Check again. The term Viet Cong refers to communist gorilla fighters. The North Vietnamese army regulars were the main arm of the North. The term Vietnamese refers to a citizen of Vietnam, much like the term American. It was used in reference to both the North and South.

 

True, but the Viet Cong would be the group that would have carried out this attack. Now back to the point, comparing the world going commie vrs. the stuff hitting the circular air cooling device when we leave Iraq. One never happened, one never will.

The sad, simple truth is that we have created a colossal mess that lacks a good solution. Yes, that's right we created it. It didn't exist before we invaded. Iraq was a lot of things before the war, but a breeding ground for terrorists it was not. Heck, the consensus of our own intelligence community now says Iraq has become a rallying cry for Islamic extremists and that our involvement there has made our task of defeating terrorism more difficult (ref, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate).

 

So, should we pull out? I think we should be following the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, rather than trying the latest idea of a President who has no combat experience and has been wrong every single time about Iraq. Think about it, this President has absolutely had a free hand to conduct the Iraq war, a clean sheet of paper. He has gotten every Congressional funding request he has ever asked for. And yet four years into it, Iraq is no closer to being a stable democracy than it was years ago and our intelligence experts say we have basically strengthened anti-Western terrorist causes around the world by our involvement there.

 

I feel like these arguments have been made 1000 times, but with the passage of time, more and more of the American people have begun to see the light. Maybe in 5 or 10 years even the diehard Bush cheerleaders will join them.

:lol: You act as if Bush calls the shots without the military leaders advising him on what to do. It doesn't work like that.

No, that's right, no we didn't create their hatred for us. As I said, the anti-Bush activists and left leaning media played right into Zarqawi hands. I know Bush and his administration made mistakes, but those that do nothing but condemn our being their do exactly what their ilk did for the Vietnam war and that's just sad that such recent history has been forgotten.

I totally agree, but I don't think our presence in the Middle East in any way makes them more likely to try and carry out such an attack. If anything, it makes it more difficult for them to organize and plan such an attack.

 

Scenario 1 - Suppose we hadn't responded in any way with our military after the attacks of 9/11, do you think the terrorists would have been satisfied with that and left us alone, never to strike again? I don't.

 

Scenario 2 - Suppose we pulled out now and left the Middle East completely, do you think the terrorists would leave us alone? I don't.

 

The fact is, they can only hate us so much...if we just left them alone, it would free them up to organize and plan more attacks, and you're kidding yourself if you don't think they would.

 

I'm not trying to defend the war on Iraq. I just get irritated when people say we're just inlfaming their hatred toward us and making it worse by being over there. I would ask, what inflamed their hatred before 9/11? Ask Israel how successful the tactic of appeasement is when dealing with terrorists.

First I just wanted to say that I thought that was an excellent post.:thumb: Now here are my thoughts.

 

First bolded part:

I believe that if we began our gradual pull out of Iraq that they would then have less of a finger pointed towards the U.S.. While we are there, terrorists will continue to use the U.S. as the reasoning for many of the bombings. If we left, there is no doubt that they would continue and it would become much more evident to the people of Iraq that their biggest problem is internal and it's something they need to solve themselves. It's kind of like a family dispute. Say two brothers are in a heated argument with each other about something. They will argue until some kind of agreement is reached, but when a 3rd party comes in to tell them both what to do, they will turn on that third party until they are gone. Leaving the original point to rest until they have dealt with that 3rd party. I know it's not the best possible example but that is pretty close to how I feel the situation is going.

 

Second bolded part:

Bin Laden's hatred was inflammed by the U.S. long before 9/11. I'm not saying that the U.S. was at fault, but they were the reason behind it none the less.

:lol: You act as if Bush calls the shots without the military leaders advising him on what to do. It doesn't work like that.

 

 

I hate to break this to you, but there have been plenty of instances that suggest that it works exactly like that. Take the Bush plan for a troop surge for example. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously disagreed with the President's idea of a troop surge ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html ). Guess what? The surge is going forward anyway. Colin Powell, a man with an accomplished and impeccable military career, cautioned the Administration privately about the long-term consequences of a destabilizing invasion of Iraq (the so-called Pottery Barn rule, you break it, you own it). We invaded anyway and it now appears that we own a very broken country. General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff until the summer of 2003, was harshly brushed aside by the Administration when he had the nerve to publicly state that far more U.S. troops would be needed for a U.S. invasion of Iraq than were being deployed. It's obvious his opinion was not heeded during the Administration's "planning" of the Iraq war ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html?ex=1326258000&en=a96299f6a0a1fef2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss ). President Bush ignored the concerns of high ranking military lawyers, by signing off on harsh interrogation techniques: "Other senior military lawyers warned in tones of sharp concern that aggressive interrogation techniques would endanger American soldiers taken prisoner and also diminish the country's standing as a leader in "the moral high road" approach to the laws of war." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/politics/28abuse.html?ex=1280203200&en=bc7bf5df6f7c044d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss).

 

There, four quick examples that illustrate how the Bush Administration regularly disregards the advice of military commanders in its policymaking.

:lol: You act as if Bush calls the shots without the military leaders advising him on what to do. It doesn't work like that.

 

...:sssh:

I hate to break this to you, but there have been plenty of instances that suggest that it works exactly like that. Take the Bush plan for a troop surge for example. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously disagreed with the President's idea of a troop surge ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html ). Guess what? The surge is going forward anyway. Colin Powell, a man with an accomplished and impeccable military career, cautioned the Administration privately about the long-term consequences of a destabilizing invasion of Iraq (the so-called Pottery Barn rule, you break it, you own it). We invaded anyway and it now appears that we own a very broken country. General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff until the summer of 2003, was harshly brushed aside by the Administration when he had the nerve to publicly state that far more U.S. troops would be needed for a U.S. invasion of Iraq than were being deployed. It's obvious his opinion was not heeded during the Administration's "planning" of the Iraq war ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html?ex=1326258000&en=a96299f6a0a1fef2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss ). President Bush ignored the concerns of high ranking military lawyers, by signing off on harsh interrogation techniques: "Other senior military lawyers warned in tones of sharp concern that aggressive interrogation techniques would endanger American soldiers taken prisoner and also diminish the country's standing as a leader in "the moral high road" approach to the laws of war." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/politics/28abuse.html?ex=1280203200&en=bc7bf5df6f7c044d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss).

 

There, four quick examples that illustrate how the Bush Administration regularly disregards the advice of military commanders in its policymaking.

The Washington Post & the NY Times. Well duh... :lol:

The Washington Post & the NY Times. Well duh... :lol:

 

Are you disputing the evidence base only on where it is reported? What do you think of the validity of the reports? Have you read them? Do you make it a point to automatically not read reports from those sources?

I agree completely. People are stuck in the mindset that we are at war with a country. We are not, we are at war with terrorists. Al Quida is not in allegiance with one particular country, they are like a country with no realastate. This is not like other wars were it's country(s) versus Country(s). This is definitely not like Vietnam, this group has already attacked us on our own soil, and will do it again if we stop the pursuit. The attack on September 11, 2001 was planned for years just to hit hard, to attack our prosperity and financial success. If we give them time they will plan a bigger attack to show they are still in command. This is not a country who is afraid of us attacking their country, because they have no country they are nomads roaming from place to place if we attack the county they are in, they simply cross a border to another country, we have to give pursuit and let them know we have a unstoppable resolve.

Ditto:ylsuper:

Are you disputing the evidence base only on where it is reported? What do you think of the validity of the reports? Have you read them? Do you make it a point to automatically not read reports from those sources?

Liberal Newspapers report a biased liberal viewpoint as well as conservative news sources (which are rare as hen's teeth) report a biased conservative viewpoint. Although broadcasters are supposed to report facts only it is only human nature to interject (however subtle) their own biases.

Liberal Newspapers report a biased liberal viewpoint as well as conservative news sources (which are rare as hen's teeth) report a biased conservative viewpoint. Although broadcasters are supposed to report facts only it is only human nature to interject (however subtle) their own biases.

 

 

Leaving out whether they're liberal or conservative, does that change the facts of the story? For instance, when the NYTimes ran the story that Wilson reported no evidence found in Africa of Sadaam buying materials for WMD...does the fact that no evidence was found in any become changed because the NYTimes reported it?

Leaving out whether they're liberal or conservative, does that change the facts of the story? For instance, when the NYTimes ran the story that Wilson reported no evidence found in Africa of Sadaam buying materials for WMD...does the fact that no evidence was found in any become changed because the NYTimes reported it?

It changes the spin---not the facts. An individual needs to hear both sides to make a true evaluation.

It changes the spin---not the facts. An individual needs to hear both sides to make a true evaluation.

 

What's the other side to the stories that H posted?

 

It's not always about reading from another source, or different source. It's about being able to discern the facts without focusing on the spin, no matter who's reporting. The facts will be the facts, they won't change.

Iraq is obviously going to be used as a propoganda tool to recruit more extremist. However, it doesn't change the fact that the hate already exist. The Muslim extremist that choose to read the Quran in the literal sense feel that they are empowered by Allah to either convert all infadels to Islam, or destroy them. When these teachings are used to instill hatred towards western prosperity, they will be sucessful in creating generation after generation of people willing to give their lives to conquer or convert. The source of the hatred is as old as biblical history. The fact of the matter is that the hatred is not increased or decreased by our actions. We simply must deal with the matter in the only manner possible, to destroy all threats to our safety. IMO, the real threat exist in Iran and should be dealt with. Of course, our population has developed such a distaste for fighting that I worry if we actually have the resolve anymore to maintain our position in the world.

What's the other side to the stories that H posted?

 

It's not always about reading from another source, or different source. It's about being able to discern the facts without focusing on the spin, no matter who's reporting. The facts will be the facts, they won't change.

Sometimes blatant spin is reported as fact . . . so in that case . . . "facts" can change. It is the responsibility of the reader to discern the difference. Many times John Q. Public will simply take what is reported as Gospel without bothering to check things out.

as well as conservative news sources (which are rare as hen's teeth)

Have you ever watched Fox News?