one person. How is that pertinent?I am sure they blamed the rise of the rebels on Lincoln.The causes leading up to, as well as the operation of, the Civil War are quite complex matters. For a whole host of reasons, any comparison between that conflict and the present one against Islamic terrorists, not to mention Lincoln and Bush, is apples and oranges.
Surely the first 2 -3 years of terrible tragedies for the Union was the cause of the North losing the civil war to the south. It must have been hopeless.
Red Delicious and Clementines.

[a_unique_person]

And the genius that lies behind it, because he's [bin Laden] not a man who rants against our freedoms, our liberties, our voting, our — the fact that our women go to school. He's not the Ayatollah Khomeini; he really doesn't care about all those things. To think that he's trying to rob us of our liberties and freedom is, I think, a gross mistake. What he has done, his genius, is identify particular American foreign policies that are offensive to Muslims whether they support these martial actions or not — our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian Peninsula, our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims, be it India, China, Russia, Uzbekistan. Bin Laden has focused the Muslim world on specific, tangible, visual American policies.



Is it really a stroke of genius to criticise America for it's foreign policy mistakes? Seems obvious to me. Why there is that constant line that 'they hate us because we are free', is beyond me. It is a useful self deception, if you want to absolve yourself for any blame.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by merphie
That wasn't my point either. The idea was they probably blamed Lincoln for problems and yet he still prevailed. This doesn't mean Bush would win or fail. My only point it is still too early to tell. Some are using the war for political gain just like McClellan did.

It seems some people are ready to give up because of some bad events.

I guess that's where intelligence comes into it. You don't keep doing something stupid when it doesn't work, you do persist at something that has to be done. What you have to decide is which situation you are in.

[demon]

varwoche:
"Remember the question that Rumsfeld posed in the leaked private memo...?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush says that he is bombing them "over there (Iraq) so we don't have to face them at home"

Mother####er.

He knows full well that before his crusader army decided to relieve children from their legs, fathers from their children, and fallujans from any sort of decent life, there was nobody in fallujah "to face". They were of no danger to America. That`s probably not the case now. And you can't blame them.

If there wasn't really an Isalm vs America war before, there is one now. In that way the "war on turr" has been very effective.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Then you haven't discussed the man with Shanek,
apparently

Shhh! He might hear you!

"All the actions" are hardly ever blamed on any one person. How is that pertinent?

Read some of the comments about Bush on the war in Iraq. The idea is that due to some terrible events in Iraq several people seem to be blaming everything on Bush and somehow Kerry's almost identical plan would be better.

It seems they have the opinion we have lost in Iraq and have no chance of winning while Bush is in office. That was my only comparison.

[merphie]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I guess that's where intelligence comes into it. You don't keep doing something stupid when it doesn't work, you do persist at something that has to be done. What you have to decide is which situation you are in.

And?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by merphie
And?

You are using circular logic. You can't stop the present course of action because you can't stop something once you start it.

You have to asess if what you are doing makes sense at some point.

[Dorian Gray]

Yes to all three, at least to an extent. Much of McClellans campaign against Lincoln in 1864 was centered around discontent about the way the war was being handled. THough he lost pretty handily in the electoral college, he stil managed to get 45% of the popular vote, which is a pretty significant amount in my book.

It could also be argued that had Lincoln not managed to turn things around by the election time, i.e. witht he capture of Atlanta, that McClellan might have won. A McClellan was against Lincoln in 1864 over a war - and Scott McClellan is against Kerry now. Is that an omen?

[peptoabysmal]

And the real solution to the war on terror is...? (sound of many crickets chirping).

Does it go anything like this?
1. Ban all train journeys. Ban all bus and car journeys too. Stay at home. Buy a rug, and pray.

2. Ban all religions and religious emblems except the Wahhabi religion and its cult of murdering martyrdom.

3. Celebrate death. Hate life.

4. Arrest all democratic leaders. Why stop at Bush?

5. Burn all parliamentary buildings.

6. Round up the Jews.

7. Ban everything American, except books by Michael Moore, songs by the Dixie Chicks and TV shows with Martin Sheen.

8. Persecute the Christians. Remember the Crusades.

9. Give Spain back to the Moors.

10. Give Africa to the Moroccans.

11. Give Afghanistan back to the nice Taliban.

12. Return Iraq to the loving care of the B'aath party and Saddam Hussein.

13. Give ETA as much of Spain as it wants, plus a sizeable tranche of France.

14. Put the women back in chains.

15. Cancel the Olympics.

16. Ditto the European Cup and the Ryder Cup.

17. Demand the American troops retreat from America.

18. Praise Allah Jihad and shoot anyone who disagrees with you.


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/190550.php

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
And the real solution to the war on terror is...? (sound of many crickets chirping).

Does it go anything like this?


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/190550.php Republicans everywhere must be so proud of you..

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
And the real solution to the war on terror is...? (sound of many crickets chirping).

Does it go anything like this?


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/190550.php

Nothing like that at all. So why post it?

[merphie]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You are using circular logic. You can't stop the present course of action because you can't stop something once you start it.

You have to asess if what you are doing makes sense at some point.

It's not circular logic. The comparison makes sense.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
(snip) Your vacuous post, pepto, borders on embarassing.

I don't suppose you've read the book?

A side point: For pepto to chirp in this thread -- or any thread for that matter -- is rank hypocrisy. He's a drive-by "debater". He comes into a thread, posits mindless partisan blather, then dissappears.

Prove my anecdotal observation wrong and answer the question: Have you read the book?

[varwoche]

Here's a curious and cryptic blurb that appears in the acknowledgements of Imperial Hubris: I want to thank a small group of officers who have worked against the bin Laden target since 1996. During these years, this group -- mostly women -- has provided the U.S. government with repeated opportunities to end the problem of bin Laden, and to have done so without fail and at the cost of health, marriage, promotion, vacation, and many other of life's good things. These women remain today the core of America's effort to defeat bin Laden. In the spring of 2004, they were ridiculed by a senior intelligence-community officer in an officially sanctioned leak to a Washington journalist. The leak was printed by the journalist and caused unmerited pain to those women. The only word suitable for describing this leak -- and those who approved it -- is despicable. If I ever write on the subject of bin Laden again, it will be to defend these officers and make sure the words of their abusers are revealed for the lies they are. Most especially, it will be to tell all Americans about a singular group of their fellow citizens who made every effort to defend them, succeeded more times than not, and were betrayed by the moral cowardice of many of their leaders.

[merphie]

Originally posted by varwoche
Here's a curious and cryptic blurb that appears in the acknowledgements of Imperial Hubris:

The question is why weren't the chances to kill Bin Laden taken?

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by merphie

I don't think anyone would argue against Lincoln being one of the greatest presidents in history.Actually, National Review published an article some years back (late 1950s or early 1960s -- I've got a photocopy I can try to dig up if anyone wants the date) that argued that he was one of the worst. This happened back when integration was still a major issue -- with many right-wingers opposed to it, and wailing about Brown V Board of Education the same way some modern right-wingers wail about Roe V Wade -- so the antipathy felt toward Lincoln at the time needs to be judged in that context. I doubt National Review would publish a similar article today. (And, in NR's defense, several of their regulars -- including Buckley, I think -- wrote articles of their own disagreeing with the article.)The war went badly for the union during the first few years.Yes, and there are some good reasons for that.

(1) Some of Lincoln's main generals were opposed to his policies and balked at his orders every step of the way. In contrast, Bush inherited a military which has supported him and done precisely as he has directed, even when his decisions ran counter to intelligence.

(2) Lincoln came to office at a time when the country was deeply divided, as did Bush -- but when the opening shots of the war were fired (Fort Sumter for Lincoln, the World Trade Center for Bush) Lincoln's nation remained bitterly divided whereas Bush enjoyed an unprecedented outpouring of national unity. For months any opposition was muted, with even staunch opponents rallying to Bush's side. (Didn't Dan Rather make some comment about how Bush was his commander-in-chief, and he'd go wherever Bush sent him?)

(3) Lincoln faced strong political opposition to his war plans in Congress from the git-go. In contrast, Bush's political opponents in Congress rolled over and gave him virtually every piece of legislation he asked for -- including an authorization for him to go to war in Iraq if, in his judgment, it became necessary. (That was especially craven of Congress, although it has become common for Congress to do this in the years since WW II -- the last time Congress actually voted on whether to go to war, as it is supposed to do.)

(4) Even after the honeymoon ended, Bush enjoyed remarkable advantages over Lincoln. There were riots in the streets during Lincoln's term; for Bush, there were (eventually) vigils and peaceful protests.

(5) Perhaps most importantly, while both Lincoln's war and Bush's war started early in their terms, and both were started by the other side -- meaning Lincoln and Bush had to react, and fight a war at a time of the enemy's choosing rather than their own -- Bush still had a tremendous advantage over Lincoln.. The war Lincoln fought was over here, and within miles of where Lincoln's government was based. Lincoln had to make immediate decisions, constantly, in a time when gettting word to the troops was not a matter of instant communication as it is today. In contrast, Bush enjoyed the luxury of being able to take as long as needed to plan out our attack before launching it, at least as far as Iraq goes. There was no need to rush to invade Iraq if Bush were unsatisfied with the plan he and his military leaders had come up with. He took months to plan it -- using information gathered by means Lincoln could not have imagined that should have given him a very good idea of the problems we would encounter in the invasion -- and when he gave the order to invade, Bush and his administration were confident they had considered everything that needed to be considered and made done everything that needed to be done to accomplish the mission. If Bush had needed to send more troops over in order to have the necessary numbers to both fight the war and secure the country (so that, for instance, dangerous materials didn't go missing either during the invasion or during the aftermath) he had the time to anticipate that need and to make plans accordingly.

It's true that, despite having repeatedly mis-read the situation, having repeatedly ignored warning signs, having repeatedly made the wrong decisions, and having spent more time campaigning against his political enemies than against our nation's military ones, the US might still prevail in the war against the Iraqi insurgents (especially if we replace Bush). But whether we ultimately prevail does not change the fact that Bush has waged an incompetent and ineffective war.

PS: The above is written hastily and based on my memory of 19th century history. I read primarily comic books; there are probably posters out there better versed in 19th century US history than I am who can do a better job of this, but these are the things that jumped out even for me when I read the comparison.

[Hutch]

Just a couple of points from Nova Land's nice contribution:

The war went badly for the Union during the first few years.

Actually, except for the area between Washington and Richmond, it went pretty well for the Union:

The blockade was established and while never perfect, became more effective each year.

New Orleans, much of the Carolina Coast, and Norfolk were captured.

Kentucky, Deleware, Maryland and Missouri (all slave states) were kept in the Union (albeit barely and by the point of the bayonet in some cases, but still unable to provide support to the South)

Memphis was secured and except for the Vicksburg-Baton Rouge section (taken in July 1863) pretty well denied to the Confederacy.

Large-scale defeats at Ft. Donelson and Cornith and no better than draws at Shiloh, Perryville and Murfeesboro kept the Rebels from taking any type of tactical control of the campaign.

Polkitically, the South was isolated from England and France by a combination of tough talk (Seward), very good diplomacy (Adams), and simple economics (King Wheat beat King Cotton)

Just off the top of my head-- I'm still P.O'ed about Newt's book where (again) he arranges to let the South win the Battle of Gettysburg.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Nova Land
It's true that, despite having repeatedly mis-read the situation, having repeatedly ignored warning signs, having repeatedly made the wrong decisions, and having spent more time campaigning against his political enemies than against our nation's military ones, the US might still prevail in the war against the Iraqi insurgents (especially if we replace Bush). But whether we ultimately prevail does not change the fact that Bush has waged an incompetent and ineffective war.


So Bush is not able to finish Iraq correctly and Kerry's almost identicle plan would be better?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
So Bush is not able to finish Iraq correctly and Kerry's almost identicle plan would be better?

A lot of the thinking seems to be "could he do worse?"

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by merphie
So Bush is not able to finish Iraq correctly and Kerry's almost identicle plan would be better? Bush's inability to finish the job in Iraq has less to do with plan then the character of the president. Bush is a stubborn cowboy, he has failed to gain a true coalition. He has repeatedly shown complete arrogance towards alternative opinions (you are with us or with the terrorists). These are not characteristics of a true leader. Strength and convictions are good things only if they are based on truth and tempered with enough humility to recognize when facts change, one must re-evaluate one's convictions.

I don't think the core of the plans are really that much different. I just don't think Bush has the leadership to execute.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
A lot of the thinking seems to be "could he do worse?"

Agreed. I don't like a lot of Kerry's policies and I am not sold on the idea that he will somehow do better. So I won't be voting for him.

[merphie]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Bush's inability to finish the job in Iraq has less to do with plan then the character of the president. Bush is a stubborn cowboy, he has failed to gain a true coalition. He has repeatedly shown complete arrogance towards alternative opinions (you are with us or with the terrorists). These are not characteristics of a true leader. Strength and convictions are good things only if they are based on truth and tempered with enough humility to recognize when facts change, one must re-evaluate one's convictions.

I don't think the core of the plans are really that much different. I just don't think Bush has the leadership to execute.

Same old unsupported ramble. You opinion is noted.

Kerry's plan.

Definitions
1. You are with the terrorist
2. You are with us
3. You use the Food-For-Oil-Program to make a buck
4. You give moral support to the terrorist
5. You give financial support to the terrorist
6. You give material support to the terrorist.
7. Stupid Americans! There are no Terrorist, It's an Isreali conspiracy!
8. On planet X, Terrorist just have bad gas.

We should not attack any of those 8 classes. We should only attack the terrorist themselves. We will ask the country if they have terrorist. We trust their answer. If they say yes, then we will politely ask them to turn them over. If they don't we will ask again and offer economic help.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
Agreed. I don't like a lot of Kerry's policies and I am not sold on the idea that he will somehow do better. So I won't be voting for him.

If it's between the devil you know and the devil you don't know, I always go with the one I don't know. Guess that makes me an optimist? At least in picking devils. Kerry might do a bad job with the war, but Bush already is.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
A lot of the thinking seems to be "could he do worse?"

Oh brother, could he ever!

Take a quick look at history before asking that question. :eek:

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by merphie
Same old unsupported ramble. You opinion is noted.

Kerry's plan.

Definitions
1. You are with the terrorist
2. You are with us
3. You use the Food-For-Oil-Program to make a buck
4. You give moral support to the terrorist
5. You give financial support to the terrorist
6. You give material support to the terrorist.
7. Stupid Americans! There are no Terrorist, It's an Isreali conspiracy!
8. On planet X, Terrorist just have bad gas.

We should not attack any of those 8 classes. We should only attack the terrorist themselves. We will ask the country if they have terrorist. We trust their answer. If they say yes, then we will politely ask them to turn them over. If they don't we will ask again and offer economic help. You are correct, I did state my opinion, but I humbly bow to your ability to just make **** up. I have no clue what you just posted.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
If it's between the devil you know and the devil you don't know, I always go with the one I don't know. Guess that makes me an optimist? At least in picking devils. Kerry might do a bad job with the war, but Bush already is.

I find that to be an incredibly exciting, though not particularly wise, philosophy... :p

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I find that to be an incredibly exciting, though not particularly wise, philosophy... :p

It fits in well with my other philosophy, which is "we could all drop dead at any minute, so why the hell not? Let's take a chance!"

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
It fits in well with my other philosophy, which is "we could all drop dead at any minute, so why the hell not? Let's take a chance!"

You're the kind of guy I hate playing poker with... :D

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Kodiak
You're the kind of guy I hate playing poker with... :D

I'm excellent at poker. The key is, make sure your toughest opponent is sitting in front of a reflective surface. Amazing how many people don't think to check things like that.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'm excellent at poker. The key is, make sure your toughest opponent is sitting in front of a reflective surface. Amazing how many people don't think to check things like that.

You're only successful because you're reckless and intimidate the other players. Once I peg you as a "jackal" (which takes a little time), you're mine... ;)

[varwoche]

Originally posted by merphie
The question is why weren't the chances to kill Bin Laden taken? Good question.

It is my wish that everyone would read Scheurer's book. To call it sobering is a profound understatement.

In the days that followed 9/11, when the very notion of questioning why they did it was considered by many to be treasonous, I took some solace in the probability there were people in government neccesarily and dispassionately analyzing the multi-dimensional realities.

As expected, there were such people.

Thank you Scheurer, and thank you ladies.

It's a goddamn tragedy that their analysis conflicted with the spineless, kneee-jerk idealogues who drove this country into the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

bin Laden invited us to a game of chess, and Bush showed up with checkers pieces.

edit to add: I also enjoy poker. Can we discuss it elsewhere though?

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by merphie
How do you know? Maybe they stood in front of the White House chanting "rabble, rabble, rabble!" Well, I know that's approximately the transcript of what I say during, for example, a Judo match, which is as close as I can get to fighting someone for real. I'm sure being armed puts a little more exciting emphasis on the shrieks and hollering.

[varwoche]

Scheurer contends that the idiotic things blathered by our homegrown fundamentalists (i.e. Robertson and Falwell) resonate in the islamic world in ways that we don't grasp, and that we've been hurt by this blather more than we realize. Muslims' passionate love and reverence for God and His prophet help explain the great importance they attach to negative remarks made by U.S. Protestant clerics about Islam and the Prophet, especially by clerics associated to serving administrations. Clerical comments most U.S. citizens disregard are taken as threatening Muslims because their societal frame of reference is one in which there is no separation of church and state. Thus, words of little consequence in U.S. politics and society are heard and remembered in the Islamic world as threats and blasphemy, earning America increased Muslim hatred.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by varwoche
Your vacuous post, pepto, borders on embarassing.

I don't suppose you've read the book?

A side point: For pepto to chirp in this thread -- or any thread for that matter -- is rank hypocrisy. He's a drive-by "debater". He comes into a thread, posits mindless partisan blather, then dissappears.

Prove my anecdotal observation wrong and answer the question: Have you read the book? Like I said.

[merphie]

Originally posted by varwoche
Good question.

It is my wish that everyone would read Scheurer's book. To call it sobering is a profound understatement.

In the days that followed 9/11, when the very notion of questioning why they did it was considered by many to be treasonous, I took some solace in the probability there were people in government neccesarily and dispassionately analyzing the multi-dimensional realities.

As expected, there were such people.

Thank you Scheurer, and thank you ladies.

It's a goddamn tragedy that their analysis conflicted with the spineless, kneee-jerk idealogues who drove this country into the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

bin Laden invited us to a game of chess, and Bush showed up with checkers pieces.


:rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by varwoche
It's a goddamn tragedy that their analysis conflicted with the spineless, kneee-jerk idealogues who drove this country into the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

bin Laden invited us to a game of chess, and Bush showed up with checkers pieces.

"spineless ideologues" like Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, Kerry and all the other democrats in the House and Senate?

I just love blinder-wearing dogmatists with selective memory...

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Kodiak
"spineless ideologues" like Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, Kerry and all the other democrats in the House and Senate?

I just love blinder-wearing dogmatists with selective memory... Selective memory? I suppose you selected to ignore the fact that the resolution was promoted by Bush as "the last chance for peace"?

That said, I agree in part, the failure to grasp the complexities of islamic terrorism, and the threat it represents, abounded and still abounds.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by varwoche
Selective memory? I suppose you selected to ignore the fact that the resolution was promoted by Bush as "the last chance for peace"?

That said, I agree in part, the failure to grasp the complexities of islamic terrorism, and the threat it represents, abounded and still abounds.

Fully supported by everyone on the left.

I apologize then. You made it sound like is was an "all GOP/no Democrat" decision.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Fully supported by everyone on the left.

I apologize then. You made it sound like is was an "all GOP/no Democrat" decision. No apology neccesary. I was ranking on Bush. You correctly reminded me to spread the wealth.

My criticism of dems, however, is more based on policy towards Israel/Palestine than the Iraq resolution.

[varwoche]

Scheurer speaks in no uncertain terms about the failure of the US effort in Afghanistan. Emphasis added. Sadly, success from "winging it" occurs only in movies, and Washington's attempts to duplicate Hollywood's methods in Afghanistan yielded a full-blown disaster. As Ralph Peter has wisely posited, "If you intervene ignorant of local conditions, you will likely fail -- and you will certainly pay in blood".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I find that to be an incredibly exciting, though not particularly wise, philosophy... :p

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1098992265491.html



The Economist magazine endorsed John Kerry's candidacy for the White House, citing what it called the "sheer incompetence" of post-war Iraq planning, and the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, which it said would "haunt America for years to come."

The conservative magazine, which backed the Iraq war, said it was supporting Kerry "with a heavy heart," but that the errors of the Bush administration couldn't be ignored.

"Our confidence in him has been shattered," it said in a scathing editorial posted on its Web site.

The Economist last endorsed a Democrat in 1992, when Bill Clinton ran for the presidency. In 2000, it supported Bush.

"This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men," it said. "George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job ... and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago."

"With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. ... It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is toward change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush."



You know that Bush has screwed up monumentally. But you can predict with certainty that Kerry will be worse. How? If you are going on form, you can predict that Bush will just continue to screw up. No point digging the whole any deeper.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Fully supported by everyone on the left.

I apologize then. You made it sound like is was an "all GOP/no Democrat" decision.

In the post 9/11, do you seriously think anyone is going to vote against a 'get tough' attitude? Political suicide. You can just imagine the 'attack' political ads now.

[CapelDodger]

All this beating about the Bush. He has as much to do with policy as the beef-cake weatherman has to do with meteorology. It's the Bush Administration that has such an appalling record against terrorism. And the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that it fronts for.

(VRWC ... hmmm ... VaRWoChe. Leaving AOHE, which, after substitution and transposition according to the 666 Da Vinchi code produces SPQR! They always give themselves away.):wink8:

[varwoche]

fwiw, I'm not newly converted on this topic:
bogus war on terrorism (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36107)

In my view (and so far as I'm aware) Scheurer is the 1st public official to tell it like it is: He acknowledges* the islamist threat, as the left is reluctant to do, and he recognizes the USA's arrogant/beligerent policies as part of the problem, as the right is reluctant to do.

* profound understatement

[merphie]

Originally posted by varwoche
fwiw, I'm not newly converted on this topic:
bogus war on terrorism (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36107)

In my view (and so far as I'm aware) Scheurer is the 1st public official to tell it like it is: He acknowledges* the islamist threat, as the left is reluctant to do, and he recognizes the USA's arrogant/beligerent policies as part of the problem, as the right is reluctant to do.

* profound understatement

Since you don't agree how the war on terror is being waged, then what would you suggest be done?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by merphie
Since you don't agree how the war on terror is being waged, then what would you suggest be done? My broad stroke prescription is here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36107), the cornerstone of which is for the US to take an even-handed approach to Israel/Palestine. In addition, I would aggressively reduce oil consumption.

[merphie]

Originally posted by varwoche
My broad stroke prescription is here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36107), the cornerstone of which is for the US to take an even-handed approach to Israel/Palestine. In addition, I would aggressively reduce oil consumption.

The palestine problem is a difficult matter. The Palestinians do not want Isreal to exist. It is not a sore sopt with Arabs. It's a political piece they use when it benefits them. Just like Saddam did.

Reducing Oil consumption is good in theory, but how do you plan to do that?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by merphie
The palestine problem is a difficult matter. The Palestinians do not want Isreal to exist. It's true that many do not want Israel to exists. Not everyone though. I believe most of Israel's neighbors would happily turn the clock back to 1967, declare victory at home, and effect a sea-change on the world from which al Qaida draws support.

If by playing it fair the US is still unable to untangle the problem, so be it. At the least the world can know we stand for rule of law and fair play.

Note, a key component is massive financial and military aid for Israel.

BTW, the money spent on the Iraq folly would have paid for the mother of all desalination plants, or 10.
It is not a sore sopt with Arabs. It's a political piece they use when it benefits them. Just like Saddam did. I don't have the inclination to debate this point, but you are dead wrong. It is a festering sore spot throughout the muslim world, and the US just doesn't get it. True, despotic leaders play on this fact. That doesn't make it not so.
Reducing Oil consumption is good in theory, but how do you plan to do that? There are many ways: tax breaks for fuel efficient cars; bio-diesel; electric cars; investment in alternative energy; improved public transportation.

Our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters are dying at war. Assuming the threat from islamic terrorism is as serious as portrayed (I happen to believe the threat is under played), it's well past time for the population at large to make some small sacrifices. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia, the well-spring of Islamic fanatacism, is diseased.

[merphie]

Originally posted by varwoche
It's true that many do not want Israel to exists. Not everyone though. I believe most of Israel's neighbors would happily turn the clock back to 1967, declare victory at home, and effect a sea-change on the world from which al Qaida draws support.

If by playing it fair the US is still unable to untangle the problem, so be it. At the least the world can know we stand for rule of law and fair play.

So the security of Isreal is of no consequence to you? That would leave Isreal with an 8 mile undefendable zone. Isreal gained the land after the war and now they have settlements. Is it fair to give up land they rightfully gained?

Isreal plans to back out of Gaza and the Arabs are still not happy. They want the total destruction of Isreal. If they were serious about gaining peace the neighbors would help in negotiations instead of arming the terrorist. Why don't some on the neighboring countries give up some land?

They Arabs didn't care about the Palenstinians when the problem was first created. Why do they care now? Bin Laden never mentioned Palenstine until it suited his purpose.

Maybe sanctions would work against the Middle East to gain support for your plan?

BTW, the money spent on the Iraq folly would have paid for the mother of all desalination plants, or 10.
I don't have the inclination to debate this point, but you are dead wrong. It is a festering sore spot throughout the muslim world, and the US just doesn't get it. True, despotic leaders play on this fact. That doesn't make it not so.

How many democracies are there besides Isreal? If it was a sore spot they would have long helped the situation. I suppose you think it all the fault of Isreal and the USA?

There are many ways: tax breaks for fuel efficient cars; bio-diesel; electric cars; investment in alternative energy; improved public transportation.

None of these technologies are ready. It will be several years before any of these techologies are ready. That even assumes it can be done as cheaply as gas. How do purpose to fund of this? Higher taxes? In a perfect world I would agree with you.

Our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters are dying at war. Assuming the threat from islamic terrorism is as serious as portrayed (I happen to believe the threat is under played), it's well past time for the population at large to make some small sacrifices. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia, the well-spring of Islamic fanatacism, is diseased.

What happened to you coming together with Allies? Now Saudia Arabia is the enemy? What kind of sacrifices are you talking about? Financial? More Lives?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by merphie
So the security of Isreal is of no consequence to you? Seeing as I specifically stated that massive financial/military aid to Israel was part of my proposal, I have no clue why you would say such a thing.
Isreal gained the land after the war and now they have settlements. Is it fair to give up land they rightfully gained? "Rightful" by what standard? Not according to UN resolution. But, even if you're right, then it's justification for an apartheidt state. Being "right" isn't always what it's cracked up to be.
Isreal plans to back out of Gaza and the Arabs are still not happy. They want the total destruction of Isreal. Many Palestinians would be happy to have 1967 borders. Repeating shallow, simplistic slogans doesn't make them true. Are you aware of the significance of Jerusalem to Muslims?
What happened to you coming together with Allies? Now Saudia Arabia is the enemy? I have no clue what point you are trying to make. Yes, I view Saudi as a nation hostile to democracy and to freedom. And yes, our dependency on foriegn oil has caused a diseased relationship with Saudi that in my view has contributed to the broader state of islamist affairs.
What kind of sacrifices are you talking about? Financial? More Lives? Financial.

Not to imply these are prerequisites to insight, but have you ever visited a muslim country? Have you ever spoken about these issues with a Palestinian? Or any Muslim? Just curious.

[merphie]

Originally posted by varwoche
Seeing as I specifically stated that massive financial/military aid to Israel was part of my proposal, I have no clue why you would say such a thing.

So as long as they are well financed and have military it is ok? The cost of lives is irrelevant? Isreal is already the best military in the region. The only question is lives.

"Rightful" by what standard? Not according to UN resolution. But, even if you're right, then it's justification for an apartheidt state. Being "right" isn't always what it's cracked up to be.

They won the land in a war. A war the neighbors started after the UN had declared an Isreal state. The made treaties with their willing neighbors. However in light of the treaty their neighbors still give supplies to the terrorist.

Many Palestinians would be happy to have 1967 borders. Repeating shallow, simplistic slogans doesn't make them true. Are you aware of the significance of Jerusalem to Muslims?

Yes I know they both value the area. I also know a lot of Muslims over there hate Jews. How would you know what the Palestinians want? Repeating Shallow slogans are we? The leaders of the Palestinians will never concede to a plan that include the existence of Isreal. That is apparent through their actions. If they are so willing for peace why don't the palenstians take representatives in the Isreal government? Many of Isreal's citizens are Muslims or Palestinians.

I have no clue what point you are trying to make. Yes, I view Saudi as a nation hostile to democracy and to freedom. And yes, our dependency on foriegn oil has caused a diseased relationship with Saudi that in my view has contributed to the broader state of islamist affairs.

I don't like Saudia Arabia either. However they are a normal type of government for the region. I am not aware of one other Muslim country in the region that is a democracy. It's unfortunate the most oil is the that area. I don't see your idealistic view as a solution.

Financial.

I am glad you can afford it. forget the poor or disadvantaged. It's for a good cause!

Not to imply these are prerequisites to insight, but have you ever visited a muslim country? Have you ever spoken about these issues with a Palestinian? Or any Muslim? Just curious.

I won't go to such a country because my family can not afford ransom. What makes you such an expert?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by merphie
So as long as they are well financed and have military it is ok? The cost of lives is irrelevant? I should have learned my lesson not to take you seriously. This is an unwarranted, ignorant and obnoxious suggestion, given my explicit proposal to provide massive aid to Israel.
Yes I know they both value the area. I also know a lot of Muslims over there hate Jews ... The leaders of the Palestinians will never concede to a plan that include the existence of Isreal. That is apparent through their actions. If they are so willing for peace why don't the palenstians take representatives in the Isreal government? Many of Isreal's citizens are Muslims or Palestinians. I am becoming increasingly convinced that don't know thing one about the mid-east. Including how to spell I-s-r-a-e-l.
I am glad you can afford it. forget the poor or disadvantaged. It's for a good cause! I thought you supported the war on terror. Others are dying on your behalf, yet you contribute nothing? Have you enlisted, and if not, why not?

[merphie]

Originally posted by varwoche
I should have learned my lesson not to take you seriously. This is an unwarranted, ignorant and obnoxious suggestion, given my explicit proposal to provide massive aid to Israel.

I assumed you would come off with some half baked plan I couldn't agree with. Your plan of aid doesn't account for human loss. You can't fix every problem by throwing money at it.

What if you plan fails and the terrorist (seperate of the palenstinians) continued their attacks where Isreal can not go unless it invades the new state at the 1967 borders?

What if Isreal falls into civil war over the mandated issue? Will giving them guns and money fix the problem then?

I am becoming increasingly convinced that don't know thing one about the mid-east. Including how to spell I-s-r-a-e-l.

Nice personal attack. I am convinced you know nothing beyond your own personal beliefs. You are never wrong.

I thought you supported the war on terror. Others are dying on your behalf, yet you contribute nothing? Have you enlisted, and if not, why not?

My reasons are my own and I don't need to justify myself to you. Anything I say in this regard will open myself to personal; attacks from you and others.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by merphie
I assumed you would come off with some half baked plan I couldn't agree with. Your plan of aid doesn't account for human loss. You can't fix every problem by throwing money at it. I don't care if you take issue with my (half baked = true) proposal. But to infer that I don't care about the security of the Israeli people ("So the security of Isreal (sic) is of no consequence to you?") is obnoxious and intellectually lacking. Especially since I specifically called for massive aid to I-s-r-a-e-l. Can you read?

I can usually tolerate ignorance, and I can sometimes tolerate obnoxiousness. You embody both, and this discussion has no future.

[merphie]

Originally posted by varwoche
I don't care if you take issue with my (half baked = true) proposal. But to infer that I don't care about the security of the Israeli people ("So the security of Isreal (sic) is of no consequence to you?") is obnoxious and intellectually lacking. Especially since I specifically called for massive aid to I-s-r-a-e-l. Can you read?

I can usually tolerate ignorance, and I can sometimes tolerate obnoxiousness. You embody both, and this discussion has no future.

You refuse to address the cost in human life. That is an aspect of the plan you ignore completely. I have restated it many times but you ignore it so you can make more personal attacks.

[varwoche]

Schuerer is appearing on 60 Minutes on Sunday. I urge everyone to watch, and read his eye-opening (and chilling) book.