This is the kind of scary stuff I’m most worried about.
Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke is worried that Al Qaeda may try some nastiness to upset the election. There’s no clear evidence of a plot, but boy it sounds right up there on the possibilitometer. This would make a lot of sense, because only with the continued presence of the US in the middle east as aggressive imperialists can Al Qaeda continue to recruit with such ease. A President Obama would be all “peacy” and such, and would make hatred a much tougher sell.
At the very least, expect another Halloween video from the scary man in the cave…
Even more likely is the possibility that al Qaeda would hope the attack would benefit John McCain. Opinion polls, which, as noted above, al Qaeda reads closely, suggest that an attack would help McCain. Polls in Europe and the Middle East also suggest an overwhelming popular support there for Barack Obama. Al Qaeda would not like it if there were a popular American president again.
TPM has the whole story HERE and it’s a worthy read, if only for us all to keep our eyes and ears open. Man I’m just gonna hold my breath till after the November election.
I too have been thinking the same thing for a while. Especially when the tape that came out right before the last election was found to affect poll numbers.
Obviously they would want McCain, because it would continue the war, spending our resources, making us live in fear, which is exactly what they wanted (other than kill americans of course).
The other aspect of this I thought, was wag the dog. I wonder if the McCain camp has made end recent video editing software purchases like AfterEffects, Avid, FCP, Motion, or similar… hmmm… gotta check craigslist for ads for binladin look alikes…
They probably have whisper/YouTube campaign video all ready to go – it fits right into their MO.
“only with the continued presence of the US in the middle east as aggressive imperialists can Al Qaeda continue to recruit with such ease.”
Imperialist countries take and keep land. Think USSR. Think the Roman Empire. Think Japan 1900-1945, think France 1800, think Germany 1914 and 1939, think England with throughout history. I doubt we will ‘keep’ iraq or afghanastan.
Do you think we should let al queda dictate our foreign policy?
Do you think the USA should not protect its interests around the world?
Do you really think if we just packed up and came home that the world would be just fine and dandy? You know, like it was before America existed?
What would the world be like today if American never intervened in world affairs ever?
@”A President Obama would be all “peacy” and such, and would make hatred a much tougher sell.”
I hate conservative blogs because everyone agrees with each other all the time. What fun is that? Preaching to the choir takes no guts. That’s why I enjoy our debates so much. Your ideas are like a mental punching bag for me.
Perk, I disagree with almost everything you write but at least you seem intelligent. But after your last comment I gotta say, “Wake Up!”
Obama would only be president for 8 years. The muslin extremist terrorists don’t hate America because of George Bush, but rather they hate our value system and feel it encroaching upon their society.
Perk, don’t underestimate these zealots. Their faith is very real to them and their mindset is foreign to you and most of us.
The fabric of middle eastern culture is built around that 13th century idealism and they feel it eroding away with the current wave of modernism.
These are folks who execute homosexuals for being gay. Period. They hate gay tolerance and don’t understand us here in America. Remember Ahmedinejads speech here in the university?
They hate womans rights. They cover their woman from head to toe and kill them on the spot for the most minor infractions of accepted islamic behavior. Why do you respect their ideals?
They hate atheists, christians, pagans, jews, hindus, agnostics. Why do you defend their ‘right to hate’?
They hate democracy. They hate the surrounding muslim nations. They hate each, they hate us, they hate.
Why do you act like their point of view is a valid point of view. These are not just minor differences but rather it is the kind of hate that leads to big problems if allowed to fester…and be armed.
Guess what, if you lived in Iran, you could kiss your anti god speech goodbye. You would be kneeling down on your new prayer rug 5 times a day or else.
France, the most *peacy and such* of nations was bombed by al queda even though Chirac was the opposite of Bush.
Edgar, Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq when we went to war there. We started a war over “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that were never there. We had tens of thousands of American soldiers killed for a war that we started based upon faulty (or deliberately misleading) evidence.
We had no justification to invade their country. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
You say that these people hate, but does that give us the right to blow their children apart? I’ve seen pictures of children with their arms blown off from this war. Are you so certain that you are right, that you think those kids deserved that?
You are the one who needs to wake up my friend. Why don’t you look at some American kids tomorrow and think if they lost their limbs like that, or were orphaned because some nation on the other side of the planet decided it was the right thing to do. Why don’t you wake up to the violence you are casually supporting with your endorsement of this war.
I supported the war in Afghanistan. I am fine with using force when there is a clear need to do it. We were acting in defense after being attacked when we launched our assault on Afghanistan. But Iraq is a national tragedy that was totally unneccessary. If you think you got rid of some haters in Iraq – you took out hundreds of thousands of civilians along with them. We could have observed the peace of those civilians through the United Nations approach, which was working much better than the war that followed. We could have focused on Afghanistan where Al Qaeda was actually hiding.
People used to make fun of Bill Clinton because he held numerous talks with the Israelis and Palestinians, but got no final peace deal. But all that time, we had far less violence because there were efforts made to negotiate peace diplomatically. Those talks stopped people from engaging in violence because they had a stake in peace. It was a better approach.
The problem with the Bush/McCain approach to foreign policy is they skoff at diplomacy and look to force first. And the Iraq war is a perfect example of the Bush/McCain approach utterly failing. That war could have been avoided, it has cost too many lives and sent our budget into a massive deficit, and we are not stronger as a result of that war. We have been weakened in our standing around the world, and frankly, Obama is going to have a huge mess to clean up because of the weak Republican leadership of the last 8 years.
well said nathan. One correction. about 4200 US soldiers have been killed so far, Over 4000 still even since “mission accomplished”… the official wound count is 30k. but of course weight this against 1.2 million estimated iraqi deaths, and frankly I don’t see how we can avoid a nation of hate towards us. With that many deaths, it’s a bit hard for an iraqi to avoid knowing someone killed by the US at this point. How many people in the US actually know someone killed in 911? very few.
@edgar
The one thing that always seems to be the spearhead of argument for why we are in iraq is that “They Hate”. That is not true. It is a very small percentage who, until we invaded, hated us or anyone. A vast majority could have given a shit about us, but of course, that small loud few have to mess it up for everyone. Now of course, due to the invasion and the bungling of it, we now have a hell of a lot more haters than we did before, in a lot more places than just Iraq.
Edgar – thank you for the compliment re. my blog.
@ Underestimate them – I don’t underestimate them at all man, in fact, I am well aware of what they are capable of. But much more importantly, I do not misunderstand them.
The problem here, is that they do not hate the fact that we read Playboy. They hate the fact that we bring our Playboys over onto their land. They do not hate our freedom. They hate that we exercise our freedoms on their land.
Perhaps you remember how we were much more beloved to the likes of Osama Bin Laden, whom we trained, in the fight against Russia for the liberation of Afghanistan. We were loved because we helped them fight but stayed out of their way. We became hated when they turned around after their war and realized that we had a huge presence in Saudi and were simply a backdoor version of the Russians.
With us there, it is much easier to make a case that “These are the people that are killing our women and children” and recruit holy warriors. If we are not there, it will be most difficult to make a case that they must be willing to die because “Those people have a 50″ plasma screen and you don’t.” These people barely have enough to eat, much less the resources and wherewithal to actually come to the US and “fight us here.” They want to live, worship and prosper in their homes, on their sacred land.
Now in fairness, there are the loonies like Bin Laden that have the resources to bring the fight to us. But the amount of those kind of people, by ratio, are probably the same as the Christian terrorists here, like McVeigh and the abortion clinic bombers. They are a tiny and intense group, and like the criminals they are, they must be caught and executed with brutal speed and decisiveness. Which is yet another reason why the “War On Terror” in Iraq is such a huge mistake and distraction: we should be spending our resources on clandestine assassination efforts against the likes of Bin Laden, not making war in a foreign land.
You say how much they hate – and yes, to a certain extent I agree. But let us take a moment to reflect on how hate is built. Do people wake up and decide to hate? Do you really see them as people so different than you? Or is hate fanned, grown and focused by people with at least a certain component of truth?
I ask this, because you yourself have been had by the government. Your hatred and fear has been fanned, focused and grown by our own government so that you no longer see them as people who want to walk their kids to school in peace, they are Freddie, they are The Blob … they are zombie killers. So long as you see them as the manifest incarnation of “hate” you neglect to notice that you, yourself, have become exactly the same. And you know what? I don’t think you are. I don’t think you are a “natural born hater” any more than anyone else. I believe you want what’s best for our country, our people and our future.
The VAST majority of “them” are exactly the same way. And it’s important, when we look to the future, to remember this fact. So long as we perceive them as an irrational army of blood lusted killers, it is easy for us to simply kill them “Over There.” That, by the way, is the most important reason to keep it Over There – if we actually saw what we are doing, the natural human reaction of horror would overtake our own fear and we’d stop the war even more quickly.
You’re right, they don’t like most everything we are – women’s rights, freedom of religion, speech, etc, gay people, infidels, they’re fucking insane. Goes to one of my core points lately: Religion is the root of all evil. Not spirituality, mind you, but the organization and mobilization of spirituality called “religion.” But if we are not there, then they can be all the penitent they wanna be – it’s not our thing man. And no, I DO NOT believe that we can force them into seeing our Christian Way (ROFLMAO) that will only push them further.
Let them fight over sand and kill each other until they grow up enough to figure out that their way sucks. Until then, let’s focus on ourselves and bettering our own country rather than worrying about something that cannot be changed any time soon, and certainly not by us.
“Edgar, Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq when we went to war there.”
Did I say that Al Qaeda was in Iraq and that is why we went to war? I don’t think so.
“We started a war over “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that were never there.”
According to all of the other nations of the world including Russia, Germany and France they had the weapons. Weapons of mass destruction was only one aspect. We went to war because Iraq was in violation of the treaty they signed in the first gulf war. They were in violation for 12 years.
“We had tens of thousands of American soldiers killed for a war that we started based upon faulty (or deliberately misleading) evidence.”
less than 5000 killed bud.
“We had no justification to invade their country”
Iraq violated 16 un resolutions over 12 years. Something has to be done.
“You say that these people hate, but does that give us the right to blow their children apart? I’ve seen pictures of children with their arms blown off from this war. Are you so certain that you are right, that you think those kids deserved that?”
War is ugly, Saddam could have avoided it. Blame him.
“I supported the war in Afghanistan. I am fine with using force when there is a clear need to do it. We were acting in defense after being attacked when we launched our assault on Afghanistan.”
Weren’t the vast majority of the 911 crew from Saudi Arabia? Think of all the ‘children’ we bombed in afganistan just because of the actions of a few like bin laden, who himself is not an afgan citizen.
“The problem with the Bush/McCain approach to foreign policy is they skoff at diplomacy and look to force first.”
Iraq was in constant violation of un resolutions for 12 years. I think 12 years is long enough. Time for action.
“The one thing that always seems to be the spearhead of argument for why we are in iraq is that “They Hate””
No, I didn’t say and neither do I believe that the coalition went to war in Iraq because they hate us.
My hate comment refers to not this nation or that nation but rather middle eastern islamic philosophy at large. They don’t deny it so why should you?
“How many people in the US actually know someone killed in 911? very few.”
@Brain Donkey
I know someone killed in 911. Thanks for your support.
“They hate the fact that we bring our Playboys over onto their land. They do not hate our freedom. They hate that we exercise our freedoms on their land.”
You are wrong about this Perk. In case you forgot we were neither in iraq or afganistan when we were bombed on 911. Let’s not forget the uss cole and the marine barracks in lebanon during Reagans admin.
Let’s not forget the iranian hostage crisis either or the jets that were highjacked in the 1980′s, think Lybia.
It’s fundamental. It’s not political. In the middle east politics is merely a vehicle for theocratic imperialism. It’s allah first and politics second.
If saudi arabia sees fit to let the US operate an air base on their soil then that’s between Saudi Arabia and the US. Bin Laden and the whole rest of the radical muslim world has no right to be offended much less influence our foreign policy.
Appeasement is dangerous. Look at ww2. Nobody like war. No one. But ‘forest fires’ need to be put out.
Plasma tv screens have nothing to do with peace. It’s all about how islamic radicalism is incompatible with the accepted norms of behavior around the free world. You can’t just pretend that it does not exist. You can’t talk them out of their beliefs. Diplomacy falls on deaf ears. Tolerance is not a value whatsoever in middle eastern islamic culture. These folks a nuts by the millions!! It’s fucking scary! I’m serious about that. I’ve been talking about the islamic threat since the mid 1990′s when no one else could see past the USSR or CHina.
As harry reid said in 2007 the ‘civil war’ between sunni and shiite has been going on for 2000 years. These people in the middle east have been constantly at war with one another since recorded history. It has nothing to do with America.
Hey edgar, that sucks of course that you actually DO know someone killed that day. I know couple of survivors, 1 from the first tower hit. He and his employees are alive because he decided that a “waterfall of fire raining past the coffee room window” was a bad thing, and they left, ignoring the stupid asses from security on the building intercom.
But it changes nothing about my statement. MOST people don’t know a single person even remotely related to 911. The hate, i can understand, when you are personally connected, like most iraqis now are to the invasion.
Yeah, my friends sister…check this out.
She worked for the census bureau in the world trade center. When my friend, his name is Juan, saw the attack on tv he almost fainted. He called his family immediately to find out if she was ok. Turns out she was on vacation for the week and was not in the towers.
So Juan almost died from happiness. She was going on vacation but the problem is she got on the plane that went down in PA!! Un effin believable!
“According to all of the other nations of the world including Russia, Germany and France they had the weapons.”
We know that Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons right now. How many wars do you want to start based upon the the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes?
“Iraq violated 16 un resolutions over 12 years. Something has to be done.”
Sanctions were being done as well as UN inspections. No one was being killed and we weren’t wasting billions every week on an unneccessary war. And if we are to start wars over violated UN resolutions, how many nations in the world right now are violating UN resolutions and how many wars do you want to start?
Edgar, you are so intent on being right about the Iraq war, that you seem to not be able to allow yourself to admit the obvious – it was a failure. A totally misguided waste of lives and dollars. The American public sides with us on this. Below is a poll from earlier this month showing that 55% of the American public thinks it was a mistake to start the war with Iraq, while 39% think it was the right thing to do:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Maybe you should start to listen to other people, the majority of America, who have had time to think about this war and think it was a tragic mistake, and are now about to throw your party out to the wilderness because of this disaster, along with the Wall Street disaster, and all the rest of the disasters George Bush has put us through.
@Edgar “War is ugly, Saddam could have avoided it. Blame him.”
I was into punk music in the late 1970′s. When some of those idiots started cutting themselves with broken bottles and saying things like “You see, society! You see what you made me do,” I quit hanging those jokers. They were trying to blame their actions on someone else.
Are you suggesting the same? Curious.
Also, I assume you’re aware of the U.N. resolutions that Israel is in violation of by building their wall, right? Should we now go to war with them?
Again … curious.
btw – I agree with someone’s earlier sentiment … it’s nice to have a conservative willing to discuss the issues instead of resorting to simple name-calling. Good on you, Edgar …and thanks.
@edgar
holy crap thats some horrible luck. if it was a different circumstance it would be funny, like “well i avoided the banana peel, but ended up getting splashed by the car”. Obviously not when death is involved. But still, that’s like that sucky movie Final Destination… creepy.
And also, i want to echo the sentiment that it’s nice to have a conservative to argue back. Even though you are always wrong
@Nathan
The poll guy. The polls are given to people who will give the answers the pollsters want. The polls showed almost a ninety percent approval rating for bush. Public opinion is fickle to say the least and polls do not inform us of truth but of popular politically charged opinion. Find some polls that support what I say and I’ll tell you the same thing…keep ‘em. They show nothing.
@”We know that Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons right now. How many wars do you want to start based upon the the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes?”
Nathan you think you are a genius don’t you? I’m not as impressed with your empty partisan rhetoric as I am with some of the more clearly defined, individualized and well thought out arguments by my other incorrect and misinformed friends here.
First of all Pakistan is in danger of being invaded should obama become president. He made that clear on two separate debates. So while the bush doctrine aided pakistan and tried to give them more of a stake in cooperating on mutually important issues, such as the war on terror, Obama has threatened to invade pakistan. This is a fact. Watch his own lips say it for yourself. Yes, McCain wants to work diplomatically with Pakistan (Peace) Obama want to use force (war). Those are the facts and it’s a matter of record. Plain english.
Pakistan is an ally of the US and has not been in contemptuous violation of resolutions set forth by the international community. Try, just try to understand that.
@“Iraq violated 16 un resolutions over 12 years. Something has to be done.”
Sanctions were being done as well as UN inspections. ”
Are you ok nathan? Do you still smoke pot? Sanctions were ineffective because of the oil for food scandal. Look it up or ask these guys.
Inspections were being done…until saddam threw out the inspectors.
@”how many nations in the world right now are violating UN resolutions and how many wars do you want to start? ”
The question, to make the attempted but weak analogy somewhat valid, is how many countries have signed a peace treaty with the coalition and then repeatedly and consistently violated the treaty? For 12 years?
@”Edgar, you are so intent on being right about the Iraq war, that you seem to not be able to allow yourself to admit the obvious – it was a failure.”
The war was easily not a failure at all. Iraq has largely been stabilized. In fact, it is going so well over there (could be better still no doubt!!) that it’s not even a hot issue in the election like it was a year ago. The war was won, the insurgency subdued, the political process moves forward and that’s all good.
Nathan, at the battle of the somme in ww1 there were over a million casualties. 60,000 british soldiers died on the first day alone. Perspective. We’ve been in Iraq for 7 years almost and suffered 4300 or so losses. Perspective. In the overall scheme of things that is an incredibly light list of casualties as far as war is concerned. We could never fail in Iraq. America is too great a nation.
@”how many wars do you want to start? ” I don’t want to start war. I want to develop alternative energy technology that will allow us to be of foreign oil dependence. I then would like this nation to export this technology so we can make a killing and get rich. I want the other nations to wonder just what they should do with all their useless oil. I want to remove the leverage our enemies have not by force but with education,innovation and cooperative diplomacy.
@”Maybe you should start to listen to other people, the majority of America, who have had time to think about this war and think it was a tragic mistake, and are now about to throw your party out to the wilderness because of this disaster, along with the Wall Street disaster, and all the rest of the disasters George Bush has put us through.”
This same majority of American people elected bush in 2004. Now the majority has changed their minds again. So I should too? I’m not a follower of the herd nathan. I happen to think that most people are little more than morons. Sorry, that’s how I feel. This majority of americans that your polls speak of…they are the same people who cut me off in traffic talking on their cell phones. The same people who watch the boob tube everynight and go to work the next day to talk about the simpsons or family guy.
Nathan, I’m not of the mindset of the majority. I have little in common with the majority. I am better informed than the majority. I like being an outsider who thinks for himself.
@jairez
I got to respond to you too? Perk, I don’t want to take over your blog man…forgive me. I will defer at your pleasure.
OK Jairez, another unknown genius. What brilliant remark should I respond to? Let’s see…
“Also, I assume you’re aware of the U.N. resolutions that Israel is in violation of by building their wall, right? Should we now go to war with them?”
This is when I want to go to war with Israel: When Israel attacks a peaceful (Peaceful Jairez, like Kuwait)and tries to plunder it for pure profit. Then I would say lets do something. If we went to war with isreal and kicked their asses and forced them to sign a treaty in order to prevent thousands of their soldiers from being killed, and then Israel violates every specific clause in the treaty for twelve years…then we go get em.
Building walls? LMAO!!!
Thanks fellas, it’s been fun.
Shit perk, talk about free automatic content generators!!
@ Auto content gen: All I can say is,
@ the rest: you’re on your own here Edgar. I’m loving the discourse.
I only have time to comment on 1 line ATM, regarding polls: sorry man, you’re flat wrong there. You want polls, try here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ the best poll site I’ve seen. Best math, most thorough. Their past predictions have been pretty spot on. They’re running the campaign currently at almost 90% chance that Obama will win with 345 electoral votes. And I’m telling you, the math looks really strong.
Is it possible that all polls are wrong and the entire country will suffer from a Bradley effect on election day? Only if Diebold is 100% in control, but it is conceivable. Doubtful though. I think tonight’s debate sewed it up. No game changer, more of the same.
Grampy’s gonna get that loooong nap he so richly deserves methinks…
@edgar
Lol, I have a new career for you. You could become a rep spin-doctor.
“First of all Pakistan is in danger of being invaded should obama become president. He made that clear on two separate debates.”
Seriously? please… He said that we would attack INSIDE Pak if pak will not pursue those targets themselves. This does not mean only bombers and tanks, and roll on into Islamabad and mow everyone down. It means exactly what it has always meant, for every president, which is that credible threats from within any country, including allies, will be dealt with unilaterally if the host nation does not. This has happened many times via covert ops, and will continue.
Seriously, spin doctor, I will vouch for your skills if you want.
actually on a similar note, I am not sure why we dont assemble a team, like the Israelis did after the Munich olympic massacre. 20 guys, limitless resources, 1 job, find and kill binladen.
“Nathan, you think you are a genius don’t you?”
Edgar, you want to suggest that I think I’m a genius, and then in the same post write “I’m not a follower of the herd nathan. I happen to think that most people are little more than morons. Sorry, that’s how I feel…” ???
You know, before you suggest that other people are full of themselves, I think you should re-read your words and maybe take yourself a little less seriously.
I don’t really care about your or my egos in this conversation. What I care about is all the violence that’s gone on supported by America over the last 7 years since we have gone to war with Iraq, held prisoners for years without trial at Guantanamo, started writing justice department justifications for waterboarding and other tortures that violate the Geneva convention – We have got to change our approach and not condone our strategy of pre-emptive violence and stop condoning torture.
Finally the country is now catching up to the reality that this war was a mistake, with the majority feeling it was a tragedy (and I was in the minority at the beginning of this war when I was out in the streets fighting it – I’m not the herd, but I do know where the public stands and after reflection, they have moved to oppose the war along with those of us who used to be in the minority).
If you think that Iraq is a victory because in “7 years [America] suffered 4300 or so losses… In the overall scheme of things that is an incredibly light list of casualties as far as war is concerned…” you completely devalue the lives of all those Americans killed, and you don’t even mention the hundreds of thousands Iraqi’s we killed.
War is a tragedy no matter when it happens. War is only justified when neccessary (as in, we need to defend ourselves from an attacker who threatens us or our allies, unless we go to war). Iraq was an unneccessary war. So what if the peace treaty was violated? Did all those Iraqi civilians and American Soldiers have to die for that? You think “something had to be done” and so you advocate for us going and killing people in Iraq? People on the other side of the planet. People you don’t have to look at in the face. People who’s children aren’t American children, so you don’t seem to care about them. You don’t even mention them as part of the cost of the war.
Edgar, I have tried not to be disrespectful of you, although we have a strong difference of opinion on this. I really don’t care to fight for the sake of fighting. But you said that we liberals need to wake up and I listened to you. Nothing you have said has changed my opinion, but I will still listen to you.
Now I’d invite you to do the same thing – wake up and listen. Why not get out of the mindset that everyone you encounter are morons/herd/pot smokers/ whatever condescending thing you want to say that can justify that you are superior and their opinions are less than yours – and why not actually hear something and learn? It’s not too late for you.
@Donkey
“actually on a similar note, I am not sure why we dont assemble a team, like the Israelis did after the Munich olympic massacre. 20 guys, limitless resources, 1 job, find and kill binladen.”
How come you make sense in the afternoon but never at night? Whiskey? Vodka? Zima?
I agree with you all the way! This is absolutely ridiculous that we haven’t found Osama. Way out of control. You know, if you don’t pay a parking ticket the ‘man’ will find you and make you pay. But we can’t find Osama. I promise, if I’m elected Emperor I’ll get him.
Spin Doctor? I’m the Truth Doctor. I’ve come to rescue the truth!
Are you guys into philosophy too or mainly just politics? Who do you like? Kant? Locke? Arthur Schopenhauer? Voltaire? I consider him a philosopher…
I’m going to have to start my own political blog one of these days…
@Edgar – “How come you make sense in the afternoon but never at night? Whiskey? Vodka? Zima? ”
Zima?!?!? Dude, THAT’s some funny shit roflmao:
@ Truth Doctor – roflmao: In fact, you do “doctor” the truth Edgar… that’s why it is no longer acceptable. But you’re in good company, what with the current Republican ticket going about this campaign the way they have.
The current Republican ticket sucks. I didn’t want McCain. I think we need a great leader, not an acceptable leader. Republicans have lately been big spenders and don’t really represent true conservatism.
I’d like to fire every single member of congress right now! We need new blood. Reps and Dems alike.
My main gripe against Obama is that I don’t really know who he is. His past is somewhat obscure and he hasn’t earned my trust yet. McCain, well at least I’ve known about him for many years and know his story. I think he’s the wrong choice for the conservative base though, and that’s gonna cost us cons the election.
For dems I liked Bill Richardson and for Reps I like Huckabee. But again, I’m not sure I recognize any greatness among either of them. Times are tough guys. Really tough.
@nathan
“I happen to think that most people are little more than morons. Sorry, that’s how I feel…” ???
You know, before you suggest that other people are full of themselves, I think you should re-read your words and maybe take yourself a little less seriously. ”
Look, I’m not going to sit here and pretend that I don’t think I’m smarter than the averag joe. I’m not saying I’m a genius either.
You are my favorite kind of liberal nathan! I disagree with everything you say and love every minute of it. I’m just suggesting to you that your habit of supporting your premises with polls is a rather weak approach to argumentation. I enjoy following the thread of reason and logic, or untangling it. Biased polls are just weak in my view and I think if you found another way to present your arguments it would be more effective.
@”Finally the country is now catching up to the reality that this war was a mistake, with the majority feeling it was a tragedy ”
See, you say this as fact. Probably based on some poll that you are salivating over. Don’t you think it’s a little silly to pretend that the polls give an accurate representation of ALL OF AMERICA?
“If you think that Iraq is a victory because in “7 years [America] suffered 4300 or so losses… In the overall scheme of things that is an incredibly light list of casualties as far as war is concerned…” you completely devalue the lives of all those Americans killed, and you don’t even mention the hundreds of thousands Iraqi’s we killed.”
I think Iraq is a victory because it is. They were wiped out in a matter of weeks. Then a separate issue arose with the insurgency. Foreign fighters who sparked a civil war between sunni and shiia.
At that point the war was considered not winnable by Obama and the other liberals. There were bombings all over the country and the violence was truly out of control! But now things have largely settled and the insurgency is almost entirely subdued.
The political process is moving forward in Iraq as well. It’s all moving along in the right direction now. Not before, but now it is.
Nathan, in 30 years from now when iraq is like Japan, you will still never admit that we won the war.
Edgar, you and I are talking about two different things. You are talking about military success. I’m talking about the war policy – whether the war was the right thing to do, and was a success or failure for our nation and the world.
Let’s give you that we have the situation under control in Iraq, and the surge was a success, and we can call it a military success. (I don’t fully agree with this, but I’ll cede it to you for now).
What you are ignoring is that the underlying policy of attacking Iraq because they violated a peace treaty and we believed they had weapons of mass destruction was an absolute, utter failure.
First, pre-emptive strikes are foolish, because as we found out, we were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and we lost credibility around the world for using that argument for going to war.
Second, the cost of the war was too much. I haven’t heard you say one thing about the Iraqi’s we’ve killed, so I assume you really don’t care about anyone unless they are an American. So the cost in iraqi civilian lives was too much for many of us, but that’s not something on your agenda of things you care about.
But even if you are purely 100% selfish for America alone, the war cost America too much. 4300 lives over a violated treaty? That’s worth it to you? Maybe you should enlist so at least you can put your body where your talk is.
And then, the war in Iraq has cost us $653 billion so far. Did you read that? $653 billion. (here’s the link to find that number: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/23/1436850.aspx)
Obama’s energy plan (supporting the renewable energy that you want us to support) costs $150 billion. With the Bush/Wall Street meltdown, along with our massive deficit due to this expensive war, plus the Bush tax cuts, Obama isn’t even going to have money in the treasury to pursue his renewable energy plan. We are going to have to protect our nation from total bankruptcy first.
Bush’s policies have left us in a state of desperation. The war has been a part of this – $653 billion isn’t a small amount of money. You, me and everyone of us is going to pay for that for years to come.
And all of this because we got impatient with the UN peacekeeping process and violations of a peace treaty…
a total waste.
Nathan, you wont be saying it’s a total waste when iraq (hopefully) turns out to be an ally in a region that is desperate for ‘change’.
The idea is simple though not easy to implement. The middle east is the most backward ass part of the world right now. They are the few remaining countries to still have ‘real kings’ and theocratic rule which is terrible.
The idea: ‘Regime change’ in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Saudi Arabia (?). Lift the religious and political repression and people in the middle east will be like people everywhere. Enjoying their freedoms and contributing to a modern day world market in a positive way.
Democracy will afford woman a real education, tolerance of different religions and beliefs will promote diversity which in turn will make it easier for these people to compromise with the rest of the world.
There is a real threat brewing in the middle east between a clash of culture (east and west) and the oil thing. Storm clouds have been brewing for years. The same kinds of storm clouds that were brewing before other world wars.
That’s the argument anyway. Bring democracy to a the only backward ass part of the world so they can catch up and reason in a normal manner. A democratic middle east is strategically better for the US than a theocratic middle east.
Iraq and Afgan are the first nations to be transformed with the others to come later.
@edgar about making sense.
Have you considered that YOUR drinking habits allow you to make more sense of ME in the afternoon?
anywho… I do not think we should have invaded Iraq, period. I also do not think that afgan was handled even remotely seriously by Bush, and was a crack in the door to lead back into iraq. I would have 100% backed an infiltration team like the israeli munich squad, and thats pretty much it. Terrorists are flies on your $5000 table, you don’t kill them with sledghammers, you do it with fly swatters. But alas, maybe I have watched too many tom clancey movies.
“The idea: ‘Regime change’ in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Saudi Arabia (?). Lift the religious and political repression and people in the middle east will be like people everywhere. Enjoying their freedoms and contributing to a modern day world market in a positive way.”
Edgar, the people of Iraq didn’t greet us as liberators who wanted our version of democracy, a free market and culture. We can’t force it on them.
We can “hope” that some day these people will come to view us as their allies, but I think after the “shock and awe” of years of bombings that killed countless Iraqi’s (countless because the American Government instituted a policy of not counting the Iraqi’s we killed because it’s a media relations problem), I think that we will not be considered a friend and ally of these people for most of our lifetime.
And by the way, the idea you are describing above is an old one. It used to be scorned by conservatives as “Nation Building”. Now this policy of intervention is embraced by neo-conservatives, while still scorned by many conservatives.
I don’t think many people would look back at our war with North Vietnam and say today that it made us greater allies with Vietnam and brought the United States into a closer alliance with that region. And I don’t think people will look back that way at Iraq either.
There is a long history of powerful nations trying to foist their “better culture, economy and values” on ‘backward’ nations. This usually involves selling weapons to those nations to protect our own strategic interests.
The CIA first began assisting Saddam Hussein in this way all the way back to 1959, and he continued a positive relationship, benefitting from US support for arming his regime through the Reagan years when the Reagan Administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion to aid him in the Iran/Iraq war. (Here’s a link to info on Saddam Hussein history and US support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein ). Did our assistance of his regime, which was intended to fight religious extremism in the region help bring about the change you think we are bringing now?
Forced regime changes will not bring us friends. History doesn’t support your conclusion.
So, we see little benefit today from the war in Iraq, we wasted almost $700 billion on the war, 4300 people were killed, and I beg to differ with you that history will look at this war and see that we made a great ally by “liberating” the Iraqi’s (the ones we didn’t kill, anywasy…). This is just one more sad chapter of an imperialist power killing thousands of poor people in a country on the other side of the world to try to protect its financial interest (oil).
@nathan
“And by the way, the idea you are describing above is an old one. It used to be scorned by conservatives as “Nation Building”. Now this policy of intervention is embraced by neo-conservatives, while still scorned by many conservatives.”
I don’t follow the conservative movement, I just tend to be conservative. Again, I don’t follow the herd.
“I don’t think many people would look back at our war with North Vietnam and say today that it made us greater allies with Vietnam and brought the United States into a closer alliance with that region. And I don’t think people will look back that way at Iraq either”
We lost the war in Vietnam. They killed tens of thousand of our men and then we came home in shame. Look at Japan though. You wanna talk about shock and awe? Look at Germany. Both allies of the USA. Now who would have predicted that? Going back further (maybe too far) look at England too.
This war in Iraq is really nothing like Vietnam although some liberals try to pretend that the two wars are identical. They are different in every way.
“Forced regime changes will not bring us friends. History doesn’t support your conclusion. ”
Again I have one word for you…Japan. History does therefore support my conclusion. Or are you going to somehow disqualify Japan? Perhaps we lost that war too.
I don’t want to jump in between you two because I’m enjoying the repartee. But Edgar, this is pretty amazing: you say that Iraq is nothing like Vietnam yet you liken it to Germany and Japan? This, I’m afraid, puts you into the unschooled column.
Iraq, Germany and Japan are the fronts that cannot possibly be equated while in fact, Vietnam and Iraq make a damn strong analog. WWII and Iraq are different culturally, economically, strategically, tactically, spiritually (religion) and from a who-kicked-whom-first perspective. Alignment of the world, the politics of the incursions, you name it man, they could not be different.
Contrast that with Vietnam -we had an undeclared war that was embarked upon for misguided reasons and, in some case, outright lies, fighting a people that were fighting themselves, we’re engaged in close proximity guerilla warfare with a people that we cannot discern the difference between enemies and friends. We are again trying to force our way of thinking upon a people that do not want it nor are ready for it, whom are, in many ways, fortified by a belief system that we will not be about to bomb out of them – quite the contrary, we strengthen that belief.
The fallacy that this “war” is in any way like WWII is modern propaganda focused on getting us “OK” with our actions.
Edgar, Vietnam is a far closer comparison to Iraq than Japan/Germany/WWII.
Here are a few ways:
- In the Iraq war, America was the aggressor and many people within the US and world community opposed the Bush Doctrine of preemption saying it was a mistake (just as many American civilians and the world community opposed the Vietnam war as an aggressive mistake by the US).
- In WWII, Japan and Germany were the aggressors and the world community and many of its own citizens were ashamed the two nation’s aggressive actions (and the Holocaust) after WWII ended.
- Japan and Germany were both unified cultures that already had a national identity. Iraq is a nation of Shi’a, Sunni and Kurd peoples who have been forced into a nation-state since the treaty ending WWI, and like South Vietnam, the government is a construct of America that was thrust upon a populace that is inherently in conflict with the Government.
- Keeping the peace in Vietnam was problematic, like it is in Iraq: At the end of the Vietnam war Richard Nixon sent in a surge of military force, secured the area, and then declared victory and we left. We never could keep the peace in Vietnam because we had a puppet government there. And anyone who looks at the government of Iraq can clearly see it’s a puppet government, because if we pulled out immediately, the government probably wouldn’t survive. It’s almost identical to the situation we had in Vietnam – we can keep escalating force there, and keep the peace for a while, but we can’t leave because there is no consensus government there – we are only able to maintain it through force.
- Keeping peace after the war in Japan and Germany was not a problem like it is in Iraq. They both had a national identity and weren’t ready to explode into civil wars among their civilians if we left. We kept a military presence in Germany – not to prevent civil war, but to protect Germany from the Russians, and they were thankful for our military support because of it. Many in Iraq and the region are NOT thankful for our military presence and see us as invaders rather than protectors.
WWII and Iraq are very different.
Vietnam and Iraq have many similarities.
Neither are perfect analogies, but Vietnam is much closer to Iraq than WWII.
@nathan
“Iraq is a nation of Shi’a, Sunni and Kurd peoples who have been forced into a nation-state since the treaty ending WWI, and like South Vietnam, the government is a construct of America that was thrust upon a populace that is inherently in conflict with the Government.”
There you go inventing history. Iraq was not forced into anything by America during or after WW1. The Brits took Iraq from the ottomans as a stipulation of their individual treaty. It was all Britain. There were no less than 15 arab uprisings in the period to come after ww1. So you are just flat wrong here. But you hate America so much that you imagined it was true. Look it up guys.
“In WWII, Japan and Germany were the aggressors and the world community and many of its own citizens were ashamed the two nation’s aggressive actions (and the Holocaust) after WWII ended”
The Germans said their actions were simply a reaction to the unfair treaty of Versaille. Public opinion in the US and abroad leaned toward neutrality and appeasement. History shows of course that it was wrong to appease Hitler, he should have been stopped in the 1930′s (and we would have/should have been the aggressors) and PREEMPTIVE action was called for.
“Japan and Germany were both unified cultures that already had a national identity. Iraq is a nation of Shi’a, Sunni and Kurd peoples”
That still doesn’t explain why we became such close allies with countries that we bombed into submission, as you suggest is highly unlikely in the case of Iraq. That only explains why the peace was able to be kept after the war. Let’s not forget that we kept troops in Japan and Germany for 50 years. Think that had anything to do with the peace?
The difference between ww2 and vietnam on one side, and iraq on the other is that we lost FAR fewer soldiers in Iraq. Not even in the same ball park.
Vietnam was backed by China, Iraq was backed by a disbanded militia. Not a country with a billion people.
The Vietnam war was lost due to the US caving in under political pressure. The Iraq war was almost lost the same way, until petreus and the surge. That’s the difference.
Edgar, You misunderstood my paragraph about the history from WWI to the current nation state. Yes, the Brits took over for the Ottomans after WWI, and yes, there were no less than 15 uprisings from that time, and I KNOW that America had nothing to do with Iraq and the WWI treaty. DUH. But my point was, since WWI Iraq has had outside imperial forces involved in shaping its government, (Britain first after the Ottoman Empire, and a long history of shifting governments pressured by military forces outside of the region) and now we have installed a government there today, and we are in a position much like the Brits were – an outside force thrusting a government upon a people, many of whom don’t want us there, and we are suffering ongoing uprisings just like the Brits did. It’s very much like Vietnam, a former French colony that we took over and became the imperial power, and suffered numerous uprisings and couldn’t control either.
Regarding Germany, the minute Hitler invaded Poland would have been the minute to stop him. That would have been the time it was no longer world action would have been a preemptive strike, but an act to stop the invasion of a sovereign nation by an aggressor nation.
Edgar, you really don’t make a case why WWII is similar to Iraq, except that we kept troops in Germany and Japan for decades. If you think that we can keep our troops stationed anywhere on the globe and it will always be the same circumstance, then you are looking at things too simplistically.
As for the fewer lives we lost in Iraq vs. Vietnam, give us some time. We stayed in Vietnam from 1961 to 1975. You talk like we were a bunch of quitters for leaving Vietnam, but for 14 years we fought that war, won the peace, but then couldn’t keep the peace. It just went on and on.
You are correct that Vietnam had the support of China and the Soviet Union to support it with weapons. It’s not an exact analogy. But terrorists throughout the Middle East are also supporting insurgents in Iraq. They are not as well funded as China and the Soviet Union were, but that doesn’t mean that we can just rest and expect that we won’t have violence in that region for years to come.
This is because of a key similarity between Iraq and Vietnam. It wasn’t just China that made Vietnam impossible to win. It was the radicals who were willing to commit suicide bombings in peaceful areas we had under our ‘control’. We kept winning the military victories, but we couldn’t keep the peace because there people were willing to continue to die for their freedom from us.
The truth is, you and I don’t know what the future holds for Iraq. If you claim you do, you are a liar. For the time being, things look better than they did for a while. The peace may hold and we may still have a military victory. Or, we may have an endless difficulty with holding the peace, and them bombing us for as long as we are there.
But all of this is beside the point.
You are still wanting to talk about war from a military point of view, not a policy point of view. You still want to say that we won, if we finally beat them militarily. And I say, 4300 lives lost, 683 billion dollars, countless Iraqi lives, and the ongoing question of whether we can keep the peace there or not, was an absolute waste.
You say that we will be thankful for our new allies in the region, and that it will be like what happened with Germany and Japan. So far, we have LOST more respect from our allies around the world than we have gained any allies from this war. We have limited our ability to use force in other regions and circumstances because we have put all of our available force in that region. Our economy has gone into total meltdown because we stretched ourselves too thin. We have tied one hand behind our back with this war and we are weakened because of it.
On the basis of policy, the war has been an utter failure. Unquestionably. Like Vietnam, we lost much more than we gained, and we would have been better off never getting into the war. The tragedy of Vietnam was not that we quit (after 14 years of banging our head against a wall). The tragedy was that when the French left, we decided to go in. The lesson about Iraq is not in how we end this war, but in our choice to go into it in the first place. That’s where it was a total failure.
@nathan
“and now we have installed a government there today, and we are in a position much like the Brits were – an outside force thrusting a government upon a people, many of whom don’t want us there, and we are suffering ongoing uprisings just like the Brits did”
No Nathan, I’m afraid you don’t understand the history of Iraq. The brits took Iraq from the Ottomans but told the Iraqi people they would be free. The brits lied. They imposed a British mandate adn it was british rule. It was colonized. We are not colonizing Iraq. Better stick to Polls Nathan.
@Nathan
“The truth is, you and I don’t know what the future holds for Iraq. If you claim you do, you are a liar.”
Exactly! So don’t sit there and say, “It was a failure” when the rest of the cards still need to be played. Choose optimism instead. Optimism is an intellectual choice.
Edgar,
I listened to you in this exchange. If you read through my posts, I acknowledged where I thought you have a point. That is above the level of how you engaged with me. I can’t find one sentence in our discussion where you acknowledged the validity of any point that I made. You did not demonstrate that you listened at all, beyond just cherry picking anything you could find that might offer a hole in my argument. And many of your comments are loaded with sarcasm to distract from the substance of the discussion.
You are in this conversation to validate your own ego, not have a true dialogue about the issue with me.
So, conversation over. My last post is my last word. 4300 American lives lost. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s killed (and this includes thousands of Iraqi children – you have had nothing, NOTHING, to say about that). $683 billion and counting for the cost of the war. A total waste.
All you have to offer to say that it was not a waste is “optimism” that things will get better. That’s like walking into a casino and gambling $683 billion dollars, 4300 lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and our global prestige on the hope that we will get something good out of it.
Total foolishness and a tragedy for the world.
Your conservatives deserve the Shelacking they are about to get in November.
@nathan
Please don’t take offense. I have listened to your points and I disagree with pretty much everything you say, truthfully I do. No surprise either as our discussion falls pretty much down partisan lines.
I value your opinion and consider your points carefully. My job as a wannabe political pundit is to change your mind or cause you to at least reconsider your convictions.
Agreed though, let’s give poor Perk his blog back! Thanks Perk for allowing us to vent our opinions on your excellent blog.
Cheers Nathan!
@optimism is an intelligent choice.
nope. Optimism will not help a woman who is being raped. optimism will get her killed. The pessimist will at least have a chance of survival by fighting for her life. Pessimism tells her the rapist will kill her, optimism tells her the rapist just wants a quicky…
Brain, are you saying that an optimist would fight for their life? Optimism will not help a woman who is being raped? It is supposed to? Weird man…are back on the ZIMA? roflmao:
Wow, I can’t read and understand my last comment! LMAO!!! I wrote it like “W” speaks! LMAO!!
Let me try this again with my dictionary next to me. Brain, are you saying that an optimist would NOT fight for their life? and one more correction…I ask are you hitting the ZIMA again. LOL
“I value your opinion and consider your points carefully. My job as a wannabe political pundit is to change your mind or cause you to at least reconsider your convictions.”
The only way you can change my mind is if I get a sense from you that your mind is willing to be changed as well.
So, agreed – let’s give Perk his blog back and I hope to have more dialogue with you in the future where we can maybe hear each other more.
Same here Nathan, thanks.
@edgar
My point is that optimism is not “the intelligent choice”.
I can give plenty of examples.
In the case of cancer, Optimism about your ability to survive it is crucial. However, optimism in your choice to do nothing is dumb.
I’m not saying an optimist would not fight, but that depending on their point of view, they are less likely to spend every last ounce of energy on it.
I guess in the rape example, you would have to be pessimistic about the rapist’s intentions, optimistic about your ability to kick the shit out of him.
the problem is its not a black/white concept.
Holy shit… there is way too many comments for me to read through the whole thing. But in response to your post, I am 100% sure Al Qaeda will not attack the US. Talking with Al Qaeda alone as (allegedly) Barack Obama would do (I think, he would keep a tough stance with them, as would McCain) Al Qaeda essentially has more political power in this election, than any other entity on Earth. If they want McCain to be President, he will be President. If they want Obama, they will do nothing. It is clearly obvious that they want Obama. If Obama is elected, they will be able to recruit members just as easily as they have before. Most members are not victims of America, no matter how hard they try to pretend to be. I’m sure Al Qaeda has the power to attack the US right now. I am under no illusion that the Bush administration has protected us that much, but the Bush administration has made it so that Al Qaeda has not been able to make an attack on the same scale as September 11 against the “mainland”. Perk, your posts are getting more worrisome. This does not seem like a post from reality, but a fantasy that paints the world in exactly the right light as “liberals” wish to see it.
@UC
It’s actually not conjecture unfortunately. in 2004, when bin laden released the tape the day before the election the poll numbers spiked towards bush and away from Kerry. Now it wasn’t a huge amount, but it was statistically significant.
The fact that we have not been attacked inside our borders since 911 has nothing to do with bush, nor any protections this government has put in place. Look at how well our wall works to keep out mexicans. Or how great a job we do at keeping out drug runners. The fact is, no level of security is actually good enough. YOU should know that from your internet activities
They are just underground, like they were before, because they are being kept busy to some extent. But frankly, they are patient, i’m sure, and they do not need to launch a stream of attacks, especially when they see how much damage 1 attack plan did to us over time.
With a crashing economy however, I am very concerned. If they have a “standing plan” that can be activated any time, I would expect now to be a perfect time. It would possibly be fatal to this country’s stability.
Bush also has nothing to do with recruitment, nor would Obama or McCain. Some argue that recruitment has increased because of bush, but frankly I don’t think it has anything to do with that. I think 911 did it, causing an “oh wow, we actually CAN do something. I guess i’ll join up!” thought process. It happens all the time in normal life. If you are fat, and you are just on the edge of doing something about it, and you see a bunch of fat-asses on TV succeed, you may get just enough of a push to start trying to lose weight yourself.