Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

and though it is out of the news in the US nowadays, the ill will caused by the Abu Ghraib mess is far bigger than most Americans realize. Most people out of the US that I speak to believe it is US policy to behave this way because they dont believe that responsibility only goes as high as a sergeant. I am myself disgusted that Americans did this and no higher ups were ever held to account. The whole torture debate doesnt play very well overseas either.

[PBzeer]

We are the only thing standing against it going to hell in a handcart.

There are real, identifiable signs of increased political accomodation between the various factions, and a willingness to settle their differences in a political, rather than violent, fashion. That will cease without US support, until they have a broad consensus government. Progress IS being made, and there is no reason to think it can't, nor won't continue.

Surrender is always the easiest choice to make, though the hardest to live with. If we weren't fighting in Iraq, then where, and yes they would, will the terrorist of radical islam fight?

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sck5

My own belief is that Iraq will never be governed as a democracy in my lifetime (or my kids) and that the only real hope is for a strongman who is ruthless enough to keep the place in line.

The same thing could have been said of Germany and Adolph Hitler, in 1938. Look how well that ultimately turned out, for Germans as well as for the rest of us, but it required huge sacrifices.

The problem is that it seems WE are viewed as equally as much of an enemy as their own tyrants. Part of the reason for that is talk about "crusades" and "holy wars" on our side (that sounds pretty bad to the average Arab given the history of previous crusades) and another part is our support for Israel (I am NOT advocating abandoning that policy but it is important to understand how THEY perceive it).

People need to learn how to distinguish between liberal propaganda and reality. When liberals attack the President or his policies, and accuse "neo-cons" and Christian conservatives of carrying on a "holy war" against Muslims, don't just accept that as gospel, so to speak. Question it. Ask yourself whether that is consistent with known facts and your own observations. If it isn't, then it's propaganda, not truth. It's just a falsehood spread by cynical politicians to further their political objectives, not to wisely guide the nation in the right direction.

Known fact: Within one day after 9/11, when Americans were the most enraged and vengeful towards the people who perpetrated the attack, President Bush appeared on television and cautioned us all that Muslims generally were not responsible for the attack. The people who were responsible were terrorists who happened to be Muslims. Despite any unfounded liberal allegations to the contrary, President Bush made it clear from the outset that he understood who was, and who was not, our enemy, and he wanted to be sure that angry mobs didn't take out their anger on innocent, loyal American Muslims. I should add that the President was the first government official who made such a statement. Until that time, I didn't hear any prominent Democrats express the same concern for innocent Muslims. President Bush led the people in the right direction.

Now that you know the facts with regard to President Bush, and his own thinking, let's examine your own observations. Has anyone on this forum advocated that we carry on a holy war against all people of the Muslim faith? If so, please refer us to that person's specific post, so we can see if you have interpreted his opinion correctly. Within the scope of your own acquaintances, do you know anyone who advocates a holy war against Muslims? If not, then who are these "neo cons" and "Christian conservatives" who the liberals are accusing of waging a holy war? Refer us to their own specific statements, where they have advocated a holy war. I'll grant that there are probably a few extremists who would like to do so, but they're in such a minority as to be utterly insignificant.

So, now you know that when the liberals accuse the neo cons and Christian conservatives of waging a holy war, it's just so much cynical propaganda intended to smear people unfairly. You know that because it's inconsistent with known facts, as well as your own experience.

sck5, we agree that such talk is terribly destructive to our efforts in Iraq and the mideast generally, and the liberals who are making those unfounded accusations ought to stuff a sock in it, because those reckless allegations feed the average Arab's perception that we are just carrying on a holy war against their religion. What would you expect the average Arab to think when he reads comments made by prominent American Democrat leaders, accusing the Bush administration of carrying on a holy war on behalf of neo cons and the "religious right?" It encourages the enemy and misleads the average Arab about our intentions, and that kind of loose talk can get our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians killed.

Now that we're in the campaign season, it's going to get much, much worse. If you think the attacks on President Bush have been just a tad unfair, you ain't seen nothing yet. It's going to be brutal, and unrelenting, and the President is going to be attacked for being a Christian, for everything he has done to successfully safeguard America from attack, for freeing the Afghanis from the tyrrany of the Taliban, for freeing the Iraquis from Saddam, for defeating the insurgency in Iraq, for resolving the Korean nuclear crisis, and for only giving us seven years of unbridled economic prosperity, instead of eight years. Instead of giving him credit for successfully leading us through the most serious international and domestic crises since the second World War, they'll chant, ad nauseum, about anything that didn't go well, and they'll propagandize everything that did go well.

You can all do whatever you want to do. I'm going to defend him, just as conscientiously as he has defended us.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sck5

My point is that it is very possible (I would say likely and you would probably disagree) that what we WISH for an outcome cant ever happen, at least not through our efforts. If indeed we are just banging our head against a wall then we need to stop banging our head against the wall.

Speaking of "walls," some of us saw the Berlin wall being built, and saw bodies of people left hanging from the barbed wire, after they were shot while trying desperately to escape. Many of us never dreamed that the wall would ever actually come down. Indeed, when President Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," many cynical liberals accused him of political grandstanding, and even his own advisors urged him not to make that statement, but he did, and the wall came down.

Nothing will ever be accomplished by defeatists who think that we can't change things for the better. Your current hero, Mr. Obama, is a proud and loud advocate of change. The problem with him is that some people talk about change, and some people make it happen. President Bush and President Reagan made it happen, and the changes that they made will stand as monuments of achievement. Mr. Obama just talks about it, has no record of actually making it happen, and I suspect the most significant change he has in mind is his mailing address. Some people might be willing to vote for him just because he chants the word "change." I want to know what changes he wants to make, and how he wants to change them, and whether they'll be for the better.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

So you think that we actually CAN build a happier day in Iraq and want to stay. The opposing view is that the harm we do by staying (continued violence, mounting antipathy to the US, the belief that we are only holding down a lid that will blow off as soon as we leave, etc.) outweighs whatever good we can do and if we can never win we might as well try to get out. .

No I don't believe we can build a happier day - read my previous posts on the future in Iraq as I see it. No matter what we do besides essentially staying for the next generation I see civil war as the only outcome, certainly if we pull out.
The pundits miss the point that culturally speaking Democracy is not an option, especially given the histories of most middle eastern countries. The only 'successful' ' democracy' in the middle east (besides Isreal which is not similar culturally) is Eygpt. It's neither truly sucessful, nor democratic hence the quotes.
As to the continued violence et. al. As I've said in the 'Islam' thread and elsewhere - I'd rather have violence ANYWHERE other than in the malls and streets of America; and I'd rather have it directed at our military forces where at least they have the training and equipment to handle it (as opposed to the soccer mom in the minivan at least). Giving radicals a realitively close and easy target to attack is in my opinion G.W. Bush's greatest legacy that seemingly most folks don't realize or appreciate. This has saved many, many lives on our streets.
Does it make folks that would not normally be inclined to be a suicide bomber pick up a belt and run towards a checkpoint? Undoubtedly. Bummer. I can far more for those soccer mom's living next door than I ever will for any foriegner of any cultural background. That's generations of civilization and nationalism at work and I don't appologize for it at all.

Originally Posted by sck5

Some may want to stay a hundred years if necessary but I will bet you the majority of the public dont agree. We will see next November if they do.

I think most want out - no person wants to stay somewhere where not welcomed unless they have some sociopathic need to be in charge. We stayed in Germany because we (american's) were at some level culturally connected; and because the times were different. It used to be that after a war the victor was actively responsible for the rehabilitation of the loser, even if the victor did not start it. Reparations were paid and former enemies became partners. Even Japan with its far different culture became a partner in rebuilding, and continues to be so today.
Some folks have lost those romantic notions, some have persisted in the belief that they still pertain to our current world, some utterly disregard the notion as ridiculous.
I walk the middle line on that - I do believe that a victor nation has some responsibility towards the loser, especially if your troops are on his ground. I also firmly believe that if I personally am in a bar fight and slap the bejesus out of someone I should make sure they are okay and even call an ambulance - but if he spits blood from his broken face at me, I'm done being nice and knowing that I expect him and his friends to come looking later because the fights not done. Doesn't mean I don't go back to that bar - does mean I take friends of my own next time.
In Iraq, I'm done, but some of the people in the bar are spitting at me for various reasons. I can't take my hat and leave because the stakes are too high and the odds are it's likely that these folks will follow me home and continue the fight there. Either I (we) can stay and talk them out of a continuation of the fight or I can stomp the spitters (including any new ones made by the stomping) until everyone left is my friend, or I can go home. I choose to fight in the bar where I'm already adreneline charged, have my fist balled up, and blood on my shirt (theirs not mine) - not my front yard where my family and friends WILL get sucked into the fight.

Vietnam was different, we withdrew and they didn't follow. These folks will follow, we know that because they (arguably) came here first.

[sck5]

It is true that Bush said the right thing immediately after 9/11 about Muslims and I give him credit for that. However, the "crusade" talk isnt just liberal propaganda. Bush himself has used the term from time to time - See for example this report:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

Also, General Boykin, the head guy appointed to go after Bin Laden repeatedly used quite religious terms to describe the conflict - See two reports , one from the right and one from the left on this. One likes what he said and the other doesnt but both essentially confirm his using this kind of language:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...11/ai_n9307701

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005808/posts

Look at post number 840 in this very thread to see one of our own talk about a "holy war". Granted, he later amended himself to say he meant "islamofascism" rather than islam in general but it is an example of a tendency of many to speak in terms which can be easily perceived as being religiously based.

These kinds of comments, especially when they come from our President and high ranking generals get a lot of attention overseas and go down very very poorly. It is one of the reasons I have cited as to why we are perceived negatively by many. Their press is at least as irresponsible and sensationalistic as ours - so things like this get blown up to huge proportions. It may be true that we really arent like that - But my argument was that they dont see us that way and as I have just shown, there are enough pieces of evidence in support of that perception to convince them it is true. Unconvincing them wont be easy and certainly will never happen if we pretend it aint so and dont even try.

A lot of what is going on in Iraq and the Middle East more generally is a war of perception just as much as a war of reality. We are always going to win a real war, but can lose anyway if we dont do a good job on the war of perceptions.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

It is true that Bush said the right thing immediately after 9/11 about Muslims and I give him credit for that. However, the "crusade" talk isnt just liberal propaganda. Bush himself has used the term from time to time - See for example this report:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

Also, General Boykin, the head guy appointed to go after Bin Laden repeatedly used quite religious terms to describe the conflict - See two reports , one from the right and one from the left on this. One likes what he said and the other doesnt but both essentially confirm his using this kind of language:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...11/ai_n9307701

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005808/posts

Look at post number 840 in this very thread to see one of our own talk about a "holy war". Granted, he later amended himself to say he meant "islamofascism" rather than islam in general but it is an example of a tendency of many to speak in terms which can be easily perceived as being religiously based.

These kinds of comments, especially when they come from our President and high ranking generals get a lot of attention overseas and go down very very poorly. It is one of the reasons I have cited as to why we are perceived negatively by many. Their press is at least as irresponsible and sensationalistic as ours - so things like this get blown up to huge proportions. It may be true that we really arent like that - But my argument was that they dont see us that way and as I have just shown, there are enough pieces of evidence in support of that perception to convince them it is true. Unconvincing them wont be easy and certainly will never happen if we pretend it aint so and dont even try.

A lot of what is going on in Iraq and the Middle East more generally is a war of perception just as much as a war of reality. We are always going to win a real war, but can lose anyway if we dont do a good job on the war of perceptions.

As opposed to the 'kill all infidels' spewing out from the leaders of the radicals I'll take an occasional 'crusade' mention from an admittedly right wing president. The General was very publically rebuked for his remarks.
Responsibility for level headed talk, and actions, goes both ways.
While the U.S. hasn't been angelic, the other side is positively not clean either.
Same deal with the torture issue and treatment of prisioners. No press is given to how they torture and behead dozens of 'friends' and foreigners a day, only to the fact that damn, we made them wear a dog leash and spit on thier Koran.

There is no equity here.

[sck5]

Chuckles

To continue your analogy, now that we have wrecked the bar the question is what the inhabitants will do if we leave. The liberal view is that a continued fight will draw more inhabitants from the neighborhood and result in a bloodier bar that stays wrecked longer while a withdrawal will cause them to eventually calm down because we wont be creating new terrorists and can still hunt down and kill the remaining ones through other means. (Might want to consult the Israelis on what those might be). It seems that your view is that the inhabitants will follow us home. I wouldnt deny that some will. It is just that I think we are creating more of them by staying than we are killing. We have essentially created a terrorist recruiting dream. I am not alone in thinking this - There are people on the right and in the military who agree with this.

It seems we are not all that far apart as to the prospects for democracy over there.

And Viet Nam WAS different - We agree on that too.

And it seems to me the reason we stayed in Germany and Japan for 50 years really didnt have much to do with pacifying Germany and Japan - That was done within a few years of the end of the war. The real reason we stuck around in Germany was to confront the Russians on the other side of the German border and the reason we stuck around in Japan and Korea was to confront the Chinese on the other side of THAT border. So these examples are really not entirely analogous in that the countries themselves werent the problem - it was containing the spread of communism that was the goal.

If this analogy works at all in Iraq then we have to create a better (democratic if possible) government there that is enough better that it provides an example to the rest of the region. I think Iraq is a very unfortunate choice to do this since it is really not a very unified country with a unified sense of itself to begin with. But it is what we have at the moment and I sure hope something unmistakably good happens there in the very near future or we are going to be facing very strong public demands to leave and will be left arguing about it for decades to come.

PS There is another democracy in the M.E. Lebanon qualifies when the Syrians arent mucking it up.

[sck5]

Nope. No equity. Life isnt fair. If it were I would have a much bigger boat.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

Chuckles

To continue your analogy, now that we have wrecked the bar the question is what the inhabitants will do if we leave. The liberal view is that a continued fight will draw more inhabitants from the neighborhood and result in a bloodier bar that stays wrecked longer while a withdrawal will cause them to eventually calm down because we wont be creating new terrorists and can still hunt down and kill the remaining ones through other means. (Might want to consult the Israelis on what those might be). It seems that your view is that the inhabitants will follow us home. I wouldnt deny that some will. It is just that I think we are creating more of them by staying than we are killing. We have essentially created a terrorist recruiting dream. I am not alone in thinking this - There are people on the right and in the military who agree with this.
.

I'm sure there are people that agree with that, opinion's are like, well, everybody has one..I personnally don't agree. I think we stay until all the fight is out of them and we are sure that if they follow me home it will be as a friend or at least a partner.
If we create more potential terrorists, again, fine - just do it there, keep 'em there, and kill 'em there. My wife and friends aren't so good at combat, hell I'm getting old and rusty at it myself (haven't held a M-16 since the 90's, a handgun since 2000 when I retired).

Originally Posted by sck5

And it seems to me the reason we stayed in Germany and Japan for 50 years
.

is PRIMARILY because we were welcome there to help as partners - otherwise we would not have been able to and face down external threats with them.

Originally Posted by sck5

PS There is another democracy in the M.E. Lebanon qualifies when the Syrians arent mucking it up.

Lebanon does not, by any real democratic example qualify as a democracy - certainly not a sucessful one.
http://www.lcps-lebanon.org/pub/brev.../tuenibr6.html

It is split on religious grounds, you may only vote based on your religion for candidates of your religion and the offices are held based on your religion. What is that a 'theocratic democrazy'. I've not been there since 1983, and I'm not going back under any circumstances.
After the truck bomb blew the Marine barracks it was a lot of fun watching the ol' Miss shoot volkswagen sized 16 inchers into the mountain sides 'round Bierut from the big eye on USS Ponce. I guess we reduced the voter pool a bit - and yep, doesn't bother me a bit. Comes down to the same thing as before, one of my neighbor's is worth a bunch of folks I don't know.