Worse. Than. Carter.

S2 · 27 Dec 09, 08:24

There is no war on terror. It's B.S. Wish to discuss the Taliban? They're a proxy. Party of God? Proxy. HAMAS? Proxy. LeT? Proxy.

We need to become used to the idea that we use this to avoid the reality that there are wars with certain countries simmering under the surface but very, terribly ready to happen.

So we whistle in the dark. We've got real enemies right now in Iran and, quite possibly, Pakistan. Where Saudi Arabia sits in all this, I'm unsure. Maybe them too. Right now they fight us assymetrically...and win because we permit such rather than call a spade a spade.

I've never seen so much TALK about sanctuary. You'd think that we didn't cover this ground in Cambodia forty years ago. Or the Turks and the Kurds. Nope, this is something NEW and we just don't know how to address it. Nevermind we relied upon the same in 1980 against the Soviets.

S2 · 27 Dec 09, 08:39

"Frankly, I think you DO see that and are either pride-bound or too contrarian to state it."

I don't believe, even had we seized the moment following the elections, that we'd be in position to exploit Iran from the inside out anytime in the forseeable future. I don't think we've the wherewithall nor do I have great faith in these students for such.

We'd probably manage to taint the affair.

Nope. We've got a AIR FORCE and NAVY job to do there and the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are going to have their hands full when the Iranians do whatever they've got planned as retaliation in Iraq. Israel will certainly be busy with POG and HAMAS if not Iran also but it was always coming to that-just like with Saddam.

It's that or accede to a nuke. I think they're close, aren't they?

**Chunder** · 27 Dec 09, 10:04

Originally Posted by Bluesman

How many times are you going to trot out that 'Mission Accomplished' trope?

As long as misappropriation of fact is order of the day, i'll have at the same piece of pie thank you.

You may or may not realize that there was no 'Mission Accomplished in Iraq' banner, nor even message, EVER, but you bunch of liars just LOVE throwing that in the face of Bush and his supporters, don't you?

Actually, it was a reference to the end of a TOD for a particular CV. Im well aware of that.

Do you have any idea what that banner was all about? Do you care? Do you know how much bilge water you've drunk because it accords with your worldview that is simply incorrect about so many varied things?

Your pearls of wisdom any better off? I'm not going to take that line, just like the last ridiculous attempt with that chamberlain photo. Seems like you love innuendo just as much as the rest. With the talent for thread subjects that a) either get locked, or b) provocative with c) tendency for personal attacks.

You're the comedian here. But it's not really a very good act.
GONG.

Oh, and that dead guy you quoted? Doesn't surprise me you find him funny, either.

Which dead person, My memory escapes me, is it in this thread?

But when Obama really DOES give up in Afghanistan - and he WILL, because he's been trying to all along; he was just acting all butch for the mob when he was trying to get elected, but most of us knew he didn't mean it - it will be because he really DID give up.

The political inevitability is, and always was, that the war in Afghanistan was Ill defined. Your there as part of the War on Terrorism. Right from the start it was politically under committed, as I have now said twice. If this does not fit into your Republican viewpoint, then tough we disagree, I don't agree that Obama shows any less commitment on a pure numbers ground alone. The Bottom of the line is, the Bush administration had 8000 troops there in 2003, 2 years after the war began. Either it was Grossly underestimated, like the original Iraq commitment, or it was designed to fail. This is the damned point. Not only do you have a nation building program to see to fruition, but you have a constant supply of insurgents/Taliban et al, that have all fallen into the category of War on Terror that on it's present footing has a hell of a lot of loose ends. I don't see one damn how that changes with either side of politics in power, at all, politically, on the present footing. Try different things like altering some aspects of foreign policy approach and perception, for instance might help a little way - ironically what the article critique's him for!

He COULD have won. But then he gave the speech, and absolutely assured the Afghans we were going to bugger off before they could do what we had been telling them for eight years that we'd assure the conditions would allow them to preserve themselves IF they would just trust us, and get on-side.

Well, they're just as big a set of fools as the 1991 Shiite Iraqis were: they trusted us to keep our word.

Nobody with any sense in this wide world will EVER make THAT mistake again. Hell, we won't be able to talk ANYbody into ANYthing we would like 'em to help us with from here on out.

Not the Poles.

Not the Czechs.

Yalta conference.
South Vietnam.

We are SO SCREWED, and you're chuckling.

Great. Laugh it up, man.

Your not screwed militarily, nor against extremists. Seems like your playing the man & not the policy. Hasn't even been in government for a year, and has several considerable hurdles and tasks to do all which could & is to be critiqued to the the hilt. What people want is jobs + stability - everything else is an addendum to that. Bundle it all up and you get snowball.

**Bigfella** · 27 Dec 09, 10:09

Originally Posted by Chunder

Which dead person, My memory escapes me, is it in this thread?

He's talking about me Chunder. In his Wagnerian way Blues likes to proudly proclaim that those on his 'ignore' list are "dead to him". The value of this statement can be adjudged by the frequency with which he feels the need to refer to my posts.

Despite the fact that Blues is not on my ignore list (it has only 1 occupant), I somehow manage to refer to him less frequently than he does me. I'll leave you to make of that what you will.

**Countezero** · 27 Dec 09, 12:42

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Should be no surprise that I disagree with you and TopHatter, too.

From PowerLine:

I'm not sure I see your point. Nobody, at least not me, is claiming there are not violent Islamic extremists out there who need to be captured or killed. All we're saying is that calling it a "war" is ignorant and self-defeating, because it's not a war in any traditional sense and terrorism -- Islamic or otherwise -- will never be wiped out.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

It's a mind-set. If it WERE a declared war - and I think we missed a great opportunity to actually put this country on a war footing, which would've settled some of the puerile 'debates' we seem to be unable to avoid, at our extreme cost - and actually FIGHT this like we mean it.

I'm curious who you would have declared "war" against?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

And if this country believed itself to be in a righteous war of our very existence, MAYBE then - certainly, ONLY then - would we fight like we actually believed our country was worth protecting.

I'm sorry, but we're not in a war for our existence.

For example, critics such as Norman Podhoretz and Krauthammer have spoken about the conflict with radical Islamists in existential terms. The former has even gone so far as to claim the conflict is World War IV. Such arguments do more than subscribe to Samuel P. Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations paradigm; these arguments advance the notion that groups like al Qaeda have the ability to actually destroy Western states and the Western way of life. While it is true that “the possibility that a relatively small and weak non-state organization could inflict catastrophic damage is something genuinely new in international relations,” to couch the conflict with these groups in terms that equal or approach what the world “faced in the two world wars and the Cold War” overstates the matter.

Al Qaeda and its ilk cannot destroy America and we need to be honest about this. Even if you look at a country like Turkey, which has faced armed terrorist insurrection for 30 years, you cannot say that it faces an existential challenge. The Turkish state is still strong. And their struggle against the Kurds is worse than anything the US has endured or probably will ever endure at the hands of terrorists.

**bigross86** · 27 Dec 09, 13:30

I'd like to put an interesting twist on things, if I may:

Israel is a state that has pretty much been fighting for it's existence since day 1. Whether you agree with the political realities or not, the physical reality is that the majority of Israel's neighbors would enjoy nothing more than a nice Jewish bloodbath.

When Barack Obama decides that he's going to stop fighting "terrorists" (you can call them whatever you'd like), and instead engage them in talks, he gives the people who are trying to kill me legitimization. When we unilaterally give away our land, and instead get shelled, mortared and rocketed for our goodwill, I think you can say that they mean business.

For you it might not be a war for existence, but for us it is. We were fighting this fight waaaaay before 9/11, and we'll keep fighting it long after the last US soldier leaves Afghanistan and Iraq (I'd like to be optimistic, but hey). It just feels better to be with company who knows how things stand. As long as the US keeps fighting it's War on Terror and acknowledges that there is such a thing in the world, we know we won't stand alone. When you start talking about putting wolves and sheep together, you usually end up with dead sheep.

**Mihais** · 27 Dec 09, 13:48

Originally Posted by Countezero

For example, critics such as Norman Podhoretz and Krauthammer have spoken about the conflict with radical Islamists in existential terms. The former has even gone so far as to claim the conflict is World War IV. Such arguments do more than subscribe to Samuel P. Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations paradigm; these arguments advance the notion that groups like al Qaeda have the ability to actually destroy Western states and the Western way of life. While it is true that “the possibility that a relatively small and weak non-state organization could inflict catastrophic damage is something genuinely new in international relations,” to couch the conflict with these groups in terms that equal or approach what the world “faced in the two world wars and the Cold War” overstates the matter.

Al Qaeda and its ilk cannot destroy America and we need to be honest about this. Even if you look at a country like Turkey, which has faced armed terrorist insurrection for 30 years, you cannot say that it faces an existential challenge. The Turkish state is still strong. And their struggle against the Kurds is worse than anything the US has endured or probably will ever endure at the hands of terrorists.

Al Qaeda(whatever's left of it) and similar organizations are no mortal danger to the West,per se.What's dangerous is what such groups could achieve inside ME-see what the Gazans voted in.Look also at the complicated game inside Saudi Arabia,for example(there are other countries in the same or worse condition) to take a note of the fragility of the present status quo.

**Countezero** · 27 Dec 09, 14:59

Originally Posted by Mihais

Al Qaeda(whatever's left of it) and similar organizations are no mortal danger to the West,per se.What's dangerous is what such groups could achieve inside ME-see what the Gazans voted in.Look also at the complicated game inside Saudi Arabia,for example(there are other countries in the same or worse condition) to take a note of the fragility of the present status quo.

I agree. The internal politics is Yemen is probably what concerns me the most at the moment. Or the potential for the Kurdish issue to explode.

Please understand, I am not trying to talk away the very obvious and real problems transnational terrorism represents. All I am trying to do is dispel this mistaken notion that the US is locked in a war for survival.

Originally Posted by bigross86

When Barack Obama decides that he's going to stop fighting "terrorists" (you can call them whatever you'd like), and instead engage them in talks, he gives the people who are trying to kill me legitimization.

I don't think Barrack (who I am no cheerleader for) has shifted much on any policy that involves the "war" on terrorism. He has sent more troops to Afghanistan, increased drone strikes in the region and not gone on a witch hunt in the Intelligence Community, post-Bush, as many feared he would.

We have, for example, this story today in the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/wo...s.html?_r=1&hp

Originally Posted by bigross86

For you it might not be a war for existence, but for us it is. We were fighting this fight waaaaay before 9/11, and we'll keep fighting it long after the last US soldier leaves Afghanistan and Iraq (I'd like to be optimistic, but hey). It just feels better to be with company who knows how things stand. As long as the US keeps fighting it's War on Terror and acknowledges that there is such a thing in the world, we know we won't stand alone. When you start talking about putting wolves and sheep together, you usually end up with dead sheep.

As I wrote in another thread, the CT relationship between the US and Israel goes back and its roots are deep. I don't see that changing.

**TopHatter** · 27 Dec 09, 17:02

Originally Posted by Bluesman

They COULD, if they believed in it. Clearly, you think they should believe LESS in it, not more. Because you are making a case for just conceding that John Q. Public ain't a-gonna help noways, so why disturb him?

Clearly you're putting words in my mouth like you did with GunGrape here.

I never said that people should believe in anything, whether more or less.

What I said was John Q. Public has already, for years, more-or-less ignored the problem, with the exception of either putting care packages together for the troops on one end of the spectrum, or joining organizations like Code Pink and MoveOn.org on the other end.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

How 'bout dis, instead: tell him his country is at WAR, remind him every dam' day, and get his support for it? You think making it a military/law enforcement/government-from-the-top-down proposition is actually going to make him support it MORE?

A wonderful idea. If the problem was staring him in the face every dam' day, which it's not. And how exactly are you going to do this? Airtime? Leaflets? Pamphlets? Infomercials? Podcasts? Adverts in newspapers? All of the above?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I don't think you really see this clearly, ole buddy. This is going to take the NATION to win, and you're giving everybody BUT the part that counts the most - the PEOPLE - the hard job, and making it harder, BECAUSE eventually the thing you're describing as a net negative - SUPPORT - will be lacking when it counts.

Not me my friend, the rest of the country already took care of that part all by itself, years ago.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Here's the crucial aspect all of you seem to have missed: it IS a real war. It IS against terrorists, AND their use of Terror as a method of achieving their objective. And it CAN be made to work, BUT...

Excuse me? I never denied that it's a real war. My posts have been about the wrong-headed framing of this conflict in the sense of a classic conventional war, which clearly it is not!

Originally Posted by Bluesman

And the course you advocate will absolutely assure that WE WILL LOSE.

I'm not "advocating a course" I'm simply saying that the course (See below) chosen by Bush and his pack of idiots was wrong.

I knew it was wrong at the time and history has borne this out: "Declaring War" works (yeah right) only as long as you're in power. After that, it becomes a relic of the history books.

Should the country be united behind this effort? Of course it should! That's like asking if water is wet.

Is the country united behind this effort? The answer since just a few months after 9/11 is of course not!

**Bigfella** · 28 Dec 09, 01:20

Originally Posted by bigross86

I'd like to put an interesting twist on things, if I may:

Israel is a state that has pretty much been fighting for it's existence since day 1. Whether you agree with the political realities or not, the physical reality is that the majority of Israel's neighbors would enjoy nothing more than a nice Jewish bloodbath.

When Barack Obama decides that he's going to stop fighting "terrorists" (you can call them whatever you'd like), and instead engage them in talks, he gives the people who are trying to kill me legitimization. When we unilaterally give away our land, and instead get shelled, mortared and rocketed for our goodwill, I think you can say that they mean business.

For you it might not be a war for existence, but for us it is. We were fighting this fight waaaaay before 9/11, and we'll keep fighting it long after the last US soldier leaves Afghanistan and Iraq (I'd like to be optimistic, but hey). It just feels better to be with company who knows how things stand. As long as the US keeps fighting it's War on Terror and acknowledges that there is such a thing in the world, we know we won't stand alone. When you start talking about putting wolves and sheep together, you usually end up with dead sheep.

Bigross,

There are a few premises here that I'm not entirely sure hold true.

I agree that Israel has & may face an existential threat, but I disagree that it it from 'terrorists', not yet anyway. Groups like Hamas, Fatah & Hizbullah can make life miserable for some Israelis & difficult for others, but they can't destroy Israel (that might change if they get nukes or WMD, but lets stick with now). It would take a combination of nations prepared to risk near obliteration to threaten or end Israel's existence. I don't imagine this makes the day to day reality of dealing with the neighbours any more pleasant, but that isn't the issue here.

On your next point, which terrorists has Obama stopped fighting & started talking to? I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I'm just curious. As others here have pointed out, the 'war on terror' was a piece of hollow & foolish demagoguery. Obama's committment of troops to Afghanistan is doing as much to fight terrorism as Bush did - he was more interested in finding excuses to invade Iraq.

As for negotiating with terrorists, is there a 'western' nation that does or has done this more than Israel? Again, correct me if I am wrong, but Israel has or does negoatiate with pretty much evey major terrorist group on its borders at one time or another. Negotiation can sometimes have positive results in a direct sense (splitting groups, as happened in Sri Lanka & in Afghanistan), and sometimes it is simply a useful way to show your own side that the enemy is not going to respond to negotiations. And to push a point, one of the more successful negotiations in my lifetime was between two former terrorists who turned to politics - the 1978 Camp David accords. Those groups big enough to warrant negotiations are already legitimate enough where it matters, otherwise they wouldn't need to be negotiated with.

One last question - what Israeli land has been given up to terrorists? I am aware that Israel ceased its occupation of Gaza, but I wasn't aware that was 'yours'.

To conclude - you aren't fighting alone. You weren't before 9/11 & you won't be in the forseeable future. The fact that this isn't an existential issue to other nations doesn't mean that we won't or can't fight, it just means that the message has to be sold in a different manner. There is indeed a great struggle afoot, but it isn't a single great battle or a single great war, it is many smaller battles & smaller wars, each with their own character. It will take a full range of responses, many of them political & economic, to reduce Islamist terrorism to a minor nuisance. Mischaracterising the struggle as a conventional war isn't going to help in this task. It is both more and less & must be treated differently. We can't see this as you do, but that doesn't mean we aren't committed.

**Roosveltrepub** · 28 Dec 09, 02:15

Originally Posted by Bluesman

They COULD, if they believed in it. Clearly, you think they should believe LESS in it, not more. Because you are making a case for just conceding that John Q. Public ain't a-gonna help noways, so why disturb him?

How 'bout dis, instead: tell him his country is at WAR, remind him every dam' day, and get his support for it? You think making it a military/law enforcement/government-from-the-top-down proposition is actually going to make him support it MORE?

I don't think you really see this clearly, ole buddy. This is going to take the NATION to win, and you're giving everybody BUT the part that counts the most - the PEOPLE - the hard job, and making it harder, BECAUSE eventually the thing you're describing as a net negative - SUPPORT - will be lacking when it counts.

Here's the crucial aspect all of you seem to have missed: it IS a real war. It IS against terrorists, AND their use of Terror as a method of achieving their objective. And it CAN be made to work, BUT...

NOT if you do not have the united will of the People to support it ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

And the course you advocate will absolutely assure that WE WILL LOSE.

We should be paying for the war. It is as vital a struggle as the one against fascism in the 40s and there is ZERO sign of it on the home front. Sure people do some collections. We do them regularly where I work but that isn't really the same as a call for sacrifice and commitment. I really think even a small wear tax would give the general public more ownership of the war. A small number of Americans have shouldered a real burden for 8 years and look to continue to while most have sacrifice nothing.

**astralis** · 28 Dec 09, 03:02

bigross,

When Barack Obama decides that he's going to stop fighting "terrorists" (you can call them whatever you'd like), and instead engage them in talks, he gives the people who are trying to kill me legitimization. When we unilaterally give away our land, and instead get shelled, mortared and rocketed for our goodwill, I think you can say that they mean business.

For you it might not be a war for existence, but for us it is. We were fighting this fight waaaaay before 9/11, and we'll keep fighting it long after the last US soldier leaves Afghanistan and Iraq (I'd like to be optimistic, but hey). It just feels better to be with company who knows how things stand. As long as the US keeps fighting it's War on Terror and acknowledges that there is such a thing in the world, we know we won't stand alone. When you start talking about putting wolves and sheep together, you usually end up with dead sheep.

i would believe that argument more if i didn't see israeli right-wing settlers and extremists flout israeli law and security directives, and if i didn't see israeli politicians pandering to their demographically unsustainable settlements.

while i certainly agree israel lives closer to the edge than the US does, it is by no means in a life-or-death situation everyday. that moment passed in 1967 (although 1973 does come close).

same with the US, as well. i absolutely hate it when people overplay the terrorist threat, because terrorism is NOT a mortal threat to either israel or the US. it is a DEADLY threat, yes, but not mortal. mortal threats require significant conventional armed and economic power, neither of which the terrorists, or even their state backers, have.

**bigross86** · 28 Dec 09, 04:58

Groups like Hamas, Fatah & Hizbullah can make life miserable for some Israelis & difficult for others, but they can't destroy Israel (that might change if they get nukes or WMD, but lets stick with now). It would take a combination of nations prepared to risk near obliteration to threaten or end Israel's existence.

Such as happened in 1948, 1967, 1968-1970 and 1973? Granted, since 1973 the situation has looked up, but that doesn't change the fact that a fair number of countries refuse to recognize Israel and still consider themselves at a state of war with Israel. Syria and Iran, to name the two main belligerents, have been throwing their weight behind Hezbollah and other groups, knowing that an all out war would be too costly, but that doesn't change the fact that were the situation right, Egypt and Jordan would also probably join in the fun. Remember, a large amount of the people who live in Jordan still consider themselves Palestinians.

On your next point, which terrorists has Obama stopped fighting & started talking to?

Perhaps that was phrased improperly. I'm referring amongst others to Obama's declaration of a withdrawal from Afghanistan in a year and a half.

As for negotiating with terrorists, is there a 'western' nation that does or has done this more than Israel? Again, correct me if I am wrong, but Israel has or does negoatiate with pretty much evey major terrorist group on its borders at one time or another. Negotiation can sometimes have positive results in a direct sense (splitting groups, as happened in Sri Lanka & in Afghanistan), and sometimes it is simply a useful way to show your own side that the enemy is not going to respond to negotiations. And to push a point, one of the more successful negotiations in my lifetime was between two former terrorists who turned to politics - the 1978 Camp David accords. Those groups big enough to warrant negotiations are already legitimate enough where it matters, otherwise they wouldn't need to be negotiated with.

When someone takes a hostage, a police negotiator is called in. Does that give the hostage taker legitimization? Does that make his cause right? Does that make it all right for him to try again? In many cases, Israel has taken the role of hostage negotiator, talking to terrorists in order to get soldiers (or even soldier's bodies) back. I agree with you on the Camp David Accords, but that was 30 years ago. What's happened after 1994 basically proved that Yasser Arafat could not be trusted, and was not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. I feel that Rabin negotiated in good faith, mainly because we was very left wing, and believed that he was helping Israel gain peace. Blinded by a dream? Perhaps.

One last question - what Israeli land has been given up to terrorists? I am aware that Israel ceased its occupation of Gaza, but I wasn't aware that was 'yours'.

It was captured in 1967 from Egypt after a war that was started with a valid Cassus Belli. In 1979 Egypt renounced all territorial claims to the Gaza Strip, effectively leaving it in Israeli hands. Many other lesser known cases also involve tearing down many an Israeli settlement and giving the land to Palestinians, from as early on as 1994.

To conclude - you aren't fighting alone. You weren't before 9/11 & you won't be in the forseeable future. The fact that this isn't an existential issue to other nations doesn't mean that we won't or can't fight, it just means that the message has to be sold in a different manner. There is indeed a great struggle afoot, but it isn't a single great battle or a single great war, it is many smaller battles & smaller wars, each with their own character. It will take a full range of responses, many of them political & economic, to reduce Islamist terrorism to a minor nuisance. Mischaracterising the struggle as a conventional war isn't going to help in this task. It is both more and less & must be treated differently. We can't see this as you do, but that doesn't mean we aren't committed.

I think the main difference can be seen from this simple point of view: In the US, military service is voluntary. In Israel there's a draft. Israel recognizes that the threat is valid, and not going anywhere any time soon.

**bigross86** · 28 Dec 09, 05:01

Originally Posted by astralis

while i certainly agree israel lives closer to the edge than the US does, it is by no means in a life-or-death situation everyday. that moment passed in 1967 (although 1973 does come close).

I answered this in my previous post to Big Fella, please read what I wrote there.

same with the US, as well. i absolutely hate it when people overplay the terrorist threat, because terrorism is NOT a mortal threat to either israel or the US. it is a DEADLY threat, yes, but not mortal. mortal threats require significant conventional armed and economic power, neither of which the terrorists, or even their state backers, have.

Which as I recall, is one of the main points of this conversation, trying keep Iran from getting enough power to become a mortal threat in the region.

**astralis** · 28 Dec 09, 05:45

bigross,

Such as happened in 1948, 1967, 1968-1970 and 1973? Granted, since 1973 the situation has looked up, but that doesn't change the fact that a fair number of countries refuse to recognize Israel and still consider themselves at a state of war with Israel. Syria and Iran, to name the two main belligerents, have been throwing their weight behind Hezbollah and other groups, knowing that an all out war would be too costly, but that doesn't change the fact that were the situation right, Egypt and Jordan would also probably join in the fun. Remember, a large amount of the people who live in Jordan still consider themselves Palestinians.

i think the points you have made support my argument. i did note that 67 was probably the last threat that constituted as mortal, but that 73 came close. since then, the world has changed considerably. without superpower backing (and in fact, the egyptians and jordanians now on the payroll of the US), israel simply does not face the same level of threat that it did in the past.

israel knows this, as well-- otherwise it would not consider other factors past national survival. from current israeli political and military decisions, that is not the case.

Thread: Worse. Than. Carter.

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

WoT??

Bluesman Reply

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

$10 Billion and Getting Worse

Jimmy Carter and Hamas

Average Iraqi's life is worse now

Carter on Bush foreign policy

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions