T1B

Atomic Punk wrote:What I would do is pull back every troop into the netherlands of Iraq for a staging point. It would be like a "We are here but do want you want... as we conduct exercises and weapons tests."

Atomic Punk wrote:You talkin' to me PSU? You have a take or do you want to munch some Pelosi tossed salad?

do you want to munch some Pelosi tossed salad?

Atomic Punk wrote:As soon as these crazy governments get the ability to deliver credible nuclear weapons on our soil, Hillary will blame Bush. Trust me on this one.

Atomic Punk wrote:Our will to wage war was lost when the media became the 4th branch of government. WW2 was pretty much the last time we were able to conquer. It will never happen again with the way our society has decayed.

Young people can now go out, get fucked in the ass, and get a special tatoo above their ass crack.

As soon as these crazy governments get the ability to deliver credible nuclear weapons on our soil, Hillary will blame Bush. Trust me on this one.

Dr_Phibes wrote:I've always equated 'political will' with necessity.

smackaholic wrote:The problem is we no longer have any balls as a nation. During WWII we knew we were in a fight and the entire fukking country treated it that way.

PSUFAN wrote:Thanks, Hank. Your assessment is sure indeed timely.

At least he beat Robert McNamera to the punch...

Russ Feingold wrote:MADISON, Wis. -- U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., gave a lecture on "Thoughts On Post-9/11 Foreign Policy Issues" Saturday at the Madison Civics Club, telling the capacity audience that the fight against terrorism requires a greater understanding of the connections between countries and global situations.

Feingold, who recently announced that he will not run for president in 2008, currently sits on the Budget, Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Relations committees in the Senate. After the Nov. 7 election placed Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, Feingold said he is looking to take a leadership role in the Senate on foreign policy issues.

He said that of all the daunting issues America faces, foreign policy issues after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are the most pressing.

Feingold said 9/11 was "a wake-up call" that the United States needed to change from being fairly isolated into thinking more globally.

"I hope we learned that we must become a bigger part of the rest of the world. Our security, collectively and individually, here and abroad, will depend on how close we become to the family of nations around the world," Feingold said.

He said, five years after 9/11, America's responses to terrorism suggest we don't yet have a grasp of the whole issue and how the complicated interrelations between foreign countries play into the threat of terrorism.

Feingold said that he supported the war in Afghanistan, saying that he thought it was necessary and was handled well.

"Then out of the blue came Iraq. But that just didn't seem to fit with 9/11," he said.

Feingold displayed a list, consisting of countries where al-Qaeda was operating, that he said circulated around the White House after 9/11. He said that of the 45 countries on that list, Iraq was not one.

"Iraq was not even on the White House list -- just to give you an idea of how bizarre (the decision to go to war in Iraq) is," Feingold said.

He said that, in the fight against terrorism, the United States is spending too much time talking about Iraq while ignoring many other countries that pose a terror threat.

For example, he pointed out that Indonesia -- which is world's most populous Muslim nation -- is one of the most critical countries in the fight against al-Qaeda, and yet he said there is virtually no attention or discussion about it.

He said he is glad that President George W. Bush is finally visiting Indonesia. Bush is scheduled to visit the country on Monday. Feingold pointed out that he is only the second senator to visit Indonesia.

Feingold said that Africa also presents a number of critical issues related to terrorism, and that it is a growing haven for many terrorist operatives. He noted that terrorists blew up American embassies in Africa, not in Afghanistan or Iraq, and that the culprits went to South Africa to hide.

He said even though he was well-educated and studied abroad, at 39 years old he didn't know anything about Africa -- and he was on the Foreign Relations committee.

"And I spent 15 years since learning about (Africa). But I offer that as a commentary on how prepared this country was on 9/11," he said.

Feingold pointed out the fact that the northern part of Africa is only about 20 miles from the Middle East.

"But we don't think of them that way. We think of them as separate," he said, adding that the United States needs to work on determining the complicated interrelationships between various nations and terrorist groups.

Feingold offered several ideas of things he thinks the United States should work on in the post-9/11 world.

He said the government badly needs a "unity of purpose" to cut down on all the petty infighting and turf protecting. He also said that, to be effective against terrorists, the United States needs to be smarter in its allocation of military resources.

"We have 90 percent of our military resources on 5 percent of the problem (Iraq)," he said.

He said the United States should also work on reaching out to the rest of the world in a positive way.

"It begins at home, with how we treat Muslims here. We have to be an example to the rest of the world that we embrace Muslims here, and that will help us with moderate Muslims throughout the world," he said.

He said public diplomacy to other nations could also be improved to help our cause. Feingold said he was critical of Bush's use of the term "Islamic fascism," because it upset many Muslims around the world.

"Our goal is to isolate terrorists, not Muslims," Feingold said..

mvscal wrote:

Russ Feingold wrote:"Our goal is to isolate terrorists, not Muslims," Feingold said..

Confused on the concept.

What I came up with is Russ Feingold channelling Marcus Allen with moronic paraphrases of the obvious

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:You read the whole article, and all you can come up with is that all Muslims are terrorists.

That's not what I came up with. What I came up with is Russ Feingold channelling Marcus Allen with moronic paraphrases of the obvious while criticising the administration for doing exactly what he suggests they do.

Anyone who thinks Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism is a fucking idiot. The war didn't begin and it isn't going to end in Iraq. Iraq was just one part of it.

I think Kissinger and Feingold make good points.

Uncle Fester wrote:
You don't defeat suicidal religious fanatics engaged in guerilla warfare by sending in conventional armies and high tech weapons. It just doesn't work.

mvscal wrote:The second being that the Iraq front is the most active military front, so it clearly stands to reason that our largest military efforts should be focused there.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

mvscal wrote:The second being that the Iraq front is the most active military front, so it clearly stands to reason that our largest military efforts should be focused there.

Isn't it the most active military front because we stuffed so much of our military in there?

Is that supposed to have any relevance?

Goober McTuber wrote: Oh, and you’re going to whip Al Queda by carpet-bombing Iraq? Cause after you blow the fuck out of Iraq, you only have 45 more countries to destroy.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

mvscal wrote: Is that supposed to have any relevance?

I don't know. It was your justification.

The answer is no.

Try to actually think for yourself a bit here. You have no idea what the administration is attempting to accomplish. That isn't entirely your fault. This administration has very poorly articulated its objectives and methods.

The mission is to combat Islam practiced as a radical political ideology. Bush Administration fuck up #1: They failed to clearly articulate precisely what it is we are fighting. Terrorism is a tactic. A War on Terrorism is semantic nonsense. No surprise to see that message garbled.

I understand the reasoning behind it. Namely to avoid inflaming Muslims and provide political cover to the Muslim nations which are assisting us in the war. The unfortunate downside to that bit of moral cowardice is that we as a nation aren't clear on what we're fighting.

Being that this is primarily an ideological conflict, the method chosen to confront this challenge was to present an workable alternative ideology: Democracy and with it personal and economic freedom. This meant abandoning our Cold War Real Politik support for thuggish dictators who could keep the craziness down to a dull roar.

Now given the mission and the method, who is likely to offer armed resistance to that program and where do you begin?

mvscal wrote:The unfortunate downside to that bit of moral cowardice is that we as a nation aren't clear on what we're fighting.

Atomic Punk wrote:I was told from the real Vietnam guys that the Muzzies respect power. We haven't shown it.