Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Perhaps you could more accurately say Nixon admitted defeat in 1973. As he took office in January 1969, it wasn't like he wasn't trying to win the war over the four years in the meantime, unless those pilots and operatives in Laos and Cambodia and the mines in Haiphong harbor had been sent by LBJ but were just "lost" and trying to find their way for four years. Remember RMN's "Peace with Honor" campaign platform? Or how he'd "vietnamize" the war, having the South Viets take over a bigger role? Just like how we'll have an Iraqi police force trained and taking over security in the coming new, stable Iraq.

You are comparing totally different political, ethnic and religious situations here. One similarity out of 1,000 doesn't a strong case make...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Maybe an Iraqi security force will even work as well as the Egyptian military did when it protected Anwar Sadat on his home soil.

Sadat sank his own ship because he was so far removed from what the masses supported and wanted it was insane. Of course he was liked by Western powers; he dressed and talked like us. His mismanagement of the Egyptian economy, letting Islamic radicals basically take over the universities and ultimate betrayal to many Islamic principles is what got him assassinated.

There are no guarantees for those that will run things in Iraq, but how does Sadat come into play here? The similarities between what he orchestrated and what is going on in Iraq are very different...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Yeah, 'Nam was waaaay different. We did not have Sunni muslims welcoming us there like we do now in Iraq. We didn't have Shi'ite muslims welcoming us there like we do now in Iraq either. Since everyone in 'Nam was our enemy and everyone in Iraq is our friend, fixing Iraq will be a piece of cake to just wrap it up all nice and tidy like GWB planned when he rolled in the tanks in 3/03, for instant democracy. The outcome will be different because in Iraq we already have the local people on our side. Right?

We have far more working with us than against us in Iraq and far more than you give credit for; why do you keep failing to take this into account? Tensions and discord are inheirent with excercises such as this; anyone thinking any different is a certified fool.

The resumption of basic electricity and water services in places, along with the return to work for many Iraqis doesn't make interesting press; it's much more exciting to talk about how many bodies got torn to pieces by IED's.

In short, progress doesn't make headlines and isn't interesting to print; strife and hardship are much easier to do. The down side is the volume of suckers that acutally believe EVERYTHING that the headlines say and question little past them...


Originally posted by PDXSVT:
So you think we don't have ANY additional NEW enemies?

Not to the level you apparently do. It sounds like you are promoting an "us against the world" thesis; one that is extraordinarily naieve.

I travel quite a bit and have friends in the government that do the same; while the US isn't universally loved we are FAR from universally reviled.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
How many Iraqi families have killed or maimed relatives? How many "thank you" cards have those families sent us?

Funny. I wonder how many were killed or maimed under Hussein and I wonder how many "get well" cards he handed out. Also, if you would care to recall, that it's been insurgents that have been slaughtering Iraqi's in a totally indiscriminent fashion.

Tell me, who has been worse for the Iraqi people?

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Even if we are "right" and Al Jazeera's coverage is "wrong", will that matter to the millions of future potential extremists in the muslim world that perceive us as being invaders and occupiers of one of their own countries? The perception IS the reality that counts when it (rightly or wrongly) leads to a new generation of extremists.

All the more reason to act NOW when there are thousands of them that are in relative disarray than wait until there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of them ORGANIZED. Sitting back and letting diplomacy "run its course" is NOT an option with an extremist element of ANY society. How many more disasters stateside is it going to take before you see this?

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Is it beyond your imagination that maybe, just maybe, GWB has pissed off moderate arabs/muslims, and that he has made recruiting of new militants by al queda-minded movements easier and more productive?

I think a better question to ask is why moderate muslims are getting pissed off (especially Kurds and Shi'ites) in the first place when we have removed DECADES of oppression from them. Are you suggesting that most moderate muslims can't tell the difference between being helped and being duped?

Again, it's inevitable that some people let their emotions and hangups get the best of them and fall for what they want to hear. It's easier to blame someone else for your own problems instead of REALLY looking to see what is the root cause of one's issues. Welcome to human nature 101.

Is it better that we run the risk of pissing a few off in order to better their position or (like I assume you are suggesting) walk out where anarchy and almost ASSURED extremism take hold?

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
If you think such is NOT the case, then you must also think Hamas is about to give up, out of fear of Sharon and the Israelis. Or maybe all the Hamas members have been killed, and no new recuits will come up to replace their losses. Yep, that will happen any day now...

Interesting that your bring up Hamas. It does actually have some humanitarian elements that ensure it's popularity among the Palestinians; Al-Qaeda and these hoods in Iraq that are blowing any and everything up around them DON'T.

Although they all carry the same label as terrorists, don't lump Hamas into the same group every time. They are operating under a very different dynamic. I'll agree that it doesn't ultimately change their identity as a bunch of lunatics, though.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
So you think little of our old allies.

On Iraq? Absolutely if you are referring to France, Germany and Russia. The amount of equipment and money that left those countries to Iraq during the embargo is embarassing, as well as the way the UN oil for food program was handled. They put on their "tough guy" faces from '91 until it was time to ACT on their empty rhetoric; I find no coincidence of the millions in debt that Iraq owed these governments, only hypocracy...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
GWB said to heck with them when he decided to invade. So why will GWB now try to cajole them into helping to pay to police GWB's mess in Iraq? (We don't want your approval of our policies, just your francs and marks to fund security after we're done playing cowboy.)

Because it's in Iraqi, US and the UN's best interests, of course! You bet we forced their hand on this; maybe they will finally quit confusing "walking the walk" with "talking the talk" for once...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
You'd tell American taxpayers to pay for YEARS of supporting a coming shaky regime in Iraq while we're running Bush's budget deficits, the baby boomers are starting to retire, and let's give another tax cut to the rich.

Our budget deficits have more to do with necessity and happenings coming from 9/11 than our action in Iraq. Don't try to confuse the two.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
You must think we're all so rich we did NOT need that money for hunting down terrorists over the rest of the globe and at home, and we didn't need that money for increasing our security everywhere other than in Iraq.

No, but my idea of welfare, social programs and security are far different than HUD, food stamps and labor union kickbacks. They are global in nature as this is the world that is emerging and the US better take the lead in before the EU or China does, as we have our work cut out for us (especially against the latter). That means putting coin into Iraq, as ultimately the Middle-East still is a focal-point in terms of protecting US and Western interests.

Finally, I'll ask you the same question I ask everytime this train of thought comes up: where were your complaints when Clinton went into Bosnia and Somalia?

Hypocracy, hypocracy, hypocracy, unless you can tell me otherwise...

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe