I never understood any of that broad brush Republican versus Democrat positioning on the War issue. I think it is a very simplistic perspective to take on what terrorists may want. I also think that a 'Republicans are strong' on terror perspective, is just as likely to be playing into the strategies of our enemies.
If there is a terrorist agenda to entrench America in an economy draining war for years, if not decades, to come, I would think they would actually be more excited about a McCain presidency.
Hillary has carefully got one foot planted on each side of the 'end the war' and 'continue the war' debate, but I think her initial stance is to continue the status quo. This is in line with the Republican stance, so I think she really doesnt represent a 'we must get out' perspective.
If local terrorist groups are tired of having American boots on the ground and want the freedom to do their own nation building, they'd probably be interested in Obama's viewpoint.
The real answer is probably that like everything, it's not as simple as our politicians make it out to be, and even our enemies are sure to differ in opinion on what they'd like to witness occur within the American political system.
So voting Democrat makes the terrorists happy. But voting Republican, makes terrorists. So do I want 100 happy terrorists or 1000 unhappy terrorists...
The article doesn't seem to quote anything to that effect, Lobby.
When asked if he's worried that "anti-American militants in Iraq might ratchet up their activities in Iraq to try to increase casualties in September or October and tip the November election against him", he replies: "Yes". Ergo: the terrorists want you to vote for the democratic candidate.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
The real point is that politicians think we're stupid enough to change our vote just to spite our enemies.
While you are correct I believe that the real point is that politicians are shortsighted enough to piss our accumulated prosperity into a corner to spite our enemies and reassure us that we're safer because of it. And we are stupid enough to believe them.
Republican, Democrat... the conflict in the Middle East is bought and paid for with the sweat of our children's children.
As an aside, I believe that this was a lobbed question. "Senator McCain, exactly how far are the TERRORIST willing to go to prevent you from winning the war for us?"
"Not far enough" (steely glare into the camera.) "God Bless America!"
Personally I think it's a no-brainer that terrorists prefer us pulling out of Iraq to us staying there, but I don't think that should affect anyone's vote. We should be guided by whatever is the right thing to do, rather than worrying about what evil people want us to do.
It's also not necessarily wrong of McCain (of whom I'm not a fan) to suggest (after being asked, btw) that terrorists might time attacks to affect elections - remember Spain. It would have been dishonest of McCain to answer otherwise, imho. Now as to his motive for his reply, it could have been that he's an honest guy, or it could have been pandering. I don't know, and neither do you.
Again, I am no fan of McCain...
Quote:
Would be a good idea. I plan to have Logan sit in for me when I am on my honeymoon.
- Legion, taking "keeping it in the family" to a whole new level.
It would have been dishonest of McCain to answer otherwise, imho.
The way it was stated, the message is very clear. If he was simply going for the honest answer he could have phrased it in many more neutral ways such as, "It's a possibility." or "Yes, or they could try to influence it in my favor." When a reporter says "is it possible," what they really mean is "do you think."
Personally I think it's a no-brainer that terrorists prefer us pulling out of Iraq to us staying there, but I don't think that should affect anyone's vote.
I don't have the source handy, Fed, but in actual fact, Al Qaeda was orgasmic about us invading Iraq. It let them fight us directly. It was very hard for them to reach us before we invaded.
We've spent almost a trillion dollars, and it looks likely that the total war bill will approach three trillion. If you just take the trillion that's a certain spend, think about it this way. An M1 Abrams tank, one of the best pieces of ground equipment currently deployed, costs about 4.3 million. That means that Al Qaeda has destroyed 232,000 M1A1s by getting us to invade.
It cost them 20 plane tickets and some ground school.
I'm sure they're equally orgasmic about how we're killing them by the truckloads and taking out some new high-ranking leader every month, right? We'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend.
Quote:
Would be a good idea. I plan to have Logan sit in for me when I am on my honeymoon.
- Legion, taking "keeping it in the family" to a whole new level.
I'm sure they're equally orgasmic about how we're killing them by the truckloads and taking out some new high-ranking leader every month, right? We'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend.
I'm sure they're equally orgasmic about how we're killing them by the truckloads and taking out some new high-ranking leader every month, right? We'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend.
It's all about martyrdom!
its win win, they're willing to be martyrs, we're willing to kill them.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
I'm sure they're equally orgasmic about how we're killing them by the truckloads and taking out some new high-ranking leader every month, right? We'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend.
I think the whole body count mentality we have as a gauge of success is possibly the most misguided way of measuring the success or failure of our efforts. When you consider that ObL stated that his aims were to turn the Arab world against us and Israel, to destablize "apostate states" (like Iraq), and to ignite a holy war between Islam and the West, he couldn't have found a more willing collaborator than George W. Bush.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
I'm sure they're equally orgasmic about how we're killing them by the truckloads and taking out some new high-ranking leader every month, right? We'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend.
Woah, I'm disagreeing with Fedaykin... weird...
Anyway, Al Queda, if I remember correctly, is not the dominant force in Iraq. I can't find the statistics off the top of my head, but they're deaths have accounted for about 5-6% of the "enemy forces" killed in Iraq since we've been there. It's why you always hear about "Al Queda and other extremists". Those other extremists are by far the majority. As to taking out their "top leadership", please... heaven-sent for their work and deaths in their own mind? Now, I'm not suggesting they're suicidal by any means (the leadership that is, not some of the ground and underground forces)... but it seems to me that every death is a rallying cry for every soldier left standing, interestingly, on BOTH sides.
As to the "the terrorists want you to vote Democrat"... what the hell? I didn't realize McCain would be getting campaign advice with his endorsement from Bush. Interesting, really, McCain taking campaign advice from the man who dragged him through the dirt in 2000, but, he did win, so I guess, take what lessons you can. *shrugs* Still disappointing to me that the Republicans seem hellbent on raising the spirit of Vietnam over and over again. Obviously, I don't agree with you so I MUST be with the enemy, it's so simple, how could I not have seen it? Oh right, because I'm not seeing in some crazy contrast-happy black-and-white vision. There are always shades of gray, and the Republican stance of ignoring that in favor of calling the other side out for "supporting our enemies" is getting to be a little tired out. You think after losing Congress they'd try something new eventually. Oh well.
So disappointed in McCain really. Starting to remind me of Guilliani after the September 11th attacks. Liked him so much before, and then all of a sudden, he seemed like Bush Jr. Well, Bush Jr. Jr.? Whatever.
"Just remember that sometimes you need to allow problems to just roll like water off of a duckilama's back." ~Reaper
I agree, the fact that McCain is willing to be prison bitch to the man who push-polled his way to victory by claiming McCain had a "secret negro love child" is evidence of his unfitness to lead anyone.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Still disappointing to me that the Republicans seem hellbent on raising the spirit of Vietnam over and over again.
Every time I hear a liberal / Democrat invoke Vietnam, I feel duty bound to point out some facts:
- a Democrat got us into Vietnam (JFK)
- a Democrat greatly escalated our involvement in Vietnam (LBJ)
- a Republican pulled us out of Vietnam (Nixon)
Paleocon wrote:
When you consider that ObL stated that his aims were to turn the Arab world against us and Israel, to destablize "apostate states" (like Iraq), and to ignite a holy war between Islam and the West, he couldn't have found a more willing collaborator than George W. Bush.
Let's keep in mind that terrorists have been attacking us since before many of the people on this website were born. 9/11 was not the first attack by far, it was simply the first one we seriously responded to.
Quote:
Would be a good idea. I plan to have Logan sit in for me when I am on my honeymoon.
- Legion, taking "keeping it in the family" to a whole new level.
Let's keep in mind that terrorists have been attacking us since before many of the people on this website were born. 9/11 was not the first attack by far, it was simply the first one we seriously responded to.
I think the historical record disagrees with you. There have been VERY serious responses to terrorist attacks in the past. Tim McVeigh, for instance, received a lethal injection for his efforts. We didn't, however, carpet bomb Lockport, NY or open secret prisons for Catholics or White Supremacists.
Had this president been a bit more rational in meting out a measured response, we probably wouldn't be stuck in Iraq with a broken military and bankrupt global good will account.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
I wasn't really so much getting into the whole "who got us in and out" thing, Fed, as I was talking about the fact that the Republicans have been very heavy handed with the whole "you're either 100% with us or 100% against us" mentality the 6 years. That's the spectre of Vietnam that I'm talking about. McCain continuing that strategy by suggesting that voting Democrat is voting Terrorist is pretty sad. Besides, knowing today, you'd probably want to avoid mentioning Nixon... after all, he opened up relations with China, which subsequently got us involved in them poisoning us through consumer products decades later.
Either way, John McCain has become another politician who I really respected who decided to get involved in a push for the White House... and lost all my respect with his pandering to the dredges of the Republican Party with fear mongering and blatant sucking-up in the hopes of appearing more like the party ideal than himself. Less than a year ago, I remember saying, if it comes down to Hillary v. McCain, I'll vote McCain. Now, I'm thinking sleeping in may be a better idea. At least then I'll be better rested for my kids at school that day.
"Just remember that sometimes you need to allow problems to just roll like water off of a duckilama's back." ~Reaper
We didn't, however, carpet bomb Lockport, NY or open secret prisons for Catholics or White Supremacists.
That. Though McVeigh was only born in New York, right? In order for this analogy to be totally accurate we would have had to have invaded Saudi Arabia.
We didn't, however, carpet bomb Lockport, NY or open secret prisons for Catholics or White Supremacists.
That. Though McVeigh was only born in New York, right? In order for this analogy to be totally accurate we would have had to have invaded Saudi Arabia.
Don't forget D.C., they gave aid and comfort to NY.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
I'm sure they're equally orgasmic about how we're killing them by the truckloads and taking out some new high-ranking leader every month, right? We'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend.
You do realize that there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we showed up, right? Any fighting of them we do there is purely up to them and on their terms, because they don't live there. If we fight them in Iraq, it's because they choose to show up, not because we tracked them down in their homes or something. And if they don't want to fight anymore, they just go home to Pakistan.
They have an autonomous region now of their very own, on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, after fighting the Pakistani government to a declaration of truce. And it's not likely that they'll have very much trouble moving through Iran and Afghanistan to get there. I doubt Iran has an official free-transit policy, but I would imagine they'd unofficially be very happy to let them pass through, as long as they didn't try to stay.
Overall, if you think the Iraq war was about terrorism, then you have to conclude we've lost on a massive scale. Al Qaeda has been wildly successful, bleeding us steadily of vast resources, while spending very little in exchange. They've lost a few thousand people, and we've spent about a trillion dollars to kill them. I would imagine most of their members would be very happy to trade their lives to do several hundred million dollars' worth of economic damage to the US.
Destroying 232,000 tanks with a tiny little insurrection.... that's success on a scale that's hard to describe.
(edit: corrected 262,000 to the actual 232,000 figure.)
Yeah, Max Brooke's zombie survival guide and historical analysis would suggest that this was the stupidest war ever in terms of money spent versus bad guys killed.
"Just remember that sometimes you need to allow problems to just roll like water off of a duckilama's back." ~Reaper
Fedaykin, I don't mean to go all conspiracy theorist, but how do you KNOW we're killing a new high-ranking leader every month? Because they tell you? Because they show you a face and a name? I've seen no evidence of reduced capability; if anything they're getting better at killing people. They also tell us that every time they bomb a building it kills "X suspected terrorists" and 0 civilians. What's the criteria for becoming a suspected terrorist? Being under a US bomb when it hits? What's the criteria for being a "high-ranking Al Qaeda member?" I've lost track of how many #2 and #3 men we've killed.
If you've got a semi-automatic pistol and you fire a round, another round enters the chamber. Fire again, and yet another round enters the chamber. You can fire until the magazine is empty but each bullet you shoot will be pushed into that chamber before it leaves the gun. See what I'm getting at?
...There's a spring at the bottom of Al Qaeda! Wait, no, that's not it...
I had a conversation last night with an army captain who spent his tour doing civil affairs work during the first part of the insurgency. His take on things was pretty disturbing.
He said that the current alliances we are making with the Sunni militias (ie: the so called "awakening") is a tremendous reversal and one that is likely to make the task of legitimizing a central government harder rather than easier. Our "rebuilding" efforts have largely been concentrated on building walls and checkpoints between neighborhoods and arming local gangs to defend them. This balkanization of Iraq may bring down the aggregate level of violence, but he equates that to "peace through ethnic cleansing". More importantly, it is a patch, not a solution, since those same Sunni militias we are arming are cooperating with us only so far as we protect them from Shiite militias and they have not abandoned their military aims of "reclaiming" territory lost to Shiites.
He states that the statement that "the surge is working" means nothing to the long term political future of Iraq. If they are lucky, it will end with a India/Pakistan style partitioning. If they aren't, it will look a lot more like Yugoslavia or Ruwanda. In any event, it will not end well.
He agrees that the Sunni militias are turning over Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, but they were never well liked anyway. More to the point, they were never a significant portion of the violence anyway. The failure of our policy to recognize that we are playing referee to a civil war is the real crux of the problem. Or as he puts it "Bush has consistently been 8 months behind this war. Now is no different.".
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
The article doesn't seem to quote anything to that effect, Lobby.
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
I never understood any of that broad brush Republican versus Democrat positioning on the War issue. I think it is a very simplistic perspective to take on what terrorists may want. I also think that a 'Republicans are strong' on terror perspective, is just as likely to be playing into the strategies of our enemies.
If there is a terrorist agenda to entrench America in an economy draining war for years, if not decades, to come, I would think they would actually be more excited about a McCain presidency.
Hillary has carefully got one foot planted on each side of the 'end the war' and 'continue the war' debate, but I think her initial stance is to continue the status quo. This is in line with the Republican stance, so I think she really doesnt represent a 'we must get out' perspective.
If local terrorist groups are tired of having American boots on the ground and want the freedom to do their own nation building, they'd probably be interested in Obama's viewpoint.
The real answer is probably that like everything, it's not as simple as our politicians make it out to be, and even our enemies are sure to differ in opinion on what they'd like to witness occur within the American political system.
Xbox Live: Irongut | Playstation ID: Irongut_GWJ
So voting Democrat makes the terrorists happy. But voting Republican, makes terrorists. So do I want 100 happy terrorists or 1000 unhappy terrorists...
XBL: elliottxW
MMO Aliases: Jozak or Ezzamar
When asked if he's worried that "anti-American militants in Iraq might ratchet up their activities in Iraq to try to increase casualties in September or October and tip the November election against him", he replies: "Yes". Ergo: the terrorists want you to vote for the democratic candidate.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
We can argue which would be better for the terrorists all day, but I think that misses the real point.
The real point is that politicians think we're stupid enough to change our vote just to spite our enemies.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
While you are correct I believe that the real point is that politicians are shortsighted enough to piss our accumulated prosperity into a corner to spite our enemies and reassure us that we're safer because of it. And we are stupid enough to believe them.
Republican, Democrat... the conflict in the Middle East is bought and paid for with the sweat of our children's children.
As an aside, I believe that this was a lobbed question. "Senator McCain, exactly how far are the TERRORIST willing to go to prevent you from winning the war for us?"
"Not far enough" (steely glare into the camera.) "God Bless America!"
Politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.
Personally I think it's a no-brainer that terrorists prefer us pulling out of Iraq to us staying there, but I don't think that should affect anyone's vote. We should be guided by whatever is the right thing to do, rather than worrying about what evil people want us to do.
It's also not necessarily wrong of McCain (of whom I'm not a fan) to suggest (after being asked, btw) that terrorists might time attacks to affect elections - remember Spain. It would have been dishonest of McCain to answer otherwise, imho. Now as to his motive for his reply, it could have been that he's an honest guy, or it could have been pandering. I don't know, and neither do you.
Again, I am no fan of McCain...
Quote:
- Legion, taking "keeping it in the family" to a whole new level.
Xbox Live: Fedaykin98
The way it was stated, the message is very clear. If he was simply going for the honest answer he could have phrased it in many more neutral ways such as, "It's a possibility." or "Yes, or they could try to influence it in my favor." When a reporter says "is it possible," what they really mean is "do you think."
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Uhhhh... see 2004.
I generated a virtual world in the toilet bowl this morning.
-- Podunk on the PS3's mystical, magical abilities
I don't have the source handy, Fed, but in actual fact, Al Qaeda was orgasmic about us invading Iraq. It let them fight us directly. It was very hard for them to reach us before we invaded.
We've spent almost a trillion dollars, and it looks likely that the total war bill will approach three trillion. If you just take the trillion that's a certain spend, think about it this way. An M1 Abrams tank, one of the best pieces of ground equipment currently deployed, costs about 4.3 million. That means that Al Qaeda has destroyed 232,000 M1A1s by getting us to invade.
It cost them 20 plane tickets and some ground school.
They're real happy we're there.
I'm sure they're equally orgasmic about how we're killing them by the truckloads and taking out some new high-ranking leader every month, right? We'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend.
Quote:
- Legion, taking "keeping it in the family" to a whole new level.
Xbox Live: Fedaykin98
It's all about martyrdom!
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
its win win, they're willing to be martyrs, we're willing to kill them.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
I think the whole body count mentality we have as a gauge of success is possibly the most misguided way of measuring the success or failure of our efforts. When you consider that ObL stated that his aims were to turn the Arab world against us and Israel, to destablize "apostate states" (like Iraq), and to ignite a holy war between Islam and the West, he couldn't have found a more willing collaborator than George W. Bush.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Woah, I'm disagreeing with Fedaykin... weird...
Anyway, Al Queda, if I remember correctly, is not the dominant force in Iraq. I can't find the statistics off the top of my head, but they're deaths have accounted for about 5-6% of the "enemy forces" killed in Iraq since we've been there. It's why you always hear about "Al Queda and other extremists". Those other extremists are by far the majority. As to taking out their "top leadership", please... heaven-sent for their work and deaths in their own mind? Now, I'm not suggesting they're suicidal by any means (the leadership that is, not some of the ground and underground forces)... but it seems to me that every death is a rallying cry for every soldier left standing, interestingly, on BOTH sides.
As to the "the terrorists want you to vote Democrat"... what the hell? I didn't realize McCain would be getting campaign advice with his endorsement from Bush. Interesting, really, McCain taking campaign advice from the man who dragged him through the dirt in 2000, but, he did win, so I guess, take what lessons you can. *shrugs* Still disappointing to me that the Republicans seem hellbent on raising the spirit of Vietnam over and over again. Obviously, I don't agree with you so I MUST be with the enemy, it's so simple, how could I not have seen it? Oh right, because I'm not seeing in some crazy contrast-happy black-and-white vision. There are always shades of gray, and the Republican stance of ignoring that in favor of calling the other side out for "supporting our enemies" is getting to be a little tired out. You think after losing Congress they'd try something new eventually. Oh well.
So disappointed in McCain really. Starting to remind me of Guilliani after the September 11th attacks. Liked him so much before, and then all of a sudden, he seemed like Bush Jr. Well, Bush Jr. Jr.? Whatever.
"Just remember that sometimes you need to allow problems to just roll like water off of a duckilama's back." ~Reaper
Demos,
I agree, the fact that McCain is willing to be prison bitch to the man who push-polled his way to victory by claiming McCain had a "secret negro love child" is evidence of his unfitness to lead anyone.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Every time I hear a liberal / Democrat invoke Vietnam, I feel duty bound to point out some facts:
- a Democrat got us into Vietnam (JFK)
- a Democrat greatly escalated our involvement in Vietnam (LBJ)
- a Republican pulled us out of Vietnam (Nixon)
Let's keep in mind that terrorists have been attacking us since before many of the people on this website were born. 9/11 was not the first attack by far, it was simply the first one we seriously responded to.
Quote:
- Legion, taking "keeping it in the family" to a whole new level.
Xbox Live: Fedaykin98
I think the historical record disagrees with you. There have been VERY serious responses to terrorist attacks in the past. Tim McVeigh, for instance, received a lethal injection for his efforts. We didn't, however, carpet bomb Lockport, NY or open secret prisons for Catholics or White Supremacists.
Had this president been a bit more rational in meting out a measured response, we probably wouldn't be stuck in Iraq with a broken military and bankrupt global good will account.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
I wasn't really so much getting into the whole "who got us in and out" thing, Fed, as I was talking about the fact that the Republicans have been very heavy handed with the whole "you're either 100% with us or 100% against us" mentality the 6 years. That's the spectre of Vietnam that I'm talking about. McCain continuing that strategy by suggesting that voting Democrat is voting Terrorist is pretty sad. Besides, knowing today, you'd probably want to avoid mentioning Nixon... after all, he opened up relations with China, which subsequently got us involved in them poisoning us through consumer products decades later.
Either way, John McCain has become another politician who I really respected who decided to get involved in a push for the White House... and lost all my respect with his pandering to the dredges of the Republican Party with fear mongering and blatant sucking-up in the hopes of appearing more like the party ideal than himself. Less than a year ago, I remember saying, if it comes down to Hillary v. McCain, I'll vote McCain. Now, I'm thinking sleeping in may be a better idea. At least then I'll be better rested for my kids at school that day.
"Just remember that sometimes you need to allow problems to just roll like water off of a duckilama's back." ~Reaper
That. Though McVeigh was only born in New York, right? In order for this analogy to be totally accurate we would have had to have invaded Saudi Arabia.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Don't forget D.C., they gave aid and comfort to NY.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
You do realize that there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we showed up, right? Any fighting of them we do there is purely up to them and on their terms, because they don't live there. If we fight them in Iraq, it's because they choose to show up, not because we tracked them down in their homes or something. And if they don't want to fight anymore, they just go home to Pakistan.
They have an autonomous region now of their very own, on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, after fighting the Pakistani government to a declaration of truce. And it's not likely that they'll have very much trouble moving through Iran and Afghanistan to get there. I doubt Iran has an official free-transit policy, but I would imagine they'd unofficially be very happy to let them pass through, as long as they didn't try to stay.
Overall, if you think the Iraq war was about terrorism, then you have to conclude we've lost on a massive scale. Al Qaeda has been wildly successful, bleeding us steadily of vast resources, while spending very little in exchange. They've lost a few thousand people, and we've spent about a trillion dollars to kill them. I would imagine most of their members would be very happy to trade their lives to do several hundred million dollars' worth of economic damage to the US.
Destroying 232,000 tanks with a tiny little insurrection.... that's success on a scale that's hard to describe.
(edit: corrected 262,000 to the actual 232,000 figure.)
Yeah, Max Brooke's zombie survival guide and historical analysis would suggest that this was the stupidest war ever in terms of money spent versus bad guys killed.
"Just remember that sometimes you need to allow problems to just roll like water off of a duckilama's back." ~Reaper
Fedaykin, I don't mean to go all conspiracy theorist, but how do you KNOW we're killing a new high-ranking leader every month? Because they tell you? Because they show you a face and a name? I've seen no evidence of reduced capability; if anything they're getting better at killing people. They also tell us that every time they bomb a building it kills "X suspected terrorists" and 0 civilians. What's the criteria for becoming a suspected terrorist? Being under a US bomb when it hits? What's the criteria for being a "high-ranking Al Qaeda member?" I've lost track of how many #2 and #3 men we've killed.
If you've got a semi-automatic pistol and you fire a round, another round enters the chamber. Fire again, and yet another round enters the chamber. You can fire until the magazine is empty but each bullet you shoot will be pushed into that chamber before it leaves the gun. See what I'm getting at?
...There's a spring at the bottom of Al Qaeda! Wait, no, that's not it...
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
I had a conversation last night with an army captain who spent his tour doing civil affairs work during the first part of the insurgency. His take on things was pretty disturbing.
He said that the current alliances we are making with the Sunni militias (ie: the so called "awakening") is a tremendous reversal and one that is likely to make the task of legitimizing a central government harder rather than easier. Our "rebuilding" efforts have largely been concentrated on building walls and checkpoints between neighborhoods and arming local gangs to defend them. This balkanization of Iraq may bring down the aggregate level of violence, but he equates that to "peace through ethnic cleansing". More importantly, it is a patch, not a solution, since those same Sunni militias we are arming are cooperating with us only so far as we protect them from Shiite militias and they have not abandoned their military aims of "reclaiming" territory lost to Shiites.
He states that the statement that "the surge is working" means nothing to the long term political future of Iraq. If they are lucky, it will end with a India/Pakistan style partitioning. If they aren't, it will look a lot more like Yugoslavia or Ruwanda. In any event, it will not end well.
He agrees that the Sunni militias are turning over Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, but they were never well liked anyway. More to the point, they were never a significant portion of the violence anyway. The failure of our policy to recognize that we are playing referee to a civil war is the real crux of the problem. Or as he puts it "Bush has consistently been 8 months behind this war. Now is no different.".
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn